H.R. 3113House108th Congress (2003-2005)In Committee

Transportation Empowerment Act

Legislative Activity

Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action

2 earlier actions

HouseCommittee Latest Action

Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways, Transit and Pipelines.

Highways and Transit Subcommittee

September 18, 2003

View full timeline

HouseIntro Referral

Introduced in House

September 17, 2003

HouseIntro Referral

Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee

September 17, 2003

HouseCommittee

Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways, Transit and Pipelines.

Highways and Transit Subcommittee

September 18, 2003

Floor Debate

24 members

What members said about H.R. 3113 on the floor

+19

9 Republicans15 Democrats

Rep. Deborah PryceR-OH-15 · Feb 13, 2003

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 69 and ask for its immediate consideration. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30…

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 69 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 69 is an appropriate and fair rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2003.

This rule provides for a total of 2 hours of general debate in the House with 50 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means, 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and finally, 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

After general debate, the rule makes in order two substitute amendments: the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos); and the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), both of which are printed in the report of the Committee on Rules and debatable for 40 minutes each, equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, as well as against the amendments printed in the report. Finally, the rule permits the minority to offer a motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, 7 years ago many of us stood in this very Chamber surrounded by skeptical glares and wary eyes as we began debate on the historic welfare reform package. The day was August 1, 1996. It was also payday for many Americans. And on that day, 14 million welfare recipients cashed a paycheck for which they had not worked.

Mr. Speaker, 14 million people received money from the American taxpayers in exchange for no work, no questions asked, no strings, no requirements, no obligation to produce or demonstrate the slightest bit of productivity to our communities and to our society. Such was the nature of our welfare system 7 years ago.

Now, this may have seemed unfair to the taxpayers; but it was doubly unfair to the welfare recipients trapped in generational cycles of poverty and hopelessness. But on that day in 1996, Congress passed one of the most historic reform bills ever, one that truly made the American dream a reality for millions of Americans previously without hope. But these reforms were not passed without a fight.

There were claims that the landmark plan would drive poor families into the streets. And there were shouts that children would be left starving, and cries that single mothers would be forced to neglect their families. But now, 7 years later, we see a very different picture of what welfare reform has done. The predictions of doom and gloom have not been realized. Quite to the contrary, welfare caseloads have fallen from 14 million to 5 million. Over 3 million children have been lifted out of poverty.

Black child poverty rates have hit a record low, and the poverty rate among Hispanics has seen its largest decrease in history. In addition to these tremendous statistics, perhaps the biggest achievement of welfare reform is the way in which these reforms have promoted self- sufficiency and empowered so many men and women.

Welfare reform has given Americans a chance to work and the means to do it by placing a high value on the contributions of each and every person in society. It assumes that every person has some talent, some knowledge, some skill, some individual uniqueness to contribute. It assumes that each man and woman who is physically and mentally capable can and should be, even in the slightest discernible way, a productive part of our communities.

The benefits are twofold. Not only are our communities strengthened by the additional contributions, but these men and women, who were formerly trapped in a cycle of dependency, have now established a real sense of accomplishment and independence. Today we have a tremendous opportunity to build on these successes.

As I proceed to describe this legislation, I expect it will sound very familiar. That is because less than a year ago in this very Chamber this Congress approved the same plan, updated simply for time.

While I have the honor and distinction of introducing this legislation on behalf of the House, it is really the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas), the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin), the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner), the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), and many others who have worked long hours to craft a bill that empowers individuals, protects children, and strengthens families.

Their committees have vetted this language over and over in dozens of hearings and markups. After already exhausting the committee process last year, we have brought this plan straight to the floor at the commencement of the new Congress, as the first major piece of legislation out of the hopper. That is how strongly we believe in this plan. The reforms of 1996 have expired. They expired September last year. We cannot afford to wait.

First of all, this package provides $16.6 billion for the Temporary Assistance of Needy Families, commonly known as TANF, as a block grant, which was created in the 1996 reform. Funding this block grant goes directly to State-designed programs to help move more welfare recipients into productive jobs. Yet 58 percent of welfare recipients are not participating in work activities yet, and that is not acceptable.

It continues to cost taxpayers money, but worse still, it stifles the recipients' ability to achieve true self-sufficiency. Therefore, this package calls for increasing the work-related activity requirements from the current 50 percent to 70 percent by fiscal year 2008.

Next, this plan offers parents and families the tools and resources they need to secure a job, achieve independence and strengthen families. By providing access to reliable, high-quality child care, recipients will have peace of mind knowing that their child is safe as they train for, find, and keep a stable job.

Children are our future, and we cannot settle for second-rate care. So in addition to the $4.8 billion funding already in place, this package provides an extra $2 billion. With these dollars comes greater flexibility for States, which will now be able to transfer 50 percent of their share of TANF to child care instead of the current 30 percent.

We all know that training and education are the backbone of advancing

one's professional opportunities. So while 24 of the 40 hours must be spent in actual work, the remaining 16 hours may be defined by States and can include training and education. And up to 4 months during a 24- month period can be counted towards State work requirements if the individual is engaged in education or training that will lead to work.

Finally, the plan gives unprecedented flexibility to States by establishing broad, new State flex authority that is enthusiastically supported by our Nation's governors, and it will really give them the tools they need.

Mr. Speaker, welfare recipients do not want a handout. They do not want a life-style of dependence. They do not want a system that offers only a one-way ticket to poverty. American families want to live the American dream. They want the chance to build strong and prosperous lives and they want to offer brighter futures to their loved ones. Therefore, it is my hope that we can silence the grumbles that echoed through this Chamber back in 1996 and build on the successes we have had thus far.

Fostering independence through work, empowering families and lifting more Americans out of poverty are at the core of this reform package, just as they were in 1996. The empirical evidence of the past 7 years quite adequately demonstrates the success so far.

So let us tune out the protests. The shouts, cries and pleas of the naysayers in 1996 were myths then and they are myths now.

To my colleagues who may hesitate to support this rule for partisan reasons, I invite you to take a good look at where we were 7 years ago and where we have come today. You will find hundreds of children and families in each of your districts that are better off now than they were 7 years ago. They are working. They are proud. They are teaching their children about the dignity of having a job and the honor of providing for a family.

Mr. Speaker, a check in the mail every month will not teach responsibility, it will not build confidence, and it will not break the cycle of dependency and poverty. But it will if they have a job. It will provide a sense of accomplishment, a sense of accomplishment for a job well done. And it will provide the means to achieve the American dream. A check in the mail for a hard month's work will open up the doors of opportunity and offer all Americans an endless supply of pride and self-worth for generations to come.

I urge this body to adopt this rule and approve H.R. 4.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to respond briefly, because child care is very important to me too. I think it is probably one of the most important pieces of this legislation.

This bill gives the governors in every State the ability to shift more of the TANF funding into child care. We not only put an additional $2 billion more into child care, we allow the governors to take the TANF funds and spend from 30 percent, which is the maximum allowed now, to now 50 percent of the TANF funds can shift into child care.

So it is very important that this body understands the funds are there, and it is within the purview of the governors to allow it to be spent for child care. I think that that extra flexibility is very important, and we are happy to have provided that.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the governors will be allowed to use the funds that the Federal Government is giving them to provide for child care, and that is a good thing.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, in response, the fact that this bill did not go through the committee process is totally unfounded. This bill was vetted and there were hearings held and there were committee markups, both in the House and the Senate. There were task forces. There was so much work done on this bill, and it took so long; we passed it with bipartisan, very wide bipartisan support, and we sent it to the other body. There was no action at that time.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford to waste that amount of time again. We have to get this done. It has already expired. We need to reauthorize the welfare reform provisions and improve upon them. So much success has happened, we need to continue the momentum and allow the families, the children, the men and women, to rise out of poverty, give them the tools that they need; and that is exactly what this bill does.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I ask my colleagues just to look back at the welfare reforms of 1996 and to remind them how far we have come, how far the poverty-stricken people in this Nation have come.

Today, we will find children and families in every one of our districts better off now than they were 7 years ago. We have reduced the welfare rolls. They continue to drop even in these tough times. Our welfare rolls are continuing to drop, even as unemployment may rise.

H.R. 4 builds on these efforts to further protect our children, to strengthen our families, to increase States' flexibility, and to continue the decline in poverty.

Mr. Speaker, it has often been said that the best social program is a job. This legislation provides the needed tools for them to move from welfare to work. There is no reason to stall any longer. This bill has expired. We cannot let it go any longer. We need to pass this rule today, we need to pass this bill today. Stall tactics are over.

Today is the day. We have a very important thing to do for this country, and we should get on with it. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Rep. Fortney Pete StarkD-CA-13 · Feb 13, 2003

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this so- called Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act. It is sort of an anti-Christian, egalitarian, rich-folks welfare bill. They are…

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this so- called Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act. It is sort of an anti-Christian, egalitarian, rich-folks welfare bill. They are going to pay for the tax cut by impacting the least powerful people in our community.

In 1964, Lyndon Johnson declared a war against poverty. Well, today my Republican colleagues and the President have declared a war against the poor and against all successful social programs in this country. My Republican colleagues in the House, led by President Bush, want to gut the poverty programs. The Republicans propose to privatize Medicaid, destroy Head Start, eliminate housing subsidies for the poor and make it impossible for low-income families to get the earned income tax credit.

But the real hotshots in the Republican Party have dreamed this one up. Not only will they make it difficult for adults. You know, Ronald Reagan created their welfare cheat years ago in his mind, when it was still working, and he had an African American woman in a white ermine cape in an El Dorado Cadillac. And my friend from California has heard this story time and time again. Now the Republicans have come up with a new welfare cheat. It is a little kid in second grade. I have one. Let me show you a picture. Here is one. It is my son. He is in second grade.

Now, he does not get subsidized lunches at school, Mr. Chairman, but you know what the Republicans will do, they will wait until these kids get in the cafeteria line for their subsidized lunch, and they will say, Sonny, go home and get a tax return from your parents, because we are kicking you out of the school lunch program.

That is how they will save money to do away with the inheritance tax. They will beat up on little children and call them welfare cheats.

It is that kind of arrogant, obscene statement in programs that will impact the poor and the helpless in our country. And this TANF legislation is the first legislation in the program to reduce the impoverished in our country to begging.

For example, there is no job training after the first 24 hours out of 40 hours of work. There is a requirement that traps poor people in welfare or in poverty. In Alabama, Oregon, Louisiana, Mississippi, Wyoming and Texas, anyone who works 24 hours a week at minimum wage would be ineligible for any welfare programs at all.

Right now, three out of four families in our country are eligible for child care under State rules, but they cannot get it. That is why both of our Democratic alternatives provide substantial increase in child care funding over the next 5 years.

Finally, and here is perhaps the most arrogant of all, the Republicans, who consider themselves experts in family law and marriage, waste $300 million to promote a marriage program inspired by their blind allegiance to the Holy Rollers of the Christian right. These arrogant Republicans are suggesting we take this money and train people to get married. Now with 60 percent of the women on welfare having at one point been victims of domestic violence, the Republican agenda that coerced poor people into marriage virtually guarantees tragic consequences across our country.

Marriage programs completely ignore the real barriers that prevent many from pulling themselves out of poverty. If you want to truly motivate healthy marriages, then they would support both Democratic bills, because we address the underlying causes of

marital instability, which in most cases is poverty.

The Democratic bills make poverty reduction an explicit goal of welfare. It gives States the tools to help families move from welfare to work and it provides State financial incentive to reduce child poverty, not kick children off the school lunch program and let them starve. It lets them live in stable families, have families that have the income and the support for decent healthy, progressive lives in this country.

I urge Members to oppose H.R. 4 and support both Democratic alternatives.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to insert into the Congressional Record this letter from the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities.

I urge my colleagues to read this letter, which provides important reasons why they should vote against H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2003.

This letter suggests needed changes to the TANF law that would help many welfare recipients with barriers to work to get and maintain employment.

I urge my colleagues to vote for the Democratic alternative welfare reauthorization that includes many of these important changes.

Consortium for Citizens

with Disabilities,

February 11, 2003.

Dear Representative: The Consortium for Citizens with

Disabilities (CCD) is a coalition of national consumer,

advocacy, provider and professional organizations

headquartered in Washington, DC. We work together to advocate

for national public policy that ensures the self

determination, independence, empowerment, integration and

inclusion of children and adults with disabilities in all

aspects of society. The CCD TANF Task Force seeks to ensure

that families that include persons with disabilities are

afforded equal opportunities and appropriate accommodations

under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block

grant. We are very concerned that the provisions in H.R. 4

will greatly harm, rather than help, families in which there

is an adult or a child with disabilities. We are writing to

urge you to vote ``no'' on H.R. 4, the ``Personal

Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2003.''

Some argue that those who are concerned about the needs of

people with disabilities should welcome the emphasis in H.R.

4 upon higher work participation rates and increased hours of

work, because then states will be required to work with

parents with disabilities. Unfortunately, the exact opposite

is true. It is important to understand that, without some

flexibility, higher work requirements for states and for

families will prevent states from helping move families with

disabilities from welfare to work--at a pace that works best

for the individual family and will have long-term benefits.

If states face more rigid rules on rates and hours of

participation, sanction rates will climb and people with

disabilities and their families will continue to be heavily

represented in their numbers.

Over 40 percent of TANF recipients have a disability, yet

this important fact is largely unknown. In July 2002, GAO

reported that overall, 44 percent of TANF recipients have

impairments or are caring for a child with impairments,

compared with 15 percent of the non-TANF population. Many

face multiple barriers. GAO also reported that, in eight

percent of TANF families, there is both a parent and a child

with disabilities, compared to only one percent in non-TANF

families. Also in July 2002, the HHS Office of the Inspector

General agreed with GAO's findings.

What should this mean for TANF reauthorization? The

problems facing TANF parents with disabilities are

significant. But, just because a person has a disability

which may be a barrier to work, this does not mean that she

cannot work. With appropriate services and supports,

including accommodations in state policies and procedures and

in the work place, most parents with disabilities should be

able to work and would very much like the opportunity to so.

While their policies vary, many states have taken some steps

to help families with disabilities. Comgress must encourage

states to continue to develop their programs to serve people

with disabilities--both adults and children--on TANF. We are

very concerned that H.R. 4 does not do this.

Listed below are the key components that people with

disabilities need in TANF reauthorization.

1. Permit states to determine how long a family will need

rehab services and allow participation in rehab services to

meet the full weekly work requirement for as long as the

state determines the family needs. HR 4 provides that only

three months of rehabilitative services can be counted as

work activity. After three months, a person with a disability

must climb a steep mountain of 24 hours of work before the

state will get credit for providing her with any additional

rehabilitative services. This is a formula for failure. To

suggest that this will work because 16 hours of

rehabilitative services can still be provided misses the

point: people with disabilities and other barriers often are

going to need intensive help--including mental health

treatment, training that accommodates their learning

disabilities, substance abuse treatment, services that

address other

barriers--before any other work activity will be appropriate.

Many times, this help will take in excess of a year to result

in good, long-lasting outcomes. This will not be possible

under HR 4.

2. Protect families with barriers from unnecessary and

inappropriate sanctioning. The 1996 law requires states to

impose sanctions where a parent ``refuses'' to comply with a

state work requirement. Unfortunately, many of those who are

being sanctioned cannot comply--they are not refusing to

comply, they simply cannot because of a disability or other

barrier, or may not even understand what is being required of

them. Efforts to increase the number of hours of required

work activity and states' overall work participation rates

are likely to harm these same families. Without strong

protections against inappropriate sanctioning, it is likely

that the number of inappropriate sanctions will increase.

States should be required to have procedures that review a

family's circumstances prior to the imposition of a sanction

and determine whether modifications are needed to the

requirements so that the family is better able to comply.

Fairness dictates that all states have such basic policies.

HR 4 does not include this protection.

3. Permit states to exempt parents caring for a child with

a disability from the work requirement and time limit. States

should have the option to exempt from the work requirement

and time limit parents caring for a child with a disability

if caring for the child prevents the parent from meeting the

state's work requirement. Some states already do this.

Appropriate, safe child care for children with disabilities

is very difficult to find. In many areas, it is non-existent.

The medical needs of some children require frequent medical

visits and care. If the need for such care becomes

unnecessary, parents then can be brought more fully into the

program with their allotted time for receipt of benefits

still intact.

4. For the previous provisions to be effective in helping

families move from welfare to work and avoid inappropriate

sanctioning, states must have screening and assessment

policies and procedures that identify a family's barriers and

the steps needed to assist the family to move to greater

independence. Assessments should be done by qualified

personnel. Because all later decisions hinge on the quality

of the assessments, it is important that they be done by

qualified personnel. Family self-sufficiency plans developed

without meaningful assessments are all too likely to be

ineffective, wasting state and federal resources and

preventing families from receiving the assistance needed to

move successfully from welfare to work.

As a result of all of the concerns raised above, we urge

you to vote ``NO'' on H.R. 4. We also urge you to raise

concerns about how families with disabilities will fare under

this bill and to suggest that changes be made before the bill

leaves conference.

For further information, please contact members of the

Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD) TANF Task

Force, including any of the co-chairs: Laurel Stine, Bazelon

Center for Mental Health Law, 202-467-5730,

[email protected]; Donna Meltzer, Association of University

Centers on Disability, 301-593-8549, [email protected]; and

Sharon McDonald, National Alliance to End Homelessness, 202-

638-1526, ext. 109, [email protected].

Thank you for considering our concerns.

Sincerely,

Adapted Physical Activity Council.

American Association on Mental Retardation.

American Association of People with Disabilities.

American Network of Community Options and Resources.

Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs.

Association for Persons in Supported Employment.

Association of University Centers on Disabilities.

Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law.

Brain Injury Association of America.

Council for Exceptional Children.

Council of State Administrators of Vocational

Rehabilitation.

Learning Disabilities Association of America.

National Alliance to End Homelessness.

National Association of Developmental Disabilities

Councils.

National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems.

National Association of School Psychologists.

National Association of Social Workers.

National Mental Health Association.

National Respite Coalition.

NISH--creating employment opportunities for people with

severe disabilities.

Research Institute for Independent Living.

Spina Bifida Association of America.

The Arc of the United States.

United Cerebral Palsy.

Rep. Louise McIntosh SlaughterD-NY-28 · Feb 13, 2003

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and…

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, in 1996 a sweeping welfare reform initiative was enacted and authorized for 5 years. Temporary assistance to needy families replaced guaranteed welfare checks with a new work requirement, placed a lifetime limit on the benefits recipients could receive, and removed most legal immigrants from eligibility for welfare.

The program was up for reauthorization last year. The reauthorization legislation passed the House with a rule that allowed only one substitute amendment. The bill was reported out of the Senate Finance Committee, but was never considered by the full Senate.

We are here today to consider the rule for the Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Protection Act of 2003. Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill impacts millions of vulnerable Americans, yet the process for consideration of the bill has muzzled meaningful debate and barred serious consideration of alternatives and amendments.

In the 108th Congress, not a single committee with jurisdiction over this legislation has considered H.R. 4. Five committees had jurisdiction over the legislation: Ways and Means, Education and the Workforce, Energy and Commerce, Agriculture and Financial Services. There are over 50 new Members of Congress, not here in the 107th Congress when we began the process, and none of them have had the opportunity to consider and vote on the legislation in committee.

The Republican leadership rushed welfare reauthorization to the House floor. Instead of allowing the Congress and these committees to examine, debate and discuss this important piece of legislation, the majority has opted to bar the full House from considering 22 amendments and to allow us to consider only two substitute amendments.

Because the committee process was skipped, my Democratic colleagues and I asked for an open rule so that, at the very least, the full House could consider the many issues brought up in the dozens of amendments filed with the Committee on Rules. There are too many issues that deserve full discussion and debate. The two substitute amendments that are in order under the rule cannot fully address these issues.

The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) offered a very important amendment. It called for a temporary suspension of time limits on TANF benefits to individuals that reside in a metropolitan statistical area where the unemployment rate exceeds 7 percent. But the Committee on Rules, along partisan lines, ruled it out of order.

And the rule voted out of committee on party lines allows for only 2 hours to debate this reform bill. No committees have looked at the bill, and the full House only has 2 hours to debate it. The rule does not give Members the opportunity to address fully the inadequacies of this legislation, the grave changes to the program and the growing needs of Americans living in poverty. The rule bars any meaningful debate and prohibits consideration of important amendments affecting the elderly, parents and children.

Mr. Speaker, too many people are drowning in a sea of poverty. Welfare-to-Work should not merely toss the poorest Americans a life preserver to help them float along, with their heads barely above the poverty level.

The Catholic Family Center in Rochester, New York, provides an example of how the 1996 welfare reforms are failing. The center is doing a great job getting the women in their program off welfare and into work, but the average starting salary of the women is $6.82 an hour, far less than the $17.66 that a Rochester-area single parent with two preschoolers must earn to provide the basic necessities.

H.R. 4 does nothing to close the gap and does not give these hard- working parents who are trying hard to work and care for their families the chance to succeed. We need to do more for our most vulnerable friends and neighbors.

I can tell you that in my district the need for assistance is growing. In Monroe County, New York, applications for welfare assistance were up 17 percent in the year 2001. Requests for emergency housing placements rose by 25 percent from 2000 to 2001. And a program helping the homeless reported that 20,000 more homeless men, women and children were served in the fall of 2001 than during the same period of the year 2000.

The underlying bill fails to meet this growing need and fails to address the most fundamental goal of welfare reform, moving recipients into real jobs and out of poverty. While caseloads have fallen over 50 percent nationally since 1996, a good thing, the poverty rate has decreased only 13 percent over the same period.

If scores of those who have moved off the welfare rolls during a period of economic expansion remain dependent on food stamps, WIC and other public assistance, what are they going to do now that the economy is in recession and the States are in financial crisis? Are recipients going to be forced to try to work and raise their children without the education, training or child care that is necessary to move to real independence? In fact, in the State of New York, almost half the families that move off welfare are still living in poverty. This is not success. Governors, mayors, State legislators, welfare directors and poverty experts all say the same thing, that the bill is a step in the wrong direction.

We all know that education is key to moving out of poverty, yet this legislation eliminates vocational education from the list of activities that count as a work-related activity. What message does this send to Americans who seek a career in the building trades?

The bill even hurts poor children. Access to quality child care is an essential part of helping families to get off welfare and improving the odds that children arrive at kindergarten ready to learn. The Congressional Budget Office has reported that the new work requirement, increasing by 33 percent the amount of time that recipients participate in work activities, will require $8 billion to $11 billion in new child care funding over 5 years. However, the bill only provides $2 billion. What are the financially strapped States supposed to do about a $9 billion gap in child care funding? Where are these children going to go while their parents work 33 percent more hours?

This welfare reauthorization bill also demands more from States without providing any increased funding. It is estimated that unfunded mandates in this bill will cost my State more than $1 billion over 5 years. Nationwide, the estimated cost of unfunded mandates is $11 billion. You can see my State is impacted tremendously.

How can we shift this huge financial burden onto New York and the other States, especially now that the economy is in recession and States across the country are facing huge budget shortfalls? How do these unfunded mandates lift people out of poverty and help them get a job and give them hope?

Mr. Speaker, there is a better way, one that maintains State flexibility, one that focuses on real work and one that seeks to help families escape poverty. My Democratic colleagues and I support strong work requirements that will move people into real jobs. We believe that States should have the flexibility to determine the best mix of services and activities to move them towards self-sufficiency.

We want to provide welfare recipients with access to vocational training so they can find some good jobs. And we support providing the necessary resources particularly for quality child care to help families leave welfare for work. This measure utterly fails to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share some wisdom with you from the people of the 28th District of New York. In an editorial, published last fall in the Buffalo News, wrote the following about welfare reauthorization:

The goal of welfare reform should not simply be to trim the

welfare rolls. It should be to break the cycle of poverty

that puts people on welfare in the first place. Reduced

government expenses are a nice benefit, but reducing poverty

is the key to long-term success for the program and for the

people who have relied upon it. Education and training offer

far better chances not only to land jobs but to keep them.

Increased child care assistance is a necessary adjunct in

breaking the multigenerational cycle of welfare entitlement,

as well as a humanitarian move that should come naturally to

a rich nation that nonetheless is home to impoverished

children.

That was from the Buffalo News, September 15, 2002. I urge my colleagues to voted against this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, in response to my good friend from Ohio, the author of this bill, I cannot imagine any legislature in the country saying we are not going to put this through the committee system this year because we talked about it last year.

Times have changed tremendously since last year. Unemployment rolls have risen, people are being thrown out of work on a daily basis. In my district, I am told that even temporary jobs are almost impossible to find. But that is only one portion of it. Many, many parts of this bill needed to be debated again this year in light of the new realities.

I agree with my colleagues who spoke before me: It is a shame and it is a blot on this Congress that we would bring a bill of this magnitude, affecting the lives of so many Americans, without going through a single one of the five committees that had jurisdiction over it.

I hope this is not a symbol of things to come. If it is, then the legislature has declared itself to be unnecessary. I cannot imagine much that will come up here this year that we probably did not discuss in years past.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Rep. John A. BoehnerR-OH-8 · Feb 13, 2003

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the 1996 welfare reform law that we are reauthorizing today has been an unprecedented success, one of the most important pieces…

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the 1996 welfare reform law that we are reauthorizing today has been an unprecedented success, one of the most important pieces of social policy since the civil rights legislation of the 1960s. We transformed the welfare system from a permanent

entitlement system that tolerated government dependence to a temporary assistance program which helps people earn a new start, find a job and become self-sufficient.

Today, with the Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act, we are prepared to build on that success. This bill marks the beginning of a second phase of reform that will help even more Americans find productive jobs.

The colleagues on the other side of the aisle may say, The system is working, why fix it? Why argue with success? Here is why. Welfare caseloads have fallen dramatically since 1966; but as this chart shows, some 58 percent of TANF recipients still are not working for benefits, according to the Department of Health and Human Services.

The bottom line is approximately 2 million families remain on welfare rolls today, and we need to do something about it. Over the last 2 years, the Committee on Education and the Workforce has held five hearings on the success of welfare reform and the new challenges that we face today. Last year our committee approved a bill introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the Working Toward Independence Act, which is now part of this overall bill which is before us today.

It strengthens work requirements to ensure that we move welfare recipients on the path to self-reliance. As Connecticut Governor John Rowland has said, ``The most compassionate way to break the cycle of poverty, dependency, and hopelessness is through work.''

The bill requires welfare recipients to participate in work activities 40 hours a week. But within these new requirements, there is significant flexibility for States and recipients themselves. Welfare families will have 16 hours a week to pursue education and job-training opportunities. They can also attend school full-time for up to 4 months over a 2-year period. This measure also increases the percentage of welfare families in each State that must be engaged in work-related activities, currently at 50 percent, moving to 70 percent by 2008.

Some have questioned whether States can meet these new requirements, suggesting that we are setting the bar too high. But I agree with what President Bush said, ``If it brings dignity into someone's life, it is not too high of a goal.'' And remember, the bill gives States 5 years to comply with the new work requirements.

The bill also includes significant funding increases for child care, boosting spending for the Child Care and Development Block Grant by $2 billion over the next 5 years.

In addition to this new money, it is important to remember that States have half the case loads that they had in 1996, which means that they have twice as much money available to spend on work programs, child care, transportation and other services that are necessary in order to help move people from a life of dependency toward the mainstream of American society.

H.R. 4 also incorporates key elements of President Bush's Good Start, Grow Smart plan to improve early childhood education. It encourage States to address the cognitive needs of young children so they are developmentally prepared to enter school.

Finally, the bill includes a promising new plan to empower States and localities to develop innovative solutions to help keep needy families working towards independence. It would give States and local agencies the opportunity to coordinate certain welfare and workforce development programs and improve their efficiency and their ability to help move people from welfare to work.

Mr. Chairman, in closing I would like to echo the sentiments of President Bush when he said that no level of despair should be acceptable in our society. With this bill we are going to help some of the most vulnerable members of our society to help them achieve independence and self-sufficiency, and I urge Members to support the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Employer- Employee Relations.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the chairman of the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), a valued member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), chairman of the Subcommittee on Education Reform.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform.

(Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), a member of our leadership team.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), a valued member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), a valued member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

The success of the 1996 welfare reform law is beyond dispute. Even the New York Times has called it an ``obvious success.'' The debate today has been about how to build on that success and how to put even more Americans on the path to self-reliance.

While it is true that the 1996 reforms significantly reduced welfare caseloads, we still have a lot of work to do. A majority of TANF recipients today are still not working for their benefits.

The Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act builds upon the best aspects of the 1996 welfare reform law. It strengthens work requirements, enhances flexibility for States and localities, and it does so while providing States with significantly more funding for child care, which is crucial for welfare families transitioning into the workforce.

President Bush stated that no level of despair should be acceptable in our society. With this new legislation we help some of the most vulnerable members of our society achieve independence and self- sufficiency.

I urge my colleagues today to support the welfare reform law, H.R. 4.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

For our colleagues who have listened to the debate today on the reauthorization of H.R. 4, the welfare reform law, I probably do not have to remind my colleagues that the sounds of the debate, the points that have been made, were all made in 1996. Members on our side of the aisle and, frankly, half the Members on the Democrat side of the aisle who supported the 1996 welfare reform law were confident that we could help move people from a life of dependency, despair and hopelessness to a life where they do have hope, they do have opportunity and can move into the mainstream of American society.

As my colleagues have seen over the course of this debate, the 1996 welfare reform law has been a tremendous success, even to the point where the New York Times called it an obvious success.

The substitute that is before us today undermines every major 1996 welfare reform law improvement, reversing recent historic gains in work, independence, family flexibility and in funding. I think it hurts our most vulnerable recipients. I think we create a costly new entitlement with the substitute that we have before us. It undermines work requirements and goes back and creates the same kind of dependency that we saw prior to 1996.

Yes, work is not something that most people would prefer to do, but the most important thing we did in 1996 was to encourage people to work, to encourage them to put their foot on the first rung of the economic ladder, and we agreed that we would provide assistance to help them up that ladder, whether it was transportation, whether it was child care, education, training to help them along while allowing them to keep their government-paid medical insurance; and what the program being offered here as a substitute to our bill would do would be to create the same kind of dependency.

People would leave work and go back to welfare under the proposal that we have before us because one of the provisions in the substitute says that if a person is not earning at least 250 percent above the average poverty rate, they are entitled to go back on to TANF. There are a lot of working Americans and hard-working Americans who do not earn 250 percent above the poverty rate.

We do not want to create the kind of dependency that we had before. We have a great success. There is no reason to turn tail and throw in the towel when, in fact, we have helped 9 million American families move from welfare to work, increased their dignity and gave them the hope of a lifetime to be in the mainstream of American society.

We should reject the substitute offered by my colleague from Ohio.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), one of the real promoters of the original 1996 welfare reform law.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), a valued member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Rep. Ron PaulR-TX-14 · Feb 13, 2003

Mr. Chairman, no one can deny that welfare programs have undermined America's moral fabric and constitutional system. Therefore, all those concerned with restoring liberty and protecting civil…

Mr. Chairman, no one can deny that welfare programs have undermined America's moral fabric and constitutional system. Therefore, all those concerned with restoring liberty and protecting civil society from the maw of the omnipotent State should support efforts to eliminate the welfare state, or, at the very least, reduce Federal control over the provision of social services. Unfortunately, the misnamed Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act (H.R. 4) actually increase the unconstitutional Federal welfare state and thus undermines personal responsibility, the work ethic, and the family.

H.R. 4 reauthorizes the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) block grant program, the main Federal welfare program. Mr. Speaker, increasing Federal funds always increases Federal control, as the recipients of the funds must tailor their programs to meet Federal mandates and regulations. More importantly, since Federal funds represent resources taken out of the hands of private individuals, increasing Federal funding leaves fewer resources available for the voluntary provision of social services, which, as I will explain in more detail later, is a more effective, moral, and constitutional means of meeting the needs of the poor.

H.R. 4 further increases Federal control over welfare policy by increasing Federal mandates on welfare recipients. This bill even goes so far as to dictate to States how they must spend their own funds! Many of the new mandates imposed by this legislation concern work requirements. Of course, Mr. Speaker, there is a sound argument for requiring recipients of welfare benefits to work. Among other benefits, a work requirement can help a welfare recipient obtain useful job skills and thus increase the likelihood that they will find productive employment. However, forcing welfare recipients to work does raise valid concerns regarding how much control over one's life should be ceded to the government in exchange for government benefits.

In addition, Mr. Chairman, it is highly unlikely that a ``one-size- fits-all'' approach dictated from Washington will meet the diverse needs of every welfare recipient in every State and locality in the Nation. Proponents of this bill claim to support allowing States, localities, and private charities the flexibility to design welfare-to- work programs that fit their particular circumstances. Yet, this proposal constricts the ability of the States to design welfare-to-work programs that meet the unique needs of their citizens. I also question the wisdom of imposing as much as $11 billion in unfunded mandates on the States at a time when many States are facing a fiscal crisis.

As former Minnesota Governor, Jesse Ventura pointed out, in reference to this proposal's effects on Minnesota's welfare-to-welfare work program, ``We know what we are doing in Minnesota works. We have evidence. And our way of doing things has broad support in the State. Why should we be forced by the Federal Government to put our system at risk?'' Why indeed, Mr. Speaker, should any State be forced to abandon its individual welfare programs because a group of self-appointed experts in Congress, the Federal bureaucracy, and inside-the-beltway think tanks have decided there is only one correct way to transition people from welfare to work?

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4 further expands the reach of the Federal Government by authorizing approximately $10 million for new ``marriage promotion'' programs. I certainly recognize how the welfare state has contributed to the decline of the institution of marriage. As an ob-gyn with over 30 years of private practice, I know better than most the importance of stable, two parent families to a healthy society. However, I am skeptical, to say the least, of claims that government education programs can fix the deep-rooted cultural problems responsible for the decline of the American family.

Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, Federal promotion of marriage opens the door for a level of social engineering that should worry all those concerned with preserving a free society. The Federal Government has no constitutional authority to promote any particular social arrangement; instead, the founders recognized that people are better off when they form their own social arrangements free from Federal interference. The history of the failed experiments with welfarism and socialism shows that government can only destroy a culture; when a government tries to build a culture, it only further erodes the people's liberty.

H.R. 4 further raises serious privacy concerns by expanding the use of the ``New Hires Database'' to allow States to use the database to verify unemployment claims. The New Hires Database contains the name and social security number of everyone lawfully employed in the United States. Increasing the States' ability to identify fraudulent unemployment claims is a worthwhile public policy goal. However, every time Congress authorizes a new use for the New Hires Database it takes a step toward transforming it into a universal national database that can be used by government officials to monitor the lives of American citizens.

As with all proponents of welfare programs, the supporters of H.R. 4 show a remarkable lack of trust in the American people. They would have us believe that without the Federal Government, the lives of the poor would be ``nasty, brutish and short.'' However, as scholar Sheldon Richman of the Future of Freedom Foundation and others have shown, voluntary charities and organizations, such as friendly societies that devoted themselves to helping those in need, flourished in the days before the welfare state turned charity into a government function.

Today, government welfare programs have supplemented the old-style private programs. One major reason for this is that the policy of high taxes and the inflationary monetary policy imposed on the American people in order to finance the welfare state have reduced the income available for charitable giving. Many over-taxed Americans take the attitude toward private charity that ``I give at the (tax) office.''

Releasing the charitable impulses of the American people by freeing them from the excessive tax burden so they can devote more of their resources to charity, is a moral and constitutional means of helping the needy. By contract, the Federal welfare state is neither moral or constitutional. Nowhere in the Constitution is the Federal Government given the power to level excessive taxes on one group of citizens for the benefit of another group of citizens. Many of the founders would have been horrified to see modern politicians define compassion as giving away other people's money stolen through confiscatory taxation. In the words of the famous essay by former Congressman Davy Crockett, this money is ``Not Yours to Give.''

Voluntary charities also promote self-reliance, but government welfare programs foster dependency. In fact, it is the self-interests of the bureaucrats and politicians who control the welfare state that encourage dependency. After all, when a private organization moves a person off welfare, the organization has fulfilled its mission and proved its worth to donors. In contrast, when people leave government welfare programs, they have deprived Federal bureaucrats of power and of a justification for a larger amount of taxpayer funding.

In conclusion, H.R. 4 furthers Federal control over welfare programs by imposing new mandates on the States which furthers unconstitutional interference in matters best left to State, local governments, and individuals. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose it. Instead, I hope my colleagues will learn the lessons of the failure of the welfare state and embrace a constitutional and compassionate agenda of returning control over the welfare programs to the American people through large tax cuts.

Show 8 more

Bill Text

Latest available legislative text

Reading Mode

Raw Text PDF

Introduced in HouseIssued September 17, 2003

        [Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3113 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 3113

To empower States with authority for most taxing and spending for
highway programs and mass transit programs, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

September 17, 2003

Mr. Flake introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the
Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined
by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

A BILL

To empower States with authority for most taxing and spending for
highway programs and mass transit programs, and for other purposes.

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 ``Transportation Empowerment Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the objective of the Federal highway program has been
to facilitate the construction of a modern freeway system that
promotes efficient interstate commerce by connecting all
States;
(2) that objective has been attained, and the Interstate
System connecting all States is near completion;
(3) today, surface transportation problems are increasingly
local and regional;
(4) each State, not a central bureaucracy, can better
fulfill the responsibility of providing an efficient
transportation network for the residents of the State;
(5) each State has the means to build and operate a network
of transportation systems, including highways, that best serves
the needs of the State;
(6) each State is best capable of determining the needs of
the State and acting on those needs;
(7) the Federal role in highway transportation has, over
time, usurped the role of the States by taxing fuels used in
the States and then distributing the proceeds to the States
based on the Federal Government's perceptions of what is best
for the States;
(8) the Federal Government has used the Federal gasoline
tax revenues to force all States to take actions that are not
necessarily appropriate for individual States;
(9) the Federal distribution, review, and enforcement
process wastes billions of dollars on unproductive activities;
(10) the Federal distribution is inequitable and biased
against certain regions;
(11) Federal mandates that apply uniformly to all 50
States, regardless of the different circumstances of the
States, cause the States to waste billions of hard-earned tax
dollars on projects, programs, and activities that the States
would not otherwise undertake; and
(12) Congress has expressed a strong interest in reducing
the role of the Federal Government by allowing each State to
manage its own affairs.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to return to the individual States maximum
discretionary authority and fiscal responsibility for all
elements of the national surface transportation systems that
are not within the direct purview of the Federal Government;
(2) to preserve Federal responsibility for the Dwight D.
Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways;
(3) to preserve the responsibility of the Department of
Transportation for--
(A) design, construction, and preservation of
transportation facilities on Federal public land;
(B) national programs of transportation safety
research and development; and
(C) emergency assistance to the States in response
to natural disasters;
(4) to eliminate to the maximum extent practicable Federal
obstacles to the ability of each State to apply innovative
solutions to the financing, design, construction, operation,
and preservation of Federal and State transportation
facilities; and
(5) with respect to transportation activities carried out
by States, local governments, and the private sector, to
encourage--
(A) competition among States, local governments,
and the private sector; and
(B) innovation, energy efficiency, private sector
participation, and productivity.

SEC. 3. CONTINUATION OF FUNDING FOR ESSENTIAL HIGHWAY PROGRAMS.

(a) In General.--
(1) Funding.--For the purpose of carrying out title 23,
United States Code, the following sums are authorized to be
appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund:
(A) Interstate maintenance program.--For the
Interstate maintenance program under section 119 of
title 23, United States Code, $5,600,000,000 for fiscal
year 2004, $5,700,000,000 for fiscal year 2005,
$5,800,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, $5,900,000,000 for
fiscal year 2007, $6,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2008,
and $6,100,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.
(B) Interstate and indian reservation bridge
program.--For the Interstate and Indian reservation
bridge program under section 144 of that title
$1,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, $1,600,000,000 for
fiscal year 2005, $1,700,000,000 for fiscal year 2006,
$1,800,000,000 for fiscal year 2007, $1,900,000,000 for
fiscal year 2008, and $2,000,000,000 for fiscal year
2009.
(C) Federal lands highways program.--
(i) Indian reservation roads.--For Indian
reservation roads under section 204 of that
title $300,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2004 through 2009.
(ii) Public lands highways.--For public
lands highways under section 204 of that title
$275,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004
through 2009.
(iii) Parkways and park roads.--For
parkways and park roads under section 204 of
that title $200,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2004 through 2009.
(D) Highway safety programs.--
(i) In general.--For highway safety
programs under section 402 of that title
$170,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004
through 2009.
(ii) Highway safety research and
development.--For highway safety research and
development under section 403 of that title
$30,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004
through 2009.
(E) Transportation research programs.--
(i) Surface transportation research.--For
cooperative agreements with nonprofit research
organizations to carry out research under
section 502 of that title $150,000,000 for each
of fiscal years 2004 through 2009.
(ii) ITS research and development.--For
carrying out section 5207 of the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century (23 U.S.C. 502
note; 112 Stat. 457) $220,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 2004 through 2009, of which--
(I) $110,000,000 for each fiscal
year shall be made available for
research; and
(II) $110,000,000 for each fiscal
year shall be made available for
development and operational tests.
(iii) University transportation research.--
For carrying out section 5505 of title 49,
United States Code, $20,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 2004 through 2009.
(2) Transferability of funds.--Section 104 of title 23,
United States Code, is amended by striking subsection (g) and
inserting the following:
``(g) Transferability of Funds.--
``(1) In general.--To the extent that a State determines
that funds made available under this title to the State for a
purpose are in excess of the needs of the State for that
purpose, the State may transfer the excess funds to, and use
the excess funds for, any surface transportation (including
mass transit and rail) purpose in the State.
``(2) Enforcement.--If the Secretary determines that a
State has transferred funds under paragraph (1) to a purpose
that is not a surface transportation purpose as described in
paragraph (1), the amount of the improperly transferred funds
shall be deducted from any amount the State would otherwise
receive from the Highway Trust Fund for the fiscal year that
begins after the date of the determination.''.
(3) Federal-aid system.--Section 103(a) of title 23, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``systems are the
Interstate System and the National Highway System'' and
inserting ``system is the Interstate System''.
(4) Interstate maintenance program.--Section 104(b) of
title 23, United States Code, is amended by striking paragraph
(4) and inserting the following:
``(4) Interstate maintenance component.--For each of fiscal
years 2004 through 2009, for the Interstate maintenance program
under section 119, 1 percent to the Virgin Islands, Guam,
American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands and the remaining 99 percent apportioned as follows:
``(A)(i) For each State with an average population
density of 20 persons or fewer per square mile, and
each State with a population of 1,500,000 persons or
fewer and with a land area of 10,000 square miles or
less, the greater of--
``(I) a percentage share of apportionments
equal to the percentage listed for the State in
clause (ii); or
``(II) a share determined under
subparagraph (B).
``(ii) The percentage referred to in clause (i)(I)
is as follows:

``States:                                                   Percentage:
Alabama................................................ 2.0269
Alaska................................................. 1.1915
Arizona................................................ 1.5581
Arkansas............................................... 1.3214
California............................................. 9.1962
Colorado............................................... 1.1673
Connecticut............................................ 1.5186
Delaware............................................... 0.4424
District of Columbia................................... 0.3956
Florida................................................ 4.6176
Georgia................................................ 3.5104
Hawaii................................................. 0.5177
Idaho.................................................. 0.7718
Illinois............................................... 3.3819
Indiana................................................ 2.3588
Iowa................................................... 1.2020
Kansas................................................. 1.1717
Kentucky............................................... 1.7365
Louisiana.............................................. 1.5900
Maine.................................................. 0.5263
Maryland............................................... 1.5087
Massachusetts.......................................... 1.8638
Michigan............................................... 3.1535
Minnesota.............................................. 1.4993
Mississippi............................................ 1.2186
Missouri............................................... 2.3615
Montana................................................ 0.9929
Nebraska............................................... 0.7768
Nevada................................................. 0.7248
New Hampshire.......................................... 0.5163
New Jersey............................................. 2.5816
New Mexico............................................. 0.9884
New York............................................... 5.1628
North Carolina......................................... 2.8298
North Dakota........................................... 0.6553
Ohio................................................... 3.4257
Oklahoma............................................... 1.5419
Oregon................................................. 1.2183
Pennsylvania........................................... 4.9887
Puerto Rico............................................ 0.5000
Rhode Island........................................... 0.5958
South Carolina......................................... 1.5910
South Dakota........................................... 0.7149
Tennessee.............................................. 2.2646
Texas.................................................. 7.2131
Utah................................................... 0.7831
Vermont................................................ 0.4573
Virginia............................................... 2.5627
Washington............................................. 1.7875
West Virginia.......................................... 1.1319
Wisconsin.............................................. 1.9916
Wyoming................................................ 0.6951.
``(B) For each State not described in subparagraph
(A), a share of the apportionments remaining determined
in accordance with the following formula:
``(i) \1/9\ in the ratio that the total
rural lane miles in each State bears to the
total rural lane miles in all States with an
average population density greater than 20
persons per square mile and all States with a
population of more than 1,500,000 persons and
with a land area of more than 10,000 square
miles.
``(ii) \1/9\ in the ratio that the total
rural vehicle miles traveled in each State
bears to the total rural vehicle miles traveled
in all States described in clause (i).
``(iii) \2/9\ in the ratio that the total
urban lane miles in each State bears to the
total urban lane miles in all States described
in clause (i).
``(iv) \2/9\ in the ratio that the total
urban vehicle miles traveled in each State
bears to the total urban vehicle miles traveled
in all States described in clause (i).
``(v) \3/9\ in the ratio that the total
diesel fuel used in each State bears to the
total diesel fuel used in all States described
in clause (i).''.
(5) Interstate bridge program.--Section 144 of title 23,
United States Code, is amended--
(A) in subsection (d)--
(i) by inserting ``on the Federal-aid
system or described in subsection (c)(3)''
after ``highway bridge'' each place it appears;
and
(ii) by inserting ``on the Federal-aid
system or described in subsection (c)(3)''
after ``highway bridges'' each place it
appears;
(B) in the second sentence of subsection (e)--
(i) in paragraph (1), by adding ``and'' at
the end;
(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking the
comma at the end and inserting a period; and
(iii) by striking paragraphs (3) and (4);
(C) in the first sentence of subsection (l), by
inserting ``on the Federal-aid system or described in
subsection (c)(3)'' after ``any bridge'';
(D) in subsection (m)(1), by inserting ``on the
Federal-aid system or described in subsection (c)(3)''
after ``construct any bridge''; and
(E) in the first sentence of subsection (n), by
inserting ``for each of fiscal years 2004 through
2009,'' after ``of law,''.
(6) National defense highways.--Section 311 of title 23,
United States Code, is amended--
(A) in the first sentence, by striking ``under
subsection (a) of section 104 of this title'' and
inserting ``to carry out this section''; and
(B) by striking the second sentence.
(7) Motor carrier safety grants.--Section 31104(a) of title
49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(6) Not more than $110,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2004 through 2009.''.
(b) Expenditures From Highway Trust Fund.--
(1) Expenditures for essential programs.--Section 9503(c)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to expenditures
from Highway Trust Fund) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``October 1,
2003'' each place it appears and inserting ``October 1,
2009'';
(B) in paragraphs (2)(A)(i)(III), (2)(A)(ii),
(4)(A)(i), and (5)(A), by striking ``October 1, 2005''
each place it appears and inserting ``October 1,
2009'';
(C) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``or''
at the end;
(ii) in subparagraph (E), by striking the
period and inserting ``, or'';
(iii) by inserting after subparagraph (E)
the following:
``(F) authorized to be paid out of the Highway
Trust Fund under the Transportation Empowerment Act.'';
and
(iv) by striking the last sentence and
inserting the following new flush sentence:
``In determining the authorizations under the Acts referred to
in the preceding subparagraphs, such Acts shall be applied as
in effect on the date of enactment of the Transportation
Empowerment Act.''; and
(D) in paragraphs (2)(A)(i) and (3), by striking
``July 1, 2006'' each place it appears and inserting
``July 1, 2009''.
(2) Amounts available for essential program expenditures.--
Section 9503 of such Code (relating to the Highway Trust Fund)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(g) Essential Programs Financing Rate.--For purposes of this
section--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), in
the case of gasoline, special motor fuels, kerosene, and diesel
fuel, the essential programs financing rate is--
``(A) after September 30, 2003, and before October
1, 2004, so much of the rate of the taxes described in
subparagraphs (A) and (D) of subsection (b)(1)
transferred to the Highway Trust Fund as does not
exceed 16.3 cents per gallon,
``(B) after September 30, 2004, and before October
1, 2005, so much of the rate of such taxes as does not
exceed 11.3 cents per gallon,
``(C) after September 30, 2005, and before October
1, 2006, so much of the rate of such taxes as does not
exceed 8.3 cents per gallon,
``(D) after September 30, 2006, and before October
1, 2007, so much of the rate of such taxes as does not
exceed 7.3 cents per gallon, and
``(E) after September 30, 2007, the rate of such
taxes.
``(2) Application of rate.--In the case of fuels used as
described in paragraph (4)(D) and (5)(B) of subsection (c), the
essential programs financing rate is zero.''.
(c) Termination of Transfers to Mass Transit Account.--
(1) In general.--Section 9503(e)(2) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to Mass Transit Account) is amended by
striking ``2 cents'' and inserting ``2 cents (zero, after
September 30, 2003)''.
(2) Authorization to expend remaining balances in
account.--Section 9503(e)(3) of such Code is amended by
striking ``before October 1, 1997''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section take
effect on October 1, 2003.

SEC. 4. INFRASTRUCTURE SPECIAL ASSISTANCE FUND.

(a) Balance of Essential Programs Financing Rate Deposited in
Fund.--Section 9503 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as amended by
section 3(b)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(h) Establishment of Infrastructure Special Assistance Fund.--
``(1) Creation of fund.--There is established in the
Highway Trust Fund a separate fund to be known as the
`Infrastructure Special Assistance Fund' consisting of such
amounts as may be transferred or credited to the Infrastructure
Special Assistance Fund as provided in this subsection or
section 9602(b).
``(2) Transfers to infrastructure special assistance
fund.--On the first day of each fiscal year, the Secretary, in
consultation with the Secretary of Transportation, shall
determine the excess (if any) of--
``(A) the sum of--
``(i) the amounts appropriated in such
fiscal year to the Highway Trust Fund under
subsection (b) which are attributable to the
essential programs financing rate for such
year, plus
``(ii) the amounts appropriated in such
fiscal year to the Highway Trust Fund under
subsection (b) which are attributable to taxes
under sections 4051, 4061, 4071, and 4481 for
such year, over
``(B) the amount appropriated under subsection (c)
for such fiscal year,
and shall transfer such excess to the Infrastructure Special
Assistance Fund.
``(3) Expenditures from infrastructure special assistance
fund.--
``(A) Transitional assistance.--
``(i) In general.--Except as provided in
clause (iv), during fiscal years 2004 through
2007, $1,000,000,000 in the Infrastructure
Special Assistance Fund shall be available to
States for transportation-related program
expenditures.
``(ii) State share.--
``(I) In general.--Except as
provided in clause (v), each State is
entitled to a share of the amount
specified in clause (i) upon enactment
of legislation providing 1 of the 2
funding mechanisms described in clause
(iii).
``(II) Determination of state
share.--For purposes of subclause (I),
each State's share shall be determined
in the following manner:
``(aa) Multiply the
percentage of the amounts
appropriated in the latest
fiscal year for which such data
are available to the Highway
Trust Fund under subsection (b)
which is attributable to taxes
paid by highway users in the
State, by the amount specified
in clause (i). If the result
does not exceed $15,000,000,
the State's share equals
$15,000,000. If the result
exceeds $15,000,000, the
State's share is determined
under item (bb).
``(bb) Multiply the
percentage determined under
item (aa), by the amount
specified in clause (i) reduced
by an amount equal to
$15,000,000 times the number of
States the share of which is
determined under item (aa).
``(iii) Legislative funding mechanisms.--A
funding mechanism is described in this clause
as follows:
``(I) A funding mechanism which
results in revenues for transportation-
related projects in the State for
fiscal year 2008 and each succeeding
fiscal year which are equal to the
excess of--
``(aa) the mean annual
average of distributions from
the Highway Trust Fund to the
State for fiscal years 1998
through 2003; over
``(bb) the distributions
from the Highway Trust Fund to
the State for such fiscal year
attributable to the essential
programs financing rate for
such year.
``(II) A funding mechanism which
results in an increase in the State
rate of tax on motor fuels equal to the decrease in the rate of tax on
such fuels under section 4081 for fiscal year 2008 and any succeeding
fiscal year.
``(iv) Distribution of remaining amount.--
If after September 30, 2007, a portion of the
amount specified in clause (i) remains, the
Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary
of Transportation, shall, on October 1, 2007,
apportion the portion among the States which
received a share of such amount under clause
(ii) and which are not described in clause (v)
using the percentages determined under clause
(ii)(II)(aa) for such States.
``(v) Enforcement of funding mechanism
requirement.--If a State, which enacted
legislation providing for a funding mechanism
described in clause (iii), terminates such
mechanism before fiscal year 2007, the State's
share determined under clauses (ii) and (iv)
shall be deducted from any amount the State
would otherwise receive from the Highway Trust
Fund for fiscal year 2007.
``(B) Additional expenditures from fund.--
``(i) In general.--Amounts in the
Infrastructure Special Assistance Fund, in
excess of the amount specified in subparagraph
(A)(i), shall be available, as provided by
appropriation Acts, to the States for any
surface transportation (including mass transit
and rail) purpose in such States, and the
Secretary shall apportion such excess amounts
among all States using the percentages
determined under clause (ii)(II)(aa) for such
States.
``(ii) Enforcement.--If the Secretary
determines that a State has used amounts under
clause (i) for a purpose which is not a surface
transportation purpose as described in clause
(i), the improperly used amounts shall be
deducted from any amount the State would
otherwise receive from the Highway Trust Fund
for the fiscal year which begins after the date
of the determination.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section takes
effect on October 1, 2003.

SEC. 5. RETURN OF EXCESS TAX RECEIPTS TO STATES.

(a) In General.--Section 9503(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(6) Return of excess tax receipts to states for surface
transportation purposes.--
``(A) In general.--On the first day of each of
fiscal years 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007, the Secretary,
in consultation with the Secretary of Transportation,
shall--
``(i) determine the excess (if any) of--
``(I) the amounts appropriated in
such fiscal year to the Highway Trust
Fund under subsection (b) which are
equivalent to the taxes attributable to
the excess of--
``(aa) the Highway Trust
Fund financing rate for such
year, over
``(bb) the essential
programs financing rate for
such year, over
``(II) the amounts so appropriated
which are equivalent to the taxes
described in paragraphs (4)(D) and
(5)(B), and
``(ii) allocate the amount determined under
clause (i) among the States (as defined in
section 101(a) of title 23, United States Code)
for surface transportation (including mass
transit and rail) purposes so that--
``(I) the percentage of that amount
allocated to each State, is equal to
``(II) the percentage of the amount
determined under clause (i)(I) paid
into the Highway Trust Fund in the
latest fiscal year for which such data
are available which is attributable to
highway users in the State.
``(B) Enforcement.--If the Secretary determines
that a State has used amounts under subparagraph (A)
for a purpose which is not a surface transportation
purpose as described in subparagraph (A), the
improperly used amounts shall be deducted from any
amount the State would otherwise receive from the
Highway Trust Fund for the fiscal year which begins
after the date of the determination.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section takes
effect on October 1, 2003.

SEC. 6. FEDERAL-AID FACILITY PRIVATIZATION.

(a) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) Executive agency.--The term ``Executive agency'' has
the meaning provided in section 105 of title 5, United States
Code.
(2) Privatization.--The term ``privatization'' means the
disposition or transfer of a transportation infrastructure
asset, whether by sale, lease, or similar arrangement, from a
Federal, State, or local government to a private party.
(3) State or local government.--The term ``State or local
government'' means the government of--
(A) any State;
(B) the District of Columbia;
(C) any commonwealth, territory, or possession of
the United States;
(D) any county, municipality, city, town, township,
local public authority, school district, special
district, intrastate district, regional or interstate government
entity, council of governments, or agency or instrumentality of a local
government; or
(E) any federally recognized Indian tribe.
(4) Transportation infrastructure asset.--
(A) In general.--The term ``transportation
infrastructure asset'' means any surface-
transportation-related asset financed in whole or in
part by the Federal Government, including a road,
tunnel, bridge, or mass-transit-related or rail-related
asset.
(B) Exclusion.--The term does not include any
transportation-related asset on the Interstate System
(as defined in section 101 of title 23, United States
Code).
(b) Privatization Initiatives by State and Local Governments.--The
head of each Executive agency shall--
(1) assist State and local governments in efforts to
privatize the transportation infrastructure assets of the State
and local governments; and
(2) subject to subsection (a), approve requests from State
and local governments to privatize transportation
infrastructure assets and waive or modify any condition
relating to the original Federal program that funded the asset.
(c) Criteria.--The head of an Executive agency shall approve a
request described in subsection (b)(2) if--
(1) the State or local government demonstrates that a
market mechanism, legally enforceable agreement, or regulatory
mechanism will ensure that the transportation infrastructure
asset will continue to be used for the general objectives of
the original Federal program that funded the asset (which shall
not be considered to include every condition required for the
recipient of Federal funds to have obtained the original
Federal funds), so long as needed for those objectives; and
(2) the private party purchasing or leasing the
transportation infrastructure asset agrees to comply with all
applicable conditions of the original Federal program.
(d) Lack of Obligation to Repay Federal Funds.--A State or local
government shall have no obligation to repay to any agency of the
Federal Government any Federal funds received by the State or local
government in connection with a transportation infrastructure asset
that is privatized under this section.
(e) Use of Proceeds.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), a State or local
government may use proceeds from the privatization of a
transportation infrastructure asset to the extent permitted
under applicable conditions of the original Federal program.
(2) Recover of certain costs.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the State or local government shall be
permitted to recover from the privatization of a transportation
infrastructure asset--
(A) the capital investment in the transportation
infrastructure asset made by the State or local
government;
(B) an amount equal to the unreimbursed operating
expenses in the transportation infrastructure asset
paid by the State or local government; and
(C) a reasonable rate of return on the investment
made under subparagraph (A) and expenses paid under
subparagraph (B).

SEC. 7. REDUCTION IN TAXES ON GASOLINE, DIESEL FUEL, KEROSENE, AND
SPECIAL FUELS FUNDING HIGHWAY TRUST FUND.

(a) Reduction in Tax Rate.--
(1) In general.--Section 4081(a)(2)(A) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to rates of tax) is amended--
(A) in clause (i), by striking ``18.3 cents'' and
inserting ``2 cents''; and
(B) in clause (iii), by striking ``24.3 cents'' and
inserting ``2 cents''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 6427(b)(2)(A) of such
Code is amended by striking ``7.4 cents'' and inserting ``1.9
cents''.
(b) Additional Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 4041(a)(1)(C)(iii)(I) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``(4.3 cents per gallon
after September 30, 2005)'' and inserting ``(zero after
September 30, 2007)''.
(2) Section 4041(m)(1)(A) of such Code is amended--
(A) in clause (i), by striking ``2005'' and
inserting ``2007,''; and
(B) by striking clause (ii) and inserting the
following:
``(ii) zero after September 30, 2007,
and''.
(3) Section 4081(d)(1) of such Code is amended by striking
``4.3 cents per gallon after September 30, 2005'' and inserting
``zero after September 30, 2009''.
(4) Section 9503(b) of such Code is amended--
(A) in paragraphs (1) and (2), by striking
``October 1, 2005'' both places it appears and
inserting ``October 1, 2009'';
(B) in the heading of paragraph (2), by striking
``october 1, 2005'' and inserting ``october 1, 2009'';
(C) in paragraph (2), by striking ``after September
30, 2005, and before July 1, 2006'' and inserting
``after September 30, 2009, and before July 1, 2010'';
and
(D) in paragraph (4), by striking ``2005'' each
place it appears and inserting ``2007''.
(c) Floor Stock Refunds.--
(1) In general.--If--
(A) before October 1, 2007, tax has been imposed
under section 4081 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
on any liquid; and
(B) on such date such liquid is held by a dealer
and has not been used and is intended for sale;
there shall be credited or refunded (without interest) to the
person who paid such tax (in this subsection referred to as the
``taxpayer'') an amount equal to the excess of the tax paid by the
taxpayer over the amount of such tax which would be imposed on such
liquid had the taxable event occurred on such date.
(2) Time for filing claims.--No credit or refund shall be
allowed or made under this subsection unless--
(A) claim therefor is filed with the Secretary of
the Treasury before April 1, 2008; and
(B) in any case where liquid is held by a dealer
(other than the taxpayer) on October 1, 2007--
(i) the dealer submits a request for refund
or credit to the taxpayer before January 1,
2008; and
(ii) the taxpayer has repaid or agreed to
repay the amount so claimed to such dealer or
has obtained the written consent of such dealer
to the allowance of the credit or the making of
the refund.
(3) Exception for fuel held in retail stocks.--No credit or
refund shall be allowed under this subsection with respect to
any liquid in retail stocks held at the place where intended to
be sold at retail.
(4) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection, the
terms ``dealer'' and ``held by a dealer'' have the respective
meanings given to such terms by section 6412 of such Code;
except that the term ``dealer'' includes a producer.
(5) Certain rules to apply.--Rules similar to the rules of
subsections (b) and (c) of section 6412 and sections 6206 and
6675 of such Code shall apply for purposes of this subsection.
(d) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendments made by this section shall apply to fuel removed
after September 30, 2007.
(2) Additional conforming amendments.--The amendments made
by subsection (c) take effect on October 1, 2003.

SEC. 9. MASS TRANSPORTATION.

(a) In General.--Section 5338 of title 49, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 5338. Authorizations
``There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry
out this chapter $2,500,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through
2009, of which--
``(1) $2,000,000,000 for each fiscal year shall be
available to carry out sections 5307 and 5309;
``(2) $500,000,000 for each fiscal year shall be available
to carry out section 5311; and
``(3) the amount remaining after allocation under
paragraphs (1) and (2) for each fiscal year shall be used at
the discretion of the Secretary, including for capital
expenditure under this chapter.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section takes
effect on October 1, 2003.
<all>