Welfare Reform Extension Act, Part VIII

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 811 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 811 is a closed rule that provides for consideration of H.R. 5183, the Surface Transportation Act of 2004. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and provides 1 hour of debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The rule further provides one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure currently has under its consideration the multiyear reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act. The current authorization expires at midnight tonight and the bill before us today provides funding for essential programs for an additional 8 months, through May 31, 2005. This extension is necessary to give the authorizing conferees additional time to agree on a larger reauthorization bill.

This Congress recognizes the many needs of our Nation and is answering the call by diligently working through its process to produce a bill that deals with the Nation's priorities in a whole host of areas.

The final authorization bill will ensure that we have a reliable and stable transportation infrastructure from Federal highways and highway safety to public transportation and motor-carrier safety programs.

In the meantime, the extension before us today authorizes $24.5 billion for the Federal Aid Highway program for highway and bridge construction and safety-related infrastructure improvements. Mr. Speaker, $5.2 billion is authorized for the Federal Transit Administration for grants to State and local transit agencies to reduce congestion and ensure mobility for all Americans in urban and rural areas.

Additionally, the bill authorizes $200 million for highway safety programs, including programs to encourage seatbelt use and prevent drunk driving. The $287 million is authorized for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration for truck and bus-related safety programs.

Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill also releases the final portion of contract authority and obligation authority for

the highway program in fiscal year 2004. This funding was reserved until the end of the fiscal year and is now being used to ensure that States receive at least a 90.5 percent minimum guaranteed rate of return on their Highway Trust Fund contributions.

Without our action today, vital programs and projects under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation will be put on hold. States will not be reimbursed with the Federal share of projects. Safety grants will not be provided to States, and transit construction will be halted, all of which puts jobs at risk.

Mr. Speaker, we simply cannot allow States and transportation projects to suffer. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying extension.

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

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

It is now almost October 1, and we are getting into the election season. I expect the gentleman from Massachusetts to have some finger- pointing going on. But I was here, as he was, when the debate occurred on transportation, and I would say that the authorizers had some pretty good, wholehearted debate that seemed to almost be on the same page between Republicans and Democrats, the majority and the minority of this House.

I would remind all of us that while we had some harmony passing that legislation in the House and apparently in the other body, they had some harmony on what they passed, we have, as we well know as students of government, to pass an identical piece of legislation in the House, in the Senate and the President to sign it, or if he vetoes it, it would require a two-thirds vote in both of the bodies of Congress.

Now, what we have seen, because the other body has publicly debated some of their positions, is that we have disagreements between the House and the other body and we have some from the White House on just what the spending will be. But while we are in an election year, we need to make sure we also get some of the facts back here. And that is that my understanding of this extender, is that the 2005 authorization is using the 2004 levels, and there is absolutely zero loss of anything, that each State will have their money. As a matter of fact, in the underlying legislation, it is my understanding that we will see that the $2 billion that Members on both sides of the aisle worked hard to achieve for their districts will also be distributed to those States under the current formula.

Now, I cannot speak for Massachusetts, but I know, in New York, number one, that is going to be fair and equitable money. Number two, it is still a jobs bill that is keeping my people working across my State and, quite frankly, I think across the 50 States. So when we look at this, we also need to come to terms with a funding level of transportation authorization in a future 6-year bill that is equitable for all of us. And we know that different regions of the country have different viewpoints, and we know that non-mass-transit States have different views than those who are in high-growth States looking to develop further road infrastructure in their communities. It is not an easy bill to put together to get a 6-year consensus in this body, let alone between the House, the Senate, and the White House.

But the important thing that is to be noted today as we preserve those jobs, those jobs are working, and a ``yes'' vote today keeps these projects moving forward and protects those jobs. A ``no'' vote puts people out of work. I will willing to predict, Mr. Speaker, that we will have strong bipartisan support for the extension over the next 8 months.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I respect the gentleman and what his view is, but I come from a State that has some complex transportation, from new to old aging infrastructure, to mass transit, to ports, to motor carriers, to dealing with buses and transit systems.

As I look at this, if we keep this moving forward by passing this extender, we are going to keep those projects moving forward to protect jobs. A ``no'' vote puts people out of work. It stops transit.

I have taken great care to listen to the transportation experts, and they assure me of the following. We came here with such great spirit in the House to pass this legislation, and it was bipartisan work. We certainly lauded both the chairman of the full Committee of Transportation and Infrastructure and the subcommittee chairs who put together this complex bill and in a bipartisan fashion. Yes, there certainly are differences of agreement to different aspects of what I see in the other body just from public statements of negotiation. We have also seen that the White House and Department of Transportation has some of their opinions on this bill as well.

I accept the fact that we are getting into the election season, and we are going to have all sorts of consumption going on back home as to what this means. But what my transportation experts of New York say, as well as talking to experts in this body, they tell me that if we do this extension, it is going to maintain the spending in the 2005 authorization and 2004 funding levels and that basically no one will lose any money at all in any of our States or, for the most part, in our districts unless some of the Members do not have a relationship with their State transportation people on some of the priorities that they might be looking for in their State.

It is important to understand, for those who are listening to this debate, that this maintains the spending of a multiyear plan in the extension of 8 months, and it does in the 2005 authorization as well as looking at the 2004 funding levels that are currently available.

My local folks in New York, the State commissioner and his people, tell me that we will be able to continue in the continuity of a complex transportation system by being able to count on this extension and the funding to continue the multiyear projects.

So I do not quite understand the gentleman's aspect of where it starts and stops maybe as he sees the view, because I have been assured that we have continuity of transportation services in a multiyear fashion by extending this.

Again, I must say to my colleagues, a ``yes'' vote today keeps those projects moving forward and protects jobs and protects the work and plans that are in our respective States, and a ``no'' vote just plain stops that or puts people out of work.

I yield to the gentleman from Oregon for a question.

I said I yield for a question. I do not want to hear the gentleman's debate on my time.

I thank the gentleman for his question, and what I understand is as follows. Sure, I have projects; I think most Members of this body have specific projects earmarked in our legislation. It is my understanding that the other body would not consider earmarks that we would like to begin in the 2005 project year. Therefore, the compromise of extension, because we have had disagreements between the two bodies and we also have the White House in consideration of getting a final bill, was that we would take $2 billion of funding of Member- earmarked items of 2004 and roll them into our respective States on the existing formulas. That is what makes the States content to have that money back into their aspect of continuing in the projects.

The gentleman's influence, as a member of the Oregon delegation, might put an opportunity where the gentleman could talk to the DOT commissioner and begin their projects based on some of the monies they will receive.

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

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

It is a well-known fact in the House that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is probably the largest of membership in our great body. It amazes me when I look at the members of the committee, that might share from the other side of the aisle, kind of going back and forth between an extension and the 6-year bill, kind of mixing it up.

I just want to make sure we have the record straight, although I have said it so many times in this debate already. The extension does not prejudice the 6-year bill. It actually keeps a continuity of funding levels at the authorization of our budget resolution.

The gentleman is actually continuing, as previous speakers have, to go back and forth between a simple extension that guarantees all States their money and some planning purposes over the next 8 months versus trying to get to a 6-year bill.

I am used to a situation where legislation does not come to the floor as

fast as some Members would want, that there is finger-pointing. I also acknowledge that we have disagreements between the other body, the White House and this on getting a conclusion of a 6-year bill.

But the Chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has made sure, with his subcommittee chairmen, that we have an 8-month extension that guarantees each State their money so they can continue in their planning purposes. As I have said before, it clearly says a ``yes'' vote today keeps those projects moving forward and protects jobs. A ``no'' vote puts people out of work and brings that construction to an end.

I also want to make sure that some of these alarmist accusations, that there is clear, on-the-record information so that they do not get caught up without a response. As the previous gentleman talked about the fact of money going all over the place, this bill includes an extension of the budgetary firewalls and spending guarantees for the highway category and transit category. These firewalls and guarantees protect the integrity of the Highway Trust Fund to ensure the highway user-related fees are used exclusively for highway transit and highway safety programs.

I want to just let America know that we extend those protections in this extension of 8 months, just as it was in underlying legislation in the past.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I was listening carefully to the comments of the gentleman, but I was at the point where I wondered if the gentleman intends to vote for the extension or not to vote for the extension, based on your remarks.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said it well, we should vote for this rule and then the underlying legislation. As I opened my remarks, I commented that I understand it is the election season. So many of us have to get up and try to say something for back home on whatever that may be.

I have talked to planners in my years of service, and some planners I know would like to have an exact fund for the entire length of their career in planning. But the reality is that this bill is going to provide an extension and continuity in both planning and money to our respective States. My State, as I outlined earlier, has a complex transportation network and understands that this extension keeps the funding levels the same as it has been. As a matter of fact, the opportunity of all States will have the same funding levels. So we have continuity of our programmatic services and dollars to the States and for them to also distribute as they see fit the monies that will come in this 8-month extension.

It is not easy to formulate an agreement of an extension, and I laud Chairman Young of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and his subcommittee chairman in working with the other body to get a compromise of extension that works so well for our States as we continue this continuity of transportation projects and creating and maintaining the jobs that these construction opportunities exist through the transportation bill. But as we also look here, it is an opportunity for us to continue to get an agreement that both bodies and the White House will look to be a 6-year plan following the extension that is here.

My colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), has been clear. A ``yes'' vote today keeps the projects moving and keeps and protects jobs. A ``no'' vote puts people out of work. The extension will do the job and we can continue in having a multi-year plan of the future based on the results of our actions today. So I call upon my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying extension.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time.

October 1, 2003: What is important about that date? That is the date that the last highway bill expired. Here we are, almost a year later, legislation that sets the course of all spending on roads, bridges, highways, mass transit in the United States of America has been in suspended animation working under a 7-year-old law for the last 11 months.

I guess if the Republicans controlled things, things would not be like that; that is the kind of thing we hear around here all the time. They control the White House, the Department of Transportation, the House and the Senate. The White House is low-balling the number and underinvesting in America. They only want to spend $259 billion. They want to take our gas tax money and spend it on other things instead of transportation.

The House did a little better, $283 billion, not enough, but they did better. But they do not want to confront the President in an election year. We could roll them easily. It would be embarrassing, though, just before the election for him to be against jobs and investment in America and spending gas taxes on the purposes for which it was collected. The Senate did a lot better yet, $318 billion.

Then, of course, there was the unanimous bipartisan vote of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, on which I serve, where we voted unanimously for $379 billion, $120 billion more than the President is willing to spend, because that is what the President's Department of Transportation said is necessary to take care of the problems in New York and other States. We need another $120 billion over what the President's asking for to deal with those problems.

It is disingenuous to get up here and say, oh, if we follow these lower numbers, nothing is being hurt. We are foregoing new starts. We are foregoing new investments. We are foregoing additional investments that the President's own Department of Transportation says is necessary. Why? Why are we doing that? We collect gas taxes from each and every American every time they fill up their car, a bunch of them, and that money is supposed to be spent on roads, bridges and highways. We have seen the potholes. I have got failing bridges in my district. We could put hundreds of thousands of people to work tomorrow if we had more investment and more spending.

I cannot understand why they will not spend our gas tax money to put people to work and meet needed investment in our infrastructure. So I stand here saying we should be doing more than just this continuing resolution, obviously. We should have sometime in the last 11 months. The Republicans should have been able to get their act together and agree on a highway bill. That has not happened. Well, if we cannot do that, at least let us put a little more money in there, put a few more people back to work, begin to address some of these problems that are out there, begin to take care of some of the new starts that New York has asked for that cannot go forward under this legislation.

My colleagues cannot say, oh, the transportation experts in New York say this is going to take care of all the problems. It is not. It is not even beginning to address the backlog of problems of failing roads and bridges.

Another interesting statistic from the President's own Department of Transportation is that, for every $1 billion we spend on roads, bridges, highways, mass transit, we create 47,500 jobs; not just construction jobs, but those are good jobs and good wage jobs. And guess what? They cannot be outsourced to another country. That is a really good thing about those jobs, but what it also does is it spills over into communities and small businesses. The suppliers, the contractors, the equipment operators, they are all local. They are locally based. It helps our local communities who need more jobs and investment. It helps small businesses, 47,500 jobs.

So, that means by walking away from the higher numbers proposed by the Senate, that is $318 billion, that we are foregoing $34 billion of investment that is needed to repair our failing bridges, roads, highways and our mass transit inadequacies, new starts in New York and other States. I cannot do the math quite here, but 34 times 47 sounds like a heck of a lot of jobs to me, somewhere around 1.5 million jobs. This country could use another 1.5 million jobs. In fact, if the President would sign a bill at that higher number, then he could say he delivered on his promise of creating 2 million jobs during his presidency. Right now, he is kind of short on that.

This is at best an absolutely minimal stopgap that is not meeting the real needs of Americans, that is not putting people back to work, that is not spending their gas tax money in the manner in which it was intended when it was collected and extracted from them, when they bought gas at the pump.

I would say we have apparently no alternative but to support this inadequate level of funding, but the American people should be aware it is inadequate. It does mean no new starts. It does mean that we are not going to address a whole bunch of problems all around the country, and we can do better.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for his tireless work because this will be his last action on this legislation. I would like to thank my colleagues on the committee and the chairman of the committee for their work. If we ran things, we would have already completed a much more robust investment in our roads, bridges, highways and mass transit here in the United States, putting millions of people to work and beginning to deal with the backlog of projects.

Unfortunately, we not only have to deal with the House, the other body, the Senate and the White House; in this case the White House has been the big problem. What we are doing here today will mean no increase. This will be the second year in a row with no increase in transportation infrastructure spending, even with the accelerating rate of deterioration of our bridges, even with growing congestion, no new starts. This does not get anywhere near what we would consider a good push toward dealing with those problems and putting people back to work. But the White House has chosen this extraordinarily low number, $256 billion. They would essentially underspend the highway trust fund. They collect gas tax from Americans and they would divert some of that money to other purposes by borrowing from it instead of fully investing it in roads, bridges, highways and mass transit. That means we are walking away from a lot of jobs. For every $1 billion we invest in transportation, the estimates are that we create 47,500 jobs, not just direct construction jobs which are good jobs which cannot be outsourced out of the United States, but also spill over into communities, small businesses, equipment providers, suppliers; all those people would benefit dramatically.

If we were to adopt the numbers proposed by the Senate at $318 billion, we would create nearly another 2 million jobs. We could use those jobs. It would also help the President, who is dragging his feet on this, to deliver on his promise of creating 2 million jobs, which he has not done yet and is unlikely to be able to accomplish before November except with the stroke of a pen and signing a bill and showing that he will create them in the future. But he is refusing to do that.

Unfortunately, there is hesitation with going forward with a more robust level and challenging the President. Someone spoke earlier about how the system works, and we have to deal with the Senate and White House, but we have the power to send something to the White House, allow him to veto it, and then override. The first vote I cast in the United States Congress was to override a much more popular President's veto of a highway bill, Ronald Reagan.

This is not only good for the transportation infrastructure, the economy, just-in-time delivery, small businesses, construction workers, it would be of tremendous benefit to the entire economy.

In closing, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski). He has been a great mentor and friend to me. I will miss him. I am sure that we will take care of him when we do the highway bill next year. Although we do not know how much money we will have, but if we have lots of money, he will still do well, I am sure, and his State will do well.

Mr. Speaker, I offer motion to recommit.

I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, this is a straightforward motion within the parliamentary constraints of the House. Some might say, because we would ask the bill to be sent back promptly, that we are dooming it to death.

We have been waiting 11 months for a highway bill, 11 months since the last one expired. Give us 2 hours, and we will give them a lot more investment

and a lot more jobs. We can deliver this bill back within 2 hours. The House could pass a bill at the Senate levels this evening.

All across America that would make a big difference. Across the entire country, that would mean that we would have, if we adopted that level ultimately for 6 years, an increase of $37 billion in spending. That is 1.7 million jobs; 1.7 million jobs could be created. We could begin to deal with the 161,000 bridges in this country that are structurally deficient, one in four. My own little State has a $4.7 billion bridge problem.

We are trying to do our own part, as the chairman asked. We have raised registration and other fees. But we need a little bit of help because this is Interstate 5, the federal highway that goes between Canada, Mexico and includes Oregon, Washington, and California. There is some federal obligation, I believe, to help maintain that highway.

This has been a maddening process for those of us who care about transportation, who care about our failing bridges and the potholes and our congestion and the lack of new starts and mass transit, all those things. If we had our way, we would have significantly more investment, according to a unanimous vote of the committee on which I serve, bipartisan. We voted for the number which has been outlined by the President's own Department of Transportation, $375 billion over 6 years. And even that would not take care of all the problems, but it would sure be a lot more to address them. But the President has taken a hard line at $259 billion, far below the number passed by the House, way below the number passed by the Senate, and about one-third below the number recommended by his own experts. This is inexplicable. This is investment. This is paid for out of gas taxes, which each and every American pays every time they tank up their car. We owe them an obligation to make this investment, not to stick with the levels of that are now 6 years out of date under the old legislation but to look at something that will spend more, begin to deal more with the backlog, put more people to work. We could help the President deliver on his own promise. This would create 1.7 million jobs. The President could sign a bill which we could have back and have ready for consideration by five o'clock tonight. He could sign it tomorrow in the Rose Garden, and he could refute the claims of his opponent that he had lost 1.7 million jobs because he would just have signed a bill to create 1.7 million jobs.

For the life of me, I do not understand the reluctance at the White House to invest the people's tax dollars paid for every time they tank up their car in investment in the people's infrastructure, the infrastructure that will benefit not only individuals but businesses all across America who depend upon just-in-time delivery. Just-in-time delivery is pretty hard when they have got to detour a truck over the Cascade Mountains in Oregon, down the far side and then back down again to I-5 because of failed bridges. And that is unique. That kind of thing takes place all across America. Trucks are detouring hundreds of miles out of their way, wasting fuel, wasting time, making us less efficient because the Federal Government says we do not have the money to catch up with this backlog on bridges.

Well, we do have the money. We are taxing the people. We should adopt a more robust level. We should deal with some of the problems and the disparities among the States, the whole issue that States give a whole bunch more in than they get back. But we cannot do that unless we have higher levels of funding. It is impossible.

And that is what this amendment does, very simply. It would bring the bill back later this evening, spending at the levels of the Senate bill, which would put over 6 years, if finally adopted, 1.7 million people to work, 20,000 people in my State, and begin to defray that backlog.

I would hope that we will pass this motion unanimously and make the investment that we need. And I think the President will sign it. I doubt very much he will see fit to veto the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

My staff says that they can do the computer runs and have the numbers within 2 hours, which would give us ample time to get the bill faxed before the President for signature before midnight tonight.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to express my dismay that the administration and the Congress have failed to prevent almost $1.1 billion in money that has been previous allocated to the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, from expiring. Families USA points out that the loss of these funds approximate the annual cost of providing health coverage to almost 750,000 children. That failure is unacceptable for a nation such as ours.

However, I am pleased to report that both Finance Committee Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus are moving quickly to pull together a bipartisan group together to resolve this problem as soon as possible. Considering that the chairman is the author of important pieces of legislation, such as the Family Opportunity Act, to improve the health of our Nation's children with special health care needs, it should come as no surprise that he is working to bridge the gap between legislation introduced by Senators Rockefeller and Chafee that would preserve and reallocate the $1.1 billion in SCHIP funds and the administration's stated position to preserve the funding but take those dollars currently dedicated to health insurance coverage and use them instead ``to enroll more children who remain uninsured despite being eligible for coverage.''

In light of the chairman's dedication to the issue and commitment to a bipartisan solution, I am hopeful that we will get this resolved, and I urge all parties to work toward a compromise as soon as possible.

What is at stake here? According to data from a Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured report that was released on Monday, there were over 9.1 million children who were uninsured in our country in 2003. There have been important strides made in reducing the number of uninsured children since the passage of SCHIP, as the number of uninsured has dropped from 9.4 million uninsured in 2000 to the 9.1 million in 2003. The uninsured rate would have increased dramatically if not for SCHIP. In fact, the uninsured rate for adults during this same time-period increased from 30.2 million to 35.5 million.

Regardless of the improvement in children's health, the fact that over 9 million children remain uninsured is absolutely unacceptable for a nation such as ours.

In fact, if every single child living in the 21 States of Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia were uninsured, that would still be less than 9 million children. In other words, the number of children without health insurance in our nation exceeds the number of all children living in 21 states and the District of Columbia combined.

That is not something anybody in the administration or this chamber should find acceptable. We should be doing everything in our power to, at the very least, preclude the loss of over $1 billion that could be used to reduce that uninsured rate.

In New Mexico, the loss of this money is coupled with the loss of an expiring provision that is very important to our State and 10 others. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that New Mexico will lose at least $20 million over the next few years in money for children's health if the administration and Congress fails to act.

Moreover, there was a very important provision that was included in the last redistribution effort that allows the 11 States, including New Mexico, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington, and

Wisconsin, to use up to 20 percent of allotted and retained funds by our States on children who are enrolled in Medicaid with income above 150 percent of poverty. This provision was included to recognize that our 11 States had enacted health care expansions for children prior to the enactment of SCHIP and were being effectively penalized financially for having done the right thing for children prior to 1997. The reason is that children in the other 39 States are able to receive an enhanced matching rate for children as low as 100 percent of poverty while children in states such as Washington cannot receive an enhanced matching rate until a child lives in a family with income above 200 percent of poverty.

This important compromise, which significantly reduces the inequity among the States, was achieved in large part due to the hard and dedicated work of Senators Murray, Cantwell, Jeffords, Leahy, Chafee, Reed of Rhode Island, Domenici, and Frist.

Unfortunately, that critically important provision will also effectively expire tonight. This will have a detrimental impact on the health and well-being of the children in these States, as this has been funding that our states have counted on for the delivery of children's health services in both Medicaid and SCHIP for fiscal year 2005.

In Secretary Thompson's letter to Senator Grassley on Tuesday and the majority Leader's letter to Senator Chafee on September 24, 2004, they both failed to recognize this issue. It is for that reason I raise it here again in the Senate to remind my colleagues and the administration that it is an important issue to our 11 States, including that of the Majority Leader, and that, just as we must find a solution to restoring the $1.1 billion in expiring funding for SCHIP, we must also get this other issue resolved as soon as possible.

I strongly urge the administration to reconsider its position that the $1.1 billion should be completely diverted from health coverage to outreach and enrollment. If implemented as proposed, it would result in over 20 percent of SCHIP dollars in 2005 going to outreach and enrollment. While I am a strong supporter of outreach and enrollment in SCHIP, this proposal is both extreme and excessive. In fact, it should be noted that beginning in fiscal year 2002 that expenditures of federal SCHIP funds have begun to exceed federal SCHIP allotments. Therefore, keeping as much funding in actual health coverage is critically important to continue to reduce the number of uninsured children in our nation.

On the other hand, as the sponsor of legislation with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus that authorizes the use of $50 million of SCHIP funding for outreach and enrollment that was subsequently picked up by the majority leader in legislation he introduced, I firmly believe setting aside a limited portion of the $1.1 billion for outreach and enrollment is both necessary to reach a compromise and would also result in better health coverage for children.

In fact, of the 9.1 million uninsured, according to data from the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, 6.8 million live in households that have incomes below 200 percent of poverty, which is the level at which most States provide a combination of coverage for children through either their Medicaid or State Children's Health Insurance Programs. While some of these children would not be eligible for either Medicaid or SCHIP due to their immigration status, it is clear from a variety of studies that somewhere between 60 to 85 percent of uninsured children are eligible for but not enrolled in either Medicaid or SCHIP.

Princeton University's publication entitled The Future of Children dedicated much of one issue to looking at successful efforts to improve outreach and enrollment. As one of its articles notes, ``Most important to reducing the uninsurance problem facing children is raising participation in Medicaid and SCHIP, as 76 percent of uninsured children are already eligible for coverage under SCHIP and Medicaid, but are not enrolled. A continued focus on simple and convenient enrollment and renewal systems, as well as proactive outreach and educational efforts, will be key to reaching these children. Special efforts will be needed to enroll Latino and other minority children, children in immigrant families (families in which at least one member is an immigrant), and adolescents. Children in these groups are all over-represented in the ranks of the eligible, but uninsured.''

In New Mexico, we have our own special program along the U.S.-Mexico border that has been funded by the Bureau of Primary Health Care called Border VISION Fornteriza. The program funds the recruitment and training of community health workers or promotoras that have over the years successfully assisted in the enrollment of thousands of children into health coverage through Medicaid and SCHIP. The program was honored as a model program by the U.S.-Mexico Border Commission and it is precisely this type of program that should be encouraged in whatever agreement is reached.

As a point of comparison, when Congress passed the Medicare prescription drug bill last year, hundreds of millions of dollars was dedicated to doing outreach and enrollment to senior citizens and people with disabilities about the prescription drug cards and the pending drug coverage. In contrast, while States can spend some of their administrative dollars in SCHIP on outreach and enrollment, there are no federal funds exclusively dedicated to conduct outreach and enrollment efforts in either Medicaid or SCHIP.

That should change, and I hope my colleagues will closely review the language introduced by me as part of S. 1159 and in S. 2091 introduced by the majority leader on providing outreach and enrollment funding for children's health.

And finally, I am also hopeful that the Senate will consider legislation by Senator Lugar and me that would streamline enrollment of children in either Medicaid or SCHIP. Just as we know that low-income senior citizens and the disabled enrolled in Medicare Savings Programs are clearly income eligible for the new Medicare prescription drug card and its $600 annual subsidy, I had introduced legislation with Senator Lincoln to auto-enroll those Medicare beneficiaries into the drug card to get the $600 subsidy.

Dr. Mark McClellan, Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, worked hard and has agreed that those beneficiaries should be presumed income-eligible and sent the card for them to activate. Over 1 million low-income senior citizens and people with disabilities will now be getting access to the drug card subsidy that would not have otherwise received those funds.

The same type of mechanism should be applied to children' health. The Children's Partnership and the Kaiser Family Foundation recently released a report on what they call ``Express Lane Eligibility.'' This concept is encompassed in Senator Lugar's legislation by employing ``two common-sense strategies to find and enroll these nearly seven million `eligible but uninsured' children in health insurance coverage. . . .''

Those common-sense strategies are: No. 1, it targets large numbers of eligible children where they can be found: in other public benefit programs like school lunch and food stamps. More than 70 percent of low-income uninsured children are already receiving other public assistance benefits of some kind; and No. 2 it expedites children's enrollment in health coverage by using information already submitted by parents when they enrolled their children in other benefit programs.

Again, I urge the Congress to also closely look at this successful model to improve enrollment of children into health insurance coverage.

I am terribly disappointed that the expiring SCHIP funds were not retained in a timely manner, but am hopeful that under the leadership of both Senators Grassley and Baucus that we will quickly come to a resolution of this issue in which all the $1.1 billion in restored and retained for children's health. Furthermore, I am hopeful that a portion of that funding will be allocated to outreach and enrollment of children and for streamlining enrollment mechanisms into the program.

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.

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 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. 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. 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 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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Here we are again doing an extension. In the famous words of President Reagan, there you go again, doing another extension. But, frankly, you might just call this a no-fault divorce. We tried. The other body tried. The two parties in the other body tried. They could not come to a meeting of the minds. They could not come to a meeting of the minds with the White House. The only body that has its act together is this body. The only group that has its act together is this Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. We have worked shoulder to shoulder and, may I say, kneecap to kneecap across the table to fashion a bill that is good for America, to move transportation ahead, that would address congestion and safety and mobility of all things in America.

We introduced that bill a year ago at a time when gasoline prices were $1.34 a gallon. They are now consistently well over $2 a gallon all across the country and that 70-plus cents of increase in fuel price, about 60 percent of it, 70 percent of it, is going overseas to OPEC. We are not getting any transportation benefit of that increase in fuel price. Not a penny of that increase in fuel price is going to fill pot holes, build new bridges, improve safety on our highways, build more bicycle lanes.

Incidentally, I must say to the chairman of our committee and ranking member, I thank the ranking member of the subcommittee for managing this bill. It is his last hurrah, if you will, on the House floor in a management position. But I was out on my bicycle doing what I thought was going to be a 20-mile ride this morning, and I got the message that this bill was being called up. It seems the leadership over here just sort of all of a sudden decides in a big rush, this is the time to do this thing without any advance notice. That is not particularly useful. In fact, I was dodging pot holes, cursing the road conditions as most travelers are doing.

But we need to do this. I want to take this opportunity to express my great appreciation to the gentleman from Illinois for his 2-decade tenure in this House, for the partnership that we have had, on aviation, on surface transportation, on railroads, on water resource issues, everything that has affected this committee. He has really devoted his career to the work of this committee. The gentleman has absorbed the subject matter and made it a core of his service in the Congress. He has not only served his district well and his State well; he has served the Nation well. I salute the gentleman from Illinois on this, his last opportunity to manage a major transportation bill.

Perhaps there may be another opportunity. We never know. But it may be the last. One never knows what happens in this body. Winds blow. Conditions change. The barometer rises. The barometer falls. Something happens. It can all happen in the blink of an eye, and we could have a major bill back on the House floor yet before this Congress adjourns.

I regret, frankly, that we are here with an extension, that we are not here doing the TEA-LU bill that the chairman of the full committee and I and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) and our committee staff and members have worked so hard to fashion, because we know that at $375 billion, that is the level of investment America needs to move this country ahead, at a time when global mobility at home is a cornerstone of our global presence in international competition in the marketplace.

About 6 months ago, I visited China to speak at an aviation conference and traveled to the city of Laiwu, which is the home of a steel mill which is a part owner in an iron ore mine in my district. I traveled from Jinan 2 hours to Laiwu. Jinan is a city of 6 million people. Laiwu is a city of 1.2 million people. They have a six-lane divided, controlled-access superhighway connecting these two cities, the vanguard of the equivalent of our interstate highway system which China is planning to build in the next 15 years to invest well over $200 billion in improving their mobility, their ability to move goods to market and people to their destinations; and they are doing it with the savings of the Chinese people who have a savings rate of over 60 percent.

They are investing $200 billion in modernizing their ports, they are halfway through a $100 billion airport modernization plan, and we are sitting here, standing here, advancing the cause of transportation by taking the 6-year-old TEA-21 and moving it incrementally forward and saying, sorry, folks, this is the best we can do. That is not right. This committee knows what is right.

Members of this committee have worked hard. They understand transportation problems. They understand what America needs. They understand the needs of mobility. They understand the needs of safety and investment in America. Yet because of ideological

hard-and-fast positions by the White House and divisiveness over in the other body, we cannot move the agenda ahead.

I say, let us pass this bill. Let us inch forward. Let us come back after this Congress has concluded its business and into the next Congress and do the right thing for America. Make the right investments. Let us move America ahead in the way we know it needs to move, keep our mobility, keep our marketplace production and productivity and reduce the cost of moving people and goods in America.

Exactly 1 year ago today we ended an era: The era in which our Nation's transportation policy was governed by legislation establishing a multiyear plan with the funding needed to implement the plan.

During the past year, our national transportation policy has gone forward in fits and starts, by extensions of a month or two.

Just over a year ago, on September 24, 2003, when this House was considering the first surface transportation extension bill, I stated: ``I am afraid . . . we will be back here on this floor once again pleading for another extension of time to keep transportation programs from once again expiring. . . . I do not want to be back on this floor saying again what I said 6 years ago, time is running out.'' What I predicted then has repeatedly proven correct--we have had 5 additional extensions since that day. And here we are today pleading once again for a temporary extension of authorization for highway construction, highway safety, and public transportation funding.

Our inability to enact legislation to reauthorization surface transportation programs is caused by an administration guided by ideology rather than good transportation policy and by the unwillingness of the Republican leadership in Congress to let the people's branch of government work its will.

Analysis by the U.S. Department of Transportation shows that we need to invest $375 billion to maintain and improve our aging infrastructure. On November 19, 2003, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure introduced H.R. 3550, authorizing that same amount-- $375 billion for the highway, transit, and transportation safety programs for the next 6 years. The T&L Committee marked up that legislation and unanimously voted it favorably to the House, but the Republican leadership blocked its consideration because of objections from the administration to the funding level. But that funding level was derived from the administration's own analysis, and the bill, included proposals to fully fund the investments. Nevertheless, our committee was prevented from moving the bill through the legislative process.

That 1-year delay has been costly to our Nation. AASHTO, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, estimated when the first extension was about to expire early this year that failure to enact a long-term reauthorization would mean a $2.1 billion increase in project costs and a loss of more than 90,000 jobs that could have been created a long-term authorization bill.

Today, we continue our muddling through, debating on a measure that would temporarily extend funding authorization for another 8 months before the current extension expires at midnight. This is no way to do business, especially when we are dealing with costly, multiyear transportation projects that require long-term certainty in planning, development, and financing. I can only imagine what further damage we have now done, and at what new financial cost due to another year of inadequate funding levels.

The extension bill now before us provides some modest increase in the investment levels of a number of the highway and transit programs, other programs are less fortunate. Their funding is held constant at the FY 2003 levels. Moreover, the insistence on passing ``clean'' extension bills, Congress has not been able to modify or update current surface transportation programs and policies that are in need of such adjustment.

Overall, this bill would provide $24.5 billion in contract authority for the 8 months ending on May 31, 2005, for highway programs. This is based on $36.76 billion for the entire fiscal year 2005. Of these amounts, $21.3 billion for 8 months is guaranteed. For transit programs, this bill would provide $5.17 billion guaranteed funding for 8 months.

Despite the fact that the funding levels included in our original bill were derived from the Department of Transportation's highway and transit needs report, the administration has strongly opposed additional infrastructure investment. The President's budget to Congress flat-lined the highway and transit programs. The President's bill did not include one additional dollar for highway and transit investment, nor would it produce one additional job in the transportation construction sector, over the next 6 years.

But what's worse is the mess we have created in the last year. The lack of vision, the lack of a clear plan, the continual struggle to give States scraps from the table. We should do better.