Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4) to reauthorize and improve the program of block grants to States for temporary assistance for needy families, improve access to quality child care, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act of 2003. This bill does a number of things that are very important to the Committee on Energy and Commerce that I chair. It contains an extension of

funding for the abstinence-only education, and also reauthorizes transitional medical assistance, and I want to speak to both of these issues briefly.

The 1996 welfare reform law included a permanent appropriation of $50 million over 5 years for abstinence-only education under title V of the Social Security Act. With tight State budgets and a requirement that States must match every 4 Federal dollars with 3 of their own, it is noteworthy that almost every State in the Union has now participated in this block grant program. The high rate of State interest suggests that abstinence-only education is indeed one of the ways to address the terrible problems of teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases in our society.

Last year, my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), the chairman of our Subcommittee on Health, held a hearing on abstinence-only education. It was an eye opener.

At that hearing we learned that problems stemming from increased sexual activity among teens has not abated at all in this country. Even though teen birth rates have declined, we still have the highest teen birth rates of any industrialized nation in the world, and sexually transmitted diseases have grown dramatically. Every day in America, 10,000 young people contract a sexually transmitted disease, 2,400 become pregnant, and 55 contract HIV.

When we were growing up in the 1960s, there were really only two sexually transmitted diseases that were of a real concern. Now we are aware of more than 25, and the diseases that are primarily affecting young people today are now the viral diseases, such as human papillomavirus, herpes and chlamydia.

Mr. Chairman, these viral diseases cannot be cured. They are incurable sexually transmitted diseases. Chlamydia, for example, a major cause of infertility in young women, is asymptomatic in up to 85 percent of the cases. That means for 85 percent of the young women contracting this sexually transmitted disease, which is incurable, they may lose their opportunity ever to bear a child, ever to become a mother, ever to experience the joys and the tremendous rewards of motherhood.

One of the other things we learned was that 50 percent of the sexually active young women between the ages of 18 and 22 are now infected with the papillomavirus, or HPV. Now, this is a virus, again we learn, that most young women do not realize they have, because again it is asymptomatic in most cases. But what we have learned about it is that it is a precursor, it is one of the incurable diseases that often leads to cervical cancer. And guess what else we learned? We learned that there is no evidence whatsoever that condoms reduce the sexual transmission of this infection.

These statistics are terrifying. But they show that the safer sex model has not solved all of these problems despite more than 20 years of a variety of education programs aimed at promoting condom or contraception use.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues, for the sake of these young men and women in our society who are being infected by these incurable diseases, many of which will cause them incredible damage in their lives, and they are not aware, that we extend the abstinence-only education programs under H.R. 4. H.R. 4 simply maintains the status quo, extends the level of funding of $50 million each year through the year 2008.

New research is beginning to suggest that abstinence-only education can effectively address the prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases among young people and the proportion of births occurring to unmarried mothers. We must continue indeed that effort begun in 1996 and support abstinence-only education programs that empower students to choose abstinence for themselves, while receiving the relevant facts and information that would make them want to make that choice.

The 1996 welfare reform law also included a critical work support for former welfare recipients called transitional medical assistance.

Former welfare recipients typically enter low-wage jobs that do not offer private health insurance coverage or offer coverage with very expensive premiums. Transitional medical assistance extends up to a year of Medicaid coverage to these individuals and their families. This is the bridge of health care coverage that helps take young people out of welfare and into the workforce with adequate medical coverage in the bridge years.

There is strong bipartisan support for this assistance, which provides a valuable incentive for people to move off of welfare into work, and this 1 year reauthorization of transitional medical assistance will have a 5-year cost of $355 million.

Because funding was not included, Mr. Chairman, in the last year's budget resolution, we had to find the money to pay for it, so H.R. 4 includes a limited offset to do so.

We recognize the Medicaid budget difficulties many States are currently experiencing and important functions that are funded with Medicaid administrative costs, and for that reason, the offset included in H.R. 4 is merely a partial adjustment that lasts for only 2 years and pays for the 1-year extension of this important program.

Before 1996, common costs for administering food stamps, Medicaid and welfare were often charged to the AFDC program, the predecessor of the TANF program. These common costs have been included in the calculation of each State's TANF funds. The offset reduces Federal reimbursement for Medicaid administrative costs to reflect the portion of these costs that are already included in the TANF block grants the States receive.

In effect, this offset for the 2-year period deals with a problem we already corrected in the food stamp program in 1998, this double reimbursement for administrative costs. This is a partial adjustment that lasts for only 2 years and then phases out.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 4, which indeed responsibly pays for the 1-year reauthorization of transitional medical assistance. I know there are many in this room who would like us to extend it for longer than a year. We simply have problems funding it in this bill at this time.

We recognize the careful balance we have achieved between the offset and this 1-year reauthorization, and commit ourselves to revisiting the issue again next year so that this important program can be continued.

I urge Members to join me in full support of this important legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Florida (Mr. Stearns), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the great State of Michigan (Mr. Upton), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, welfare reform passed by this Congress, signed so reluctantly by Bill Clinton, has been an unmitigated success. It was built on one premise. You do not love people by condemning them to a lifetime of poverty and dependence. You love them by giving them a chance for independence and self-dignity.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) who will close for this side.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to talk about the bill. I am going to talk about

the process, because that is what is really wrong with what happened here.

When we organized the Committee on Ways and Means, I asked the chairman in open committee whether we would have hearings on this bill. The chairman said that is what he wanted. But it is pretty clear that this House is being run by a politburo run by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).

The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) obviously told the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, which is supposed to be the most powerful committee in Congress, you cannot have hearings on this; we are dealing with this on the floor without any discussion, no debates.

Now, if this were a good rule and you made it an open rule and let us put any amendments forward we wanted to, if we could have the debate out here in public, that would be okay. But you closed that off, as well as having any kind of public discussion in the committee system.

Now, this Congress, I am sure, is going to do more and more of that, because it is clear what you are trying to do is run stuff through here so quickly that we will be out of town when some war begins, and there will not be any Members of Congress around here. You will have done all the business, you will not have any hearings anyplace, and you will simply pass the legislation over to the Senate and go home. That is a travesty on the process that has been in place in this country for 200 years.

This is not a minor little bill. This is not ``shall we name the post office in Oologah, Oklahoma, after Will Rogers?'' This is about what we do with the poor people of this country. And for Members elected not to have an opportunity to debate amendments and discuss the issue, I know what they are going to say when we get out here with the regular bill; they are going to say we did it last year.

Listen, things have continued down the drain. We have got higher and higher unemployment, and more and more of us are facing problems in State legislatures that cannot respond to this.

The President has made no proposal to deal with the problems of the States in dealing with people who are on welfare, who are in trouble, kids. The President says, ``Leave no child behind.'' Well, I guess he means they can go to school on an empty stomach. That is okay with him. Okay, that is good. But why not have a kid with a stomach with some food in it so he can pay attention to the books?

But if we had this debate and we had all these amendments put out here and we argued about whether you could actually get 30 hours of work, or should you count training or whatever, all those issues would then make it very clear what you are doing to poor people. You do not care whether they have a livable wage; just shove them off the rolls and leave them out there. And when we start to get the kids, we are going to get the kids from the programs in every State that deal with child abuse. People are going to say, these parents are not taking care of these children. We have to take those children away from them.

It will be created by a bill that never had a hearing. Shame on the Republican leadership.

Mr. Chairman, my remarks should not be taken as any kind of a statement about the Committee on Ways and Means, because we had nothing to do with this. But I remember the verse in the Bible where they were asking Christ how you would know if you were really a good Christian, and he said, well, it is how you take care of the least of these, meaning the poor people and the sick and all of the rest. This bill is an absolute travesty. Nobody wants to talk about it.

Now, let me tell my colleagues what Republicans say. Mark Schweiker, the

former Republican Governor of Pennsylvania said, ``Meeting the work requirements in the House bill would require us to dismantle much of our time-tested and effective welfare program and replace it with costly programs with little utility. These changes, including significant new child care costs, would cost the taxpayers of Pennsylvania more than $300 million.'' That is a Republican Governor talking.

Or we could take the Republican Senate chairman in Iowa. Her name is Mary Cramer. She said, ``We are concerned that the proposals such as the legislation passed by the House will restrict Iowa's successful efforts to provide training to welfare recipients and meet the needs of local businesses. We urge you not to take a step backwards and further restrict education and training options.''

I could go on like this. Anybody outside the Beltway, outside of the office of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), knows that this bill is not going to make it better; it is going to make it worse.

Now, I have a whole long list of things. The GOP will say today that welfare reform has been a great success. If that is, why have 41 out of the 47 States said, the Republican plan would force fundamental change in their current welfare program? Why are we changing it if it is not broken? What is the point? The point is to squeeze poor people.

We heard earlier that child poverty has fallen dramatically because of welfare reform. No, that is not what everyone else who is an economist says. It is a good economy, and it has been the earned income tax credit, and we still are forcing families, with a family of three living on $2,500 a quarter. Now, that is 70 percent of the Federal poverty line. We call that success? That is what we are being led to believe out here, that we have a success and we ought to squeeze them more. They got too much. That family of three with $10,000 for a year ought to be squeezed some more.

We will also hear, and we did hear, that this bill gives more flexibility because we allow States to define 16 of the 40 required work hours in the bill. This bill increases the current law direct-work requirement from 20 to 24 hours and eliminates job search. Looking for a job does not count anymore; you only get credit for working. So if you have a job making $6 an hour and you spend a little bit of time out looking for a job, you do not get any credit whatsoever for that.

The CBO estimates that the paperwork involved in this is going to be a cost of $6.2 billion over the next 5 years. So we will pay for $6.2 billion worth of paperwork; but we will not think about the people, because we need to pass the committee, we need to get it right out here and get it passed because TANF expired on March 31. What they did not say when they came out on the floor was, the Senate Republicans included a 6-month extension of the current law through September 30 in the Omnibus Appropriation Act we are about to take on.

Now, that extension is supported by the National Governors Conference, so Republican legislators are going out and sticking their thumb in the eye of Republican Governors.

Now, if the House negotiators would withdraw their objections to that extension, we would have plenty of time for thoughtful consideration of their program. We would have the next 6 months to think about it. The thing I really like best is, we had plenty of debate last year so we do not need to debate it this year, as though, if you discussed it in 1941, it is good enough; we do not need to discuss it again, right?

Well, do things change? Did we have a new Congress elected in November? We have got new people here. Some of these people have never, ever considered these issues, a lot of them. There has been no public debate whatsoever, and we passed last year's bill on a party line vote, and no attempt was made to work it out with the minority then. This is more of the same. This is just rubber-stamping George Bush's proposals, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) leads the politburo, and he keeps sending things up here.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4, and I do so with extreme disappointment today.

As one that worked awfully hard in 1996 with both sides of the aisle in coming up with a welfare reform bill, working with my own State, working with the providers of welfare, working with the recipients of welfare, working with the business community, we came up with a good compromise bill.

Now, I am disappointed that we are taking the same bill that was passed last year, without legislative input, and bringing the same bill up today without committee action and the nonrecognition that the economy has changed since last year.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4 would severely restrict the flexibility of States such as Texas to continue the activities that have been successful in their welfare reform bills. According to CBO, it will cost Texas $688 million over 5 years to pay for the Washington-mandated policies in this bill. Texas cannot afford these enormous expenses at the same time that we face a $9.9 billion budget shortfall and a sagging economy that continues to reduce State revenue. This will force Texas to drastically cut back on basic services or raise taxes, and they are not going to do that. It would be the height of arrogance for me to stand here in Washington and vote to require Texas to increase taxes or cut spending on other programs to implement policies that the Texas legislature has already considered and rejected in favor of other policies which have been proven to work.

Vote down H.R. 4; support the Cardin substitute. It will be much better for the State of Texas and other States.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this tax and spend bill before us today. This bill will force States to increase taxes to pay for the increased spending necessary to meet the costs of the bill's unfunded mandates.

The Republican bill would impose mandates that would force States to change their existing welfare programs. Welfare reform has been a success in Texas and across the country in large part because of the State flexibility. I do not understand why the majority wants to force States to scrap the programs that have produced this success in order to comply with a Washington-knows-best approach. The States and folks at the local level know what works and what doesn't work in their local communities. They do not need Washington telling them how to run things.

According to a survey conducted by the National Governor's Association, 41 out of 47 States who responded would have to significantly alter their welfare program in order to comply with the requirements of the bill. This will require a costly redirection of resources. States will have to dismantle effective programs that have met the individual needs of their citizens.

For example, Texas's program helped them achieve a 61 percent reduction in welfare recipients since 1996. The Texas welfare program establishes time-limited benefits and requires welfare recipients to participate in work activities. The Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) oversees the Choices employment program, as well as child care, through a system of 28 local workforce development boards. The Department of Human Service is responsible for client eligibility determinations.

If the bill proposed by the majority passes, Texas will have to dismantle this successful program. They would have to drastically scale back its vocational education program which has been successful in matching welfare recipients with business needs, and implement a subsidized wage program that the State previously rejected as being ineffective. Texas would have to end its current practice of levying a reduction in cash benefits in order to comply with the mandate that States terminate assistance completely for families out of compliance with work requirement.

The Republican plan proposes radical waivers and block grant options what would affect the basic structure of the Food Stamp Program. It puts at risk the Program's effectiveness as a work support for families leaving cash assistance, ignores the considerable flexibility States currently have to run the program, and would undermine essential protections for the program's vulnerable clients. Congress instead should maintain the Food Stamp Program structure affirmed in last year's bipartisan farm bill reauthorization.

The Republican bill would create an unfunded mandate of $8 billion over 5 years according to the Congressional Budget Office to meet the work requirements in the bill. CBO estimated that if States actually meet the 40 hour work requirement with meaningful, structured requirements instead of self-reported activities, the unfunded mandate would increase to $11 billion. For Texas, the equates to a sum of up to $668 million over 5 years. Texas cannot absorb these costs. Faced with a $9.9 billion budget shortfall, and now a sagging economy that continues to reduce state revenue, the State will have no other option than to explore alternative ways to fund the government. This will mean cutting back on basic services or raising taxes.

In would be the height of arrogance for me to stand here in Washington and vote to require Texas to increase taxes or cut spending on other programs to implement policies that the Texas legislature has already considered and rejected in favor of other policies which have been proven to work. Many other States will face the same problem, as they face an $85 billion combined budget shortfall.

Republicans do not often like the term ``unfunded mandate'' because States would have the option of terminating current, nonmandatory services like child care to working families to cover the additional costs, rather than

spending new State dollars. However, child care is a necessary component of a welfare-to-work program, and terminating these programs are not a real option for States who want to help working families afford child care.

The Democratic substitute increases funding to States for child care assistance to match the CBO estimate of increased child care costs resulting from the work requirements in the Democratic substitute. The Democratic bill provides an additional $11 billion for mandatory child care over 5 years.

The Democratic plan focuses on moving welfare recipients into work and keeping them employed. The majority talks about their bill being tougher on work because of the 40 hour work requirement, but the reality is that 16 hours of that work is in unsupervised, unstructured activities that are not defined and could include helping children with homework or other self-reported activities. On the core work requirements, the Democratic substitute matches the Republican bill with 24 hours of work. More importantly, the Democratic substitute provides a credit for moving welfare recipients into employment, whereas the Republican bill allows States to reduce the work participation requirements simply by reducing the caseload for any reason.

The Democratic plan aims to equip welfare recipients with the knowledge and skills necessary to escape from poverty and welfare, and into a paying job, while the Republican bill does not. The Democratic plan allows for education and training to count toward the participation rate for up to 24 months, while the Republican plan limits them to 4 months. Republican plan eliminates vocational education from the list of work-related activities that count toward the State's participation rate--for the first 24 hours a week.

If you want States to be able to continue succeeding at the necessary job of helping folks get back to work, vote no on H.R. 4.

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

This important legislation before us today, H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility Work and Family Promotion Act of 2003, builds on the many successes of the historic 1996 welfare reform law. H.R. 4 will help even more people transition from welfare to work and know the dignity of collecting a paycheck instead of a welfare check.

As my colleagues may recall, before 1996 the Nation's welfare program actually encouraged dependence with recipients staying on the rolls for an average of 13 years. The program discouraged work, and caseloads reached record levels with some 5 million families and 14 million recipients dependent on benefits by 1994.

Since the 1996 changes, work has increased, incomes are higher, child poverty has been reduced, and families are more self-reliant. Welfare caseloads are down more than 50 percent and have continued to decline even over the past 2 years as unemployment rates have risen. Nearly 3 million children have been lifted from poverty, and poverty rates for African American children and families headed by single mothers have reached all-time lows.

We must continue to build on this record of success. We can do that by passing H.R. 4. This legislation fulfills the President's call to further improve the welfare system by encouraging even more welfare recipients to work. It would protect children and strengthen families by promoting healthy marriages, and it would allow States increased flexibility in operating their welfare programs.

The welfare program needs our immediate attention since it has been on life support since October 1 of 2002. Permanent reauthorization of this program is vitally important to States and the families and individuals this program serves.

I urge all Members to vote in support of H.R. 4.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, just to respond, it is important that we move now. We had more than 20 hearings on this legislation last year. The legislation actually expired September 30 of 2002. We are now 6 months on life support.

The gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) mentioned that the reason the welfare rolls have dropped is because of prosperity. I would remind the gentleman that we are in a recession now. And even though we are in a recession, the welfare rolls, even since 2000, have dropped some 7 percent.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind my good friend from California, who is talking about Christian programs and how much poverty is affected by our current welfare bill and the new one, our own State of California poverty rates by the latest Census have gone down since the 1996 bill by 1,031,000.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the original chairman of the committee that put out the 1996 welfare reform.

Mr. Chairman, I yield three minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).

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

I would like, just in response to the gentleman from Maryland, the CBO has indicated that there will not be any unfunded mandates. I have a letter in front of me. Because of the broad flexibility afforded States under the TANF program to structure the program and determine benefits, the new requirements of H.R. 4 would not be intergovernmental mandates.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), a key player in welfare reform on the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), another important member of our Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Chairman, do I have the right to close?

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to my friend from Texas that when we started welfare reform back in 1996, the average amount of money that was available for each family was slightly less than $7,000. Today, that amount, because we block granted it, the average amount that is available for each family today is about $16,000. More than double. Also in this bill we have $2 billion that is for additional child care.

And just to the State of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), that will amount to some $370 million of additional child care, just for the State of Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), a key member of our Subcommittee on Human Resources.

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

Sometimes, when I listen to the debate on the other side, I wonder if we are talking about the same legislation. We are seeing in the area of child care some $2 billion more that is being placed into this legislation than was in the 1996 bill.

Again, since we keep hearing about unfunded mandates, I again have a letter in front of me from the Congressional Budget Office indicating that there are no unfunded State mandates.

But let us go over the incredible successes of the 1996 bill and where we go here in our new legislation. Child poverty has fallen since 1996 by nearly 3 million children who have been lifted up out of poverty. The black child poverty rate is now at a record low. More parents are working today than ever before in welfare. Employment by mothers most likely to go on welfare rose by 40 percent between 1995 and 2000. Dependents fell by unprecedented levels. Welfare caseloads fell by 9 million during this period of time, from 14 million recipients in 1994 to just 5 million today. Yet there is much that needs to be done.

Even though we have more people working than before, there are still 58 percent of recipients who are not working or who are not receiving training or who are not involved at all. Too many families are breaking up. It is tough enough to raise children with two parents, let alone just one. We still have 2 million families that remain dependent on welfare that we want to address.

What our new legislation would do is that we allow for more parents to be able to work and, therefore, be able to receive benefits. States will continue to receive the record Federal welfare and child care funds, despite since 1995, a nearly 60 percent reduction in rates. This means that average allotment per family will go from less than $7,000 in 1995 to some $16,000 today. And there are funds in here to help encourage and to help give counseling to encourage that every child has two parents at home. So we recognize this.

Again, of all the legislation that I have been involved with in 16 years, I feel this has been the most successful. And what we are doing in this current legislation, H.R. 4, is building on these incredible successes of the last 5 years and continuing them.

I urge the strong, overwhelming support of this body on H.R. 4.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I have a statement which I will submit, Mr. Chairman, for the record.

I would just like to say that I am in very strong support of this legislation. Welfare reform goes back a long time in this country, well before Congress actually got too involved in it. It goes back to the States in the 1980s in which a number of States came forward and said they could do something about welfare reform. Finally, in the Family Support Act of 1988, the Federal Government got involved.

Again, in 1996, we passed welfare reform legislation. We debated it last year and passed a bill, and now here we are again on the floor. Virtually every time we have done this, every single time, the opposition to it has gotten up and said, We can't do this. It's impossible. You can't get this much out of people. You can't get blood out of a stone.

This is a human issue. If you go back into the jurisdictions where we all live and you see what they have done with welfare reform, if you see the opportunities that we have given to people who in many instances now are living middle-class lives because of a middle-class income, you see the real circumstances of what we can do to help people. There has been no social program that has uplifted people more in this country in a true sense of giving them an opportunity as America allows you to have as has welfare reform.

This legislation continues a lot of the support systems which are necessary, including the educational components, the day care components, the transportation components in the things that have to be done.

I too believe that we need to refine this somewhat. I am a little concerned about the transitional medical assistance in terms of Medicaid continuations. I do worry about transportation. We all worry about day care a little bit.

I think there needs to be sufficient flexibility at the State and local levels to carry out what needs to be done in welfare reform, but I believe this legislation has the basic parameters which will allow this to happen, and I believe this is the next extension of what we have to do in the Congress to allow the States across America to continue their welfare reform programs.

I, for one, believe it can be done. I grant you, the economy is not what I would like to see either, but I believe that it can be done sufficiently to help a lot of people, and then you will see all of those people whom I have seen who will say, Thank you for giving me the opportunity; I am able to help my family now.

I support the legislation. I hope we all can support the legislation.

The 1996 welfare reform law replaced a broken system with one of the most successful government programs in recent history.

As Governor, I promoted work as the ladder to opportunity. Former recipients told me that they needed help breaking away from welfare dependency, but once they found their place in the workforce, they were able to create better lives for their families.

For that reason, I was proud to make work the foundation of the 1996 reform. Today, national data confirms our success. Caseloads are down. Household incomes are up.

Welfare recipients now appreciate the value of work. We provide time and assistance, but understand that welfare cannot be an open-ended entitlement--or a way of life. We help those on assistance, but do not allow them to become passive dependents on the welfare system.

Today's legislation strengthens and embraces these goals.

In particular, H.R. 4 recognizes the education needs of children and includes my language to increase funding for quality initiatives, such as teacher training. H.R. 4 also provides historic funding levels for child care. Both mandatory and discretionary programs, now appropriated at $4.8 billion, will grow by $2 billion.

Yet, these programs are only part of a larger picture. States spend TANF grants on child care--either directly or through funding transfers. And Congress supports child care through other programs like Head Start. Recent estimates show that annual child care funding exceeds $18 billion--a significant investment, by any measure.

This bill also contains language from a bill I introduced, ``The Child Support Fairness and Tax Refund Intercept Act,'' to help custodial spouses collect past due child support even if their child is no longer a minor. A Wilmington, Delaware woman, Lisa McCave, was owed several thousands of dollars in past due child support. The Federal Government discovered that the father was about to receive several thousand dollars in a tax refund. However, because her son was no longer a minor, the IRS could not intercept that money for her. She had to work two jobs to raise her son and put him through college, while he waited out the clock until his son was no longer a minor so he could enjoy his tax refund. Thanks to Lisa McCave's willingness to step forward and ask for justice, millions of parents in the future will be able to intercept tax returns to pay the child support owed them, even if their child is no longer a minor.

With all the improvements to our welfare system contained in this bill, I believe there are a few issues we should continue to review. I appreciate the one year extension of Transitional Medical Assistance, a program that provides continued health coverage for former welfare recipients, but I hope we can extend and simplify this authorization for five years as the President's FY 04 budget recommends--and do so in a way that does not effect Medicaid administrative funds. I have introduced legislation with Congressman Levin to extend this valuable program, and I look forward to working with the Senate and the President to accomplish this goal.

Also, it is my hope that we can reinstate the state flexibility provisions and give our Governors the ability to find innovative ways to meet and exceed the goals of this legislation. State waivers were critical to Delaware's success in the past and they are critical to our continued success in the future.

Finally, education is important to reducing unplanned pregnancies and achieving independence for working men and women. Abstinence education is an important part of this effort. Yet, the language in H.R. 4 provides an overly simple solution to a complex problem. In my opinion, we cannot restrict access to basic health information if we are to promote responsibility.

In conclusion, I support H.R. 4--the beginning of our efforts this year to create the next generation of welfare success stories.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. Before I begin, I cannot help but think of one of Thomas Jefferson's great lines, the author of our Declaration of Independence. I have got to sort of extrapolate from that when Thomas Jefferson said two thinking men, and in this case it is two women, but he said, ``Two thinking men can be given the exact same set of facts and draw different conclusions.''

Mr. Speaker, I sat and listened to the very eloquent remarks by my good friend from Ohio, the author of this legislation who chairs our Republican Conference, and I listened to the equally eloquent remarks from my friend from the 28th District of New York who just entered that editorial in the Record, and I said that just to let her know I was listening very, very carefully.

It is to me very difficult to believe that we are talking about the same piece of legislation and the same kind of program. We obviously in this country are faced with serious economic challenges. There are people who are hurting out there. We know that. But as I listened to the reports of the failure of welfare reform, I am reminded that it was a bipartisan piece of legislation. I say it was bipartisan because clearly at the end of the day, after two tries, on the third, President Clinton proudly signed and embraced welfare reform in 1996.

We enjoyed strong economic growth through the 1990s. Many people tried to make the claim that the only reason we saw the success of welfare reform is that we were dealing with a strong, vibrant, growing economy; when in fact I looked at and talked with the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), the chairman of the subcommittee on Ways and Means that deals with this, and he pointed out that during the 1980s, when we saw an equally strong economy, we witnessed a 25 percent increase in the numbers on the welfare rolls.

We saw strong, bold economic growth during the Reagan years, as we know, yet the numbers of people getting into what my friend from Ohio appropriately described as that generational cycle of dependence continued to grow more and more. And then during the 1990s we again saw strong economic growth, but at the same time we saw implementation of the welfare reform legislation and we have seen tremendous improvement.

We all know that an economic downturn began in the third and fourth quarters of the year 2000. We also know that we suffered tremendously from the tragedy of September 11, 2001. What we found, Mr. Speaker, was that during that period of time, we obviously witnessed a recession. We saw two quarters of negative economic growth. That was last year.

But then the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) reported to us that even during that period of time, we saw a 10 percent reduction in the numbers on welfare, meaning that we have been able to very boldly encourage and move people out of that generational cycle of dependence.

If we look at this measure and the steps that are being taken to ensure that those who are truly in need are not going to be suffering, it is very, very impressive. We obviously provide a caveat which allows those parents with children who are in need an opportunity to have consideration for that. We allow in this measure an opportunity for those who are suffering from drug addiction to have an opportunity to deal with that need. We clearly are providing States with flexibility. That is something they said they needed. In my State of California, we have extraordinary extremes from one end to the other. So to provide that opportunity for flexibility is very important.

As we look at the structure of the rule for consideration of this, I am somewhat struck with the arguments that were made by my friend from New York. She said that they advocated an open rule, and it is true that an open rule was moved up in the Committee on Rules last night when we pursued this bill; and if an open rule had been made in order, these very thoughtful substitutes, one of which has come forward from the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), my very good friend, and I am happy he is offering it in the name of our late former colleague, Patsy Mink, from Hawaii, and the other substitute which was made in order under this rule is being offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. I said when I announced that we would be considering this measure that we lean towards making substitutes in order, and we have provided waivers and protections so that those substitutes are, in fact, in order. So that is why we clearly should have, I believe, strong bipartisan support for this rule.

Mr. Speaker, we have had story after story told of the families who may not be making as much money today while they are working as they were when they were receiving welfare, and yet they have a level of dignity and pride in what it is that they are doing that makes them happier and more fulfilled. We obviously want to ensure that they have an opportunity to make many times, many times what they were making when they were on welfare and we believe that if we can put into place President Bush's program for economic

growth, we can get this economy going so that we can take this number that we have today which was at one point 12 million and because of the success of welfare reform has dropped down to 5 million; and we can, I believe, bring that number even lower.

People talk about compassionate government and the fact that we need, as we look at legislation like this, to demonstrate compassion. And I would remind my colleagues of something that is oft said and that is the level of compassion of the government should not be based on the number of people who are on welfare, but instead on the number of people who do not need to be on welfare. And that is really what we are trying to do with this legislation; and I hope very much that we can move ahead, pass this rule, make sure that we consider these substitutes, which I believe are very well intentioned but need to be defeated, and then pass this very important legislation that the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) has offered to us.

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

Mr. Speaker, this Congress is starting off on the wrong foot. Welfare reauthorization reform is an important issue. It affects the lives of millions of people, and it deserves thoughtful and careful deliberation. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the majority does not agree. The course of those millions of lives will now be determined by a handful of Republican leaders and their staffers, nobody else. That is just wrong and it is not how a democratic body is supposed to function. Welfare reauthorization is important, but the legislative process is important too. And it should not be simply tossed away like yesterday's newspaper.

In addition to trying to finish last year's work today halfway through February, this body is now abandoning the committee system that has served this House for over 200 years. Sure the majority has allowed for two substitutes, and I suppose we should be very grateful; but let me remind my colleagues that this bill was referred to five committees. How many of those committees held a hearing on this bill in the 108th Congress? Zero. How many of those committees marked up this bill? Zero. Over 50 new Members of this body, Republican and Democrat, were denied the opportunity to shape this debate. Do their views not matter? Do we not want their input and their expertise? Could we not have scheduled hearings and markups during these last few weeks when our own schedule here in this Congress has been virtually nonexistent? And I should also add, Mr. Speaker, that the omnibus appropriations bill that we are going to deal with later today includes language that will extend the current welfare program until September of this year. I believe that that gives us ample time to do this right, to let the committees work their will.

Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce testified on this bill yesterday before the Committee on Rules, and in the process he said that he is a fan of the committee system. It is too bad his leadership does not agree with him. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that the committee work matters, that Members who serve in this House matter, that the people of this country matter, and this is not the way for us to do the people's business.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the Kucinich-Lee-McGovern-Lantos substitute and remind my colleagues that welfare reform is about lifting people out of poverty.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kucinich-Lee-McGovern-Lantos amendment. This amendment, dedicated to the late Congresswoman Patsy Mink, is a strong substitute that will change the course of welfare as we know it, and, in the process, help millions of Americans leave welfare for good.

The 1996 welfare reform bill did what it was designed to do--trim the welfare rolls. Low-income people who received cash assistance left welfare because they were able to find jobs and because the economy was good.

Others left welfare because their benefits expired. But the goal of trimming the welfare rolls was reached, allowing some to claim welfare reform has been fully successful.

But I believe this law should do more than just trim the welfare rolls. The goal of the welfare program should be to help low-income individuals achieve true self-sufficiency. Welfare should enable low- income individuals and families to pursue the training and education they need to get good jobs so they can leave public assistance permanently and provide economic security for their families.

The Kucinich-Lee-McGovern-Lantos amendment will achieve this goal.

Look at the details. The extra $2 billion for child care included in the Republican bill is simply not enough to provide for adequate child care for parents. Our amendment would provide $20 billion more for child care--an increase of $18 billion over the Republican proposal.

Additionally, the current work requirements would be maintained, so people could continue to receive assistance while they train for a job that will keep them off welfare. And under this substitute, legal immigrants--people who pay taxes and fight in our armed forces--would be eligible for help.

This body has the moral obligation to provide a safety net for the people of this country who need one. We cannot forget about the low- income people in this country, especially in this time of economic uncertainty.

States across the country are facing record budget deficits, and in the process are slashing programs like Medicaid and other social services. Now, more than ever, the Federal Government must provide for those people who need help.

Members of this body only have to look to the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Woolsey, to see what happens when a mother on welfare can get the child care she needs. Yesterday, Ms. Woolsey testified before the Rules Committee.

She told the Committee that she wouldn't be here today as a member of this House if it weren't for welfare and for her mother, who took care of her children while she was working.

The gentlewoman from California made the point that people on welfare--women in particular--will not be able to focus on job training and, ultimately, self-sufficiency, if they can't find safe, affordable places for their kids. Ms. Woolsey was able to concentrate on her job, move off welfare and become a successful, self-sufficient woman. We can duplicate her success story with the passage of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, nobody wants to be on welfare. People want to earn a paycheck, not a welfare check. but we have a moral responsibility to help people move off of welfare into productive work.

Our substitute does just that.

I urge my colleagues to support our effort to change the goal of this program to one of self-sufficiency. It's the right thing to do.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Democratic substitute to H.R. 4, which reauthorizes welfare reform. H.R. 4 is a step in the wrong direction. It replaces State flexibility with unfunded mandates, it promotes make-work at the expense of wage-paying employment, and does nothing to help families escape poverty when they leave welfare for work. I worked closely, however, with representatives Cardin, and Woolsay, in crafting a Democratic substitute that better assists the States in moving families from welfare to work and I am pleased to be a lead sponsor of this legislation.

Furthermore, as co-chair of the New Democratic Coalition, I am satisfied that our substitute incorporated many of the new Democrats' suggestions based on the principle of ``work first.''

The successful welfare legislation passed in 1996 was one of the signature New Democrat initiatives and succeeded where previous attempts to reform welfare failed.

Welfare reform, however, now faces its stiffest test since its enactment. The roaring 90's--the decade during which more than 22 million new jobs were created--are long gone. Our economy today is stagnating. The unemployment rate and welfare rolls are up. An estimated 8.6 million Americans are out of work, including 166,000 in my home State Wisconsin.

Adding insult to injury, the States, which took responsibility under the 1996 law for administering assistance programs, are in the grips of their worst fiscal crisis in 50 years. They are being forced to cut back services--services that provided critical supports for welfare recipients and the working poor and, as many recipients reach the five- year benefits limit, States increasingly will find themselves providing very basic supports for their citizens through food programs and homeless shelters.

Unfortunately, our changing economic fortune has not stopped the House leadership from pushing welfare reform legislation that fails to help those who are struggling to make end meets and imposes even more unfunded mandates on the States.

The GOP plan, for example, would drastically increase the number of house that mothers with young children will be required to work, without a corresponding increase in child care funds. In fact, House leadership would freeze funding for welfare and child care at current levels, even though the Congressional Budget Office estimates that implementing the new work requirements will cost the States an additional $8 billion to $11 billion over five years. In Wisconsin alone, this would add another $89 million to our State's projected $3.2 billion budget deficit.

Thus, the Democratic substitute is a better alternative that places welfare recipients on the path to independence from public assistance by preparing them for good paying, private-sector jobs. Our alternative reform provides the States with flexibility and freedom to be innovative in moving families from welfare to work and empowering individuals to become self-sufficient.

Currently, the most promising State programs that help welfare recipients obtain and advance in a job, combine a ``work first'' approach with supplements training and education. Our plan helps these States by providing employment credits and allowing them to count education and training towards their participation rate for up to 24 months. Finally, our plan combines heightened work requirements with an addition $2.2 billion per year in childcare funding to ensure that families transitioning off of welfare can afford to work.

In addition to the Democratic Substitute, I offered two amendments during Rules Committee yesterday, which, unfortunately, were not accepted by the House leadership and were kept from being debated on the floor today.

The first amendment was an employment credit that I offered with Congressman Levin. Currently, States have the option of taking advantage of the caseload reduction credit that rewards States with credit against its participation rate just for moving people off welfare. Our amendment, however, would have replaced the caseload reduction credit with an employment credit, thus, rewarding States for moving people into jobs, with a bonus for moving them into high paying jobs. Last year, even the Administration's plan eliminated the caseload reduction credit and replaced it with its own employment credit.

The second amendment I offered gave States incentives to put fathers to work. It rewarded States with a credit towards its worker participation rate if they worked with fathers to increase their employment and pay child support. While very little research exists about marriage and its direct benefit to children, substantial research shows a working father most effectively improves children's emotional and financial well-being.

Again, I am pleased to have sponsored the Democratic substitute with Representatives Cardin and Woolsey. Our alternative is a step forward in the right direction. Today, while facing a stagnant economy coupled with unprecedented budget deficits, our welfare reform legislation ensures that families are strengthened, companies well served, and individual futures improved. By building on our past success, we can continue to help millions of Americans once and for all gain a foothold on the first rung of the career ladder.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 4 and support the Democratic substitute offered by Representatives Cardin, Woolsey and myself. Finally, I regret that this legislation was pushed through the House so quickly without any consideration from the committees of jurisdiction. Acting with such haste completely ignored the process and shut out all our new Members. Such an important issue should have received more thought and consideration.