Welfare Reform Extension Act of 2004

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

Madam Speaker, I rise also in support of this legislation, which would extend the TANF and related programs for 3 additional months. It is important that these programs continue uninterrupted. They provide the wherewithal that our States can deal with some very vulnerable populations and help people restore their lives and help people be able to work. The bill is important, the program is important, and we need to pass it. It also provides for the extension of transitional Medicaid which provides health care benefits to people who are coming off welfare. These are important programs that need to continue uninterrupted.

Madam Speaker, I share the disappointment of the gentleman from California that we are not considering a long-term extension of TANF and related programs. I think we need to do that. However, I disagree with my chairman as to the reason why we have been unable to do that. In the other body, they are now working on a bill, and I hope they are successful in bringing forward legislation. They are working, Democrats and Republicans, to try to produce a good bill. I am very happy that an amendment was adopted today that increases the amount of money in child care by $6 billion. We are starting to get towards a true bipartisan bill that will provide the resources that the States desperately need in order to move welfare reform to the next plateau, and that is getting families out of poverty, because we have not been very successful in achieving that plateau of getting families out of poverty.

The reason I disagree with the gentleman from California as to why we are at this point where we are asking for another short-term extension, I do not believe it is the other body's fault. I think it is this body's fault, because the legislation that we passed, and I might say without any deliberation in this body, we just rubber-stamped the bill that was passed in the last Congress. The bill was not a bipartisan bill, it was a bill that was not favored by our States, it was a bill that goes backwards on welfare rather than continuing reform by being so prescriptive to our States, telling our States what they have to do. Unfunded mandates on our States. It is estimated that to implement the requirements that we placed in this bill would cost our States at least another $11 billion in child care alone, let alone some of the other expenses. The worst part about the bill was that it provides for make- work activities, not real jobs. It does not take America's families out of poverty who are leaving welfare.

The reason we were unable to accomplish that, there was no effort to reach out, to bring out a bill that was truly bipartisan like they are trying to do in the other body. As a result of the action of this body, we made it very difficult to get a long-term extension enacted. I regret that.

I wish Members would listen to some of the experts in this field. We just got a letter from David Hage from the Star Tribune, who has written a book titled, ``Reforming Welfare By Rewarding Work.'' That is exactly what we want to do. He talks about the Minnesota example. Let me just quote from Mr. Hage, if I might:

``In a recent conference call with journalists, Assistant Health and Human Services Secretary, Wade Horn, said the next steps in welfare reform

should be reducing poverty and improving the well-being of families and children.

``Yet the White House and House proposals for TANF reauthorization would do little to accomplish these goals and might in fact subvert them.''

Then he goes on to tell why the prescriptive nature of the bill that was passed by the House makes it difficult for States to adopt the type of programs necessary so that families can get the skills they need, the education they need, the training they need, so they can not only get a job but they can move up the economic ladder of success. That is what TANF reauthorization should be about. It should not be moving backwards to penalize people and to make it difficult for them to be able to succeed and, worse than that, making it very difficult for our States to comply with our laws without spending a lot more money, and not the way they think it is best to spend that money.

Madam Speaker, I support this bill because we need to continue this program; but as I have said, I think this is my sixth time on the floor on a temporary extension during the last year and a half. Once again speaking for the Members on this side of the aisle, we are ready to sit down today to work out a true bipartisan multi-year TANF reauthorization bill and to consider the issues so that we can really improve our welfare system, help our States and deal with those families that need our help today. If the leadership on the other side is willing to do that, we would not have to be doing these short-term extensions. We could, in fact, be voting on not only in this body but we could be sending to the President a good multi-year reauthorization of the TANF programs to help American families get out of poverty and find real employment.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a senior member of the committee who was very instrumental in the 1996 TANF legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to respond to the gentleman from California to point out that the only new money in this bill that passed this body, the only new money is some small dollars in regards to marriage promotion and $1 billion guaranteed for child care. That will not even keep up with the current purchasing power, let alone provide the needed resources to deal with the new work requirements. In my own State of Maryland, we have frozen new enrollments into child care because of a lack of resources.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), who has been one of the leaders in this body on welfare reform, children's issues, and family issues.

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

Madam Speaker, the very first words in the TANF program are: ``The purpose of this part is to increase the flexibility of the States . . . '' The law then highlights several purposes such as helping needy families and promoting work.

My concern is that the legislation that passed this body takes a major step backwards in our stated goal of giving State flexibility.

The House bill reduces State flexibility on providing education and training by removing it from a core work activity. This is an issue for the States to decide, but, no, in our legislation we make it a Federal issue.

The House bill reduces States' flexibility in addressing the individual needs of welfare recipients by doubling the number of required work hours for mothers with children under the age of 6 required in the legislation that passed this body. This should be up to the States to make those judgments. That is what State flexibility is about.

The House bill reduces the flexibility of States to design programs that focus on moving people from welfare to work by increasing work participation rates without providing an employment credit for those individuals who leave welfare for a wage-paying job. Once again, the States should be able to tailor their own programs to meet their needs. That was the commitment we made in 1996.

And the House bill reduces State flexibility by imposing full sanctions, not giving States the opportunity to have their own sanctions system, once again taking away flexibility from the States. That is not what we should be doing.

The 1996 welfare reform worked because we trusted our States, we gave them the tools, and they developed programs that made sense to get people off of welfare and to get people employed. That is what we need to do again in the next chapter of welfare reform by not only empowering our States but making it easier for them to get families out of poverty.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation so that we can continue the current program, but I also urge my colleagues, particularly on the other side of the aisle, to sit down with us and let us work out a sensible bipartisan bill that really will continue the commitment we made in 1996 to our families of America and to our States, giving the States the resources and the flexibility to get the job done.

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2231) to reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant program through June 30, 2004, and for other purposes.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2231, the Welfare Reform Extension Act of 2004. This legislation is a straight 3-month extension of key parts of the Nation's welfare system.

Madam Speaker, the historic welfare reform law we passed in 1996 is working. Since 1996, more than 2 million children have been lifted from poverty, millions of families have left or remain off welfare, cutting welfare dependence in half, child well-being has dramatically improved, and record numbers of low-income parents are working.

But, Madam Speaker, that is not enough. Despite our progress, 2 million American families still remain dependent on welfare today. More than half of welfare recipients do not participate in any work or job training to prepare them for the future. Every year, millions of families break up or never form, risking welfare dependence for years to come. We must do more to assist these families.

Madam Speaker, that is why it is unfortunate that we are here today to approve yet another straight extension instead of an agreement on more long-term improvements. The House passed such comprehensive reform bills in 2002 and a year later in 2003, but the Senate still has not passed a companion bill, although one is being debated now.

Madam Speaker, in an effort to promote at least some reforms in recent weeks I have introduced two alternatives to a straight extension. Both of these alternatives would continue welfare funding at current levels, just like the bill before us today, but these alternatives would also provide more to help low-income families.

My first alternative would expect more welfare recipients to engage in work, a proven path out of poverty, or help more families avoid welfare dependence altogether.

My second alternative also would continue current programs while redirecting a small portion of welfare bonus funds to promote more healthy married families. Both policies are drawn straight from the reforms that passed the House last year as part of our welfare reform bill, H.R. 4.

I introduced these alternatives because, after 18 months of simply maintaining the status quo, we must do more to help low-income families. I wish we were debating either of these extension bills today. The simple fact is that every day that passes without comprehensive agreement means more low-income families depending on welfare. It means less work and job preparation by parents. It means fewer child care and child support resources available to help families. It means more poverty, and it means more families breaking up or never forming.

Madam Speaker, there is real danger in continued delay as well. The House-passed welfare bill proposes $1 billion more in mandatory child care funding during the next 5 years. It proposes billions more in discretionary child care funding. It proposes full funding for TANF programs.

Will those dollars be available in future years? Perhaps. But as time continues to pass and funding becomes tighter, the assurance that increased or even current Federal funding for these programs will remain available becomes more tenuous. For the past several years, Members on this side of the aisle have resisted proposals to reduce welfare funding knowing that these programs are working and recognizing the need for sufficient funds to make further reforms successful. But that case becomes harder to make, for example, if there is no real work requirement for welfare benefits for yet another year as further reforms fall by the wayside.

Madam Speaker, I encourage all Members to support the bill before us today. The bill will continue current funding for key welfare programs through June 30, 2004. It has already passed the other body, and I know the President will sign it immediately. As I have said during prior extension debates, it is my sincere hope that this will be the final extension needed and that the next 3 months will result in a final agreement that will help millions more families achieve independence and a brighter future. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Just in response, the gentleman mentioned that the bill was inadequate in terms of funding. I would like to remind the gentleman to consider that the States have been offered some $2 billion more in child care, that is in our bill, and that is on top of the $170 billion of State and Federal welfare/child care funds currently available over the next 5 years. Also, there is some $4 billion in TANF surplus that is available. I might also mention that another comment was made that there were unfunded mandates. The fact is that in this legislation, there are no unfunded mandates in H.R. 4.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

The comment was made that somehow we are not funding as much or funding is less. Not only is this not accurate, the exact opposite in fact is the truth. In terms of case welfare, child care funds available per person on welfare, there is twice as much funding available today as there was in 1996 because the rolls have been cut in half and yet the funding has remained constant.

For example, in 1996 the average amount of money available per welfare family was about $7,000. Today, the average amount available for each family is $16,000, from $7,000 to $16,000, that is available.

Madam Speaker, again, as I have said during prior extension debates, it is my sincere hope that this will be the final extension needed and that the next 3 months will result in a final agreement that will help millions more families achieve independence and a brighter future. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Maryland as usual has put his finger on what the issue is here, that is, whether we want to move forward with welfare reform or we want to move backwards.

The problem with the approach taken by the Republican majority here has been, instead of trying to reach out and move welfare reform to another stage, they have instead decided, on a very partisan basis essentially, to craft their own bill that really moves this backwards.

Let me just indicate why. The gentleman from Maryland has pointed out a number of ways. We need to accentuate this. The gentleman from California says we have to help families who are still on welfare, but the child care provision in their bill is very, very inadequate. The literature is not complete, we do not have all the data, but it is very clear that one of the reasons welfare reform has worked is because there has been considerable money set aside for child care. Indeed, President Clinton, who brought this issue to the fore many years ago, vetoed bills originally passed in this House because there was inadequate money for child care. Eventually this House, on a bipartisan basis, stood up and was counted on this issue; and we passed many, many more moneys for child care and eventually President Clinton signed the bill.

The contrast between the House and the Senate on child care moneys is very striking. The gentleman from Maryland mentioned that the Senate has now passed a $6 billion proposal, and I think it was a vote overwhelmingly in favor, while the gentleman from California and others get up here and defend a child care provision in the bill that was passed here on a partisan basis that is minor compared to what is needed.

Health care is another problem. If we want to help families move off welfare, we should provide adequate health care coverage during the transition period. The Republican majority here has absolutely refused to step up to the plate on transitional Medicaid. Absolutely refused.

And then as to the families on welfare, the gentleman from California mentioned they are moving out of poverty. An essential ingredient of that is some training so people are trained to be able to move up the economic ladder. But, instead, what they did in their bill was essentially to take out the training element as one of the ingredients of a successful effort by people on welfare.

Those are just three of the reasons. By the way, this training aspect is so vital, and I think the Republican majority in the House and the President of the United States have failed to understand, to face up to this fact: poverty is increasing in the United States of America under their domain. It is increasing. We do not have all the figures; but it is clear, I think, that many of those still in poverty are people who have moved off of welfare, who have not had the adequate training to be able to move up the ladder and still remain in minimum wage jobs. By the way, they refuse to raise the minimum wage, too.

We need to extend the present system, but we also need to move on to the second phase of welfare reform. I am hopeful if there is a bill that passes the Senate that there can then be a conference and you will not on the Republican House majority side be so recalcitrant and insist on taking good elements out of welfare reform, one, and also refuse to put some added ingredients into welfare reform, two.

You have stonewalled. It is not the Senate. They are now moving ahead. The question is whether you are going to be willing to be a partner with them and with Democrats in moving this ahead instead of moving backwards. Partisanship in welfare reform is a dead end. I hope you get off it and we can move as we did many years ago on a bipartisan basis and make a further improvement so people who are now on welfare indeed can move off it, can have the training, can have the child care, can have the health care so they and their kids can move out of poverty.

Mr. President, we had a very busy week. The Senate continued consideration of S. 1637, the FSC/ETI bill earlier in the week. Unfortunately, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle insisted on offering nongermane amendments to this very important manufacturing bill, this JOBS bill. In an effort to move the bill forward, we did file cloture with respect to the bill earlier in the week. Despite the importance and critical nature of this legislation to our economy, addressing those sanctions imposed by the European Union on us that are in effect now, we were unable to invoke cloture to finish this bill.

We turned yesterday to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004. In an overwhelming vote of 61 to 38, the Senate passed S. 1637, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004. I thank all my colleagues for their handling of the bill. Senator DeWine did a superb job managing the bill, supported by Senator Lindsey Graham. Again, they did a tremendous job ushering this bill through.

This legislation does so much to help protect women and their unborn children by establishing, for the first time at the Federal level, a separate crime for the injury or death of a fetus resulting from an attack on the mother. The concept is very simple. If someone attacks a woman who is pregnant, there are two victims and not one. Senator DeWine was able to hold off any amendments which would have changed the underlying legislation. That was important to do. We accomplished that and the bill will be sent shortly to the President for his signature.

This week we also passed welfare reform extension. It was S. 2231. It is a 3-month extension of welfare reform programs.

We will begin consideration of H.R. 4, the welfare reform reauthorization bill, on Monday. I hope we can consider important and relevant amendments to this bill. I know Members on both sides of the aisle do have amendments to improve the bill. We look forward to addressing those that are germane, that are important to the bill. However, once again, I urge Members to allow us to stay focused on the measure before us and not to slow down the process with political posturing or, what now we have begun to see a lot of, so-called message amendments on the floor of the Senate unrelated to the bill itself.

I do respect all Members' rights to amend the bills, but with that we also have a responsibility, and the responsibility is to legislate.

Last night I had the privilege of obtaining unanimous consent by which we passed the Organ Donation and Recovery Improvement Act, H.R. 3926. The bill promotes organ donation, promotes organ procurement, recovery, preservation, and transportation, all of which is critically vital if we are to address the fact we have 83,000 people right now as I speak waiting for an organ transplant, yet we have too few organs. The supply is too small, it is too few, because we are not capturing all the potential organs. This addresses that disconnect and that disparity.

We also passed the Oceans and Human Health Act this week, S. 1218, reported by Chairman McCain and the Commerce Committee. This particular bill provides for the coordination and support of Federal interagency ocean science programs, including research on the role of oceans in human health.

We passed H.R. 2584, the international fisheries reauthorization under Chairman McCain.

We also addressed treaties. We ratified two treaties this week, the protocol amending the tax convention with Sri Lanka under Chairman Lugar, the income tax convention with Sri Lanka with Chairman Lugar, and moments ago we passed the Child Nutrition Act extension, introduced today by Chairman Cochran and the ranking member.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 2231, but I am discouraged that we find ourselves needing to pass this legislation.

The bill before us today will extend the Federal welfare law, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, or TANF, for another 3 months. This is the sixth time we have come to the floor to extend this program since its authorization expired in September 2002.

The 1996 welfare reform law is one of the most successful social policy initiatives in recent memory. However, we know there is more work to be done. A majority of TANF recipients--approximately 60 percent--still are not working for benefits.

To put even more Americans on the path to self-sufficiency and independence, the House passed H.R. 4 in February 2003. H.R. 4 strengthens current work requirements by asking welfare recipients to engage in work-related activities for 40 hours a week--16 of which could be in education, job training, or other constructive activities as defined by States.

The House-passed bill would ensure that no needy family would fall through the cracks. H.R. 4 creates a policy of universal engagement so that all families receiving welfare benefits must be in work or other activities leading to self-sufficiency. The House reauthorization measure also gradually increases to 70 percent the work participation rate required by States.

Moreover, the House reauthorization bill makes significant improvements to the Child Care and Development Block Grant. It adds $1 billion in discretionary funding to the program over 5 years and requires States to devote more money to improving child care quality. These provisions will ensure that low-income parents have access to safe, quality child care as they move into work.

This week the other body is considering full welfare reauthorization. I am encouraged that the other body may soon pass its welfare reauthorization bill, and hope we will be able to resolve our differences quickly in a conference committee.

The millions of Americans still seeking to move off of the welfare rolls deserve no less. Those continuing to struggle to attain self- sufficiency need the assistance that H.R. 4 would provide.

While I hope this will be the last extension of current law we must pass, I urge my colleagues to support the bill before us today.