TANF Emergency Response and Recovery Act of 2005

Mr. President, I come to the floor once again to insist that the Senate act on the emergency health care needs of Katrina victims. They need help. They need help now--not tomorrow, not the next day, now. The Senate must pass the Katrina health package that Chairman Grassley and I put together. Why? Obviously, to help the victims of Katrina. That is why. They need the help now.

I might say, Senator Grassley and I have worked for weeks on this legislation. It has been 4 weeks since Katrina hit--4 weeks.

Now, some suggest the administration was slow to respond, that FEMA was slow to respond, that FEMA was inadequate in responding. We have heard these complaints. A lot of them are accurate.

Where is the Senate? Where is the Congress? Where? I ask Senators, where is the Senate? Where is the Congress? I will tell you where. We are poised to pass legislation, but the same people and the same political party that were slow with respect to FEMA and the administration are now here today slowing down and stopping this legislation from passing. The same group. The same group. I cannot believe it. I cannot understand it.

This legislation has very broad support. It has the support of Senator Grassley, the chairman of the Finance Committee, the Republican chairman of the Finance Committee, who, I might say, is a very good man. He is a good man. He cares. He puts people above politics. He puts the needs of the Katrina victims above politics. He wants to do the right thing. And I very heartily and soundly congratulate him. He has done such a wonderful job.

We have also consulted for weeks with the Senators from the States affected, working out the details of this legislation, crossing the T's, dotting the I's, making changes to make sure it works right. We have consulted with the Senators from the States affected, who are from both political parties. They want this legislation. They are from both political parties, and they want it.

We spent a lot of time working on this--a lot of time. We have done the right thing. We made changes, as Senators suggested. We are trying to make it balanced, trying to make it fair, trying to make it respond to the needs of the people in Louisiana, Alabama, Texas--the States affected. We have tried our very best to do this right.

I might repeat, not only the Senators of the States want this legislation, but the Governors of the States want this legislation. If we want to get to labels here, two of those Governors are Republicans. Today, publicly, I asked the question and Senator Grassley, the chairman, asked the question: Governors, what do you think of this legislation? Yes, they want it, they want it now.

Ask Governor Blanco of Louisiana. They know the needs. They are there. They know the stakes. They are the Governors. They want this legislation passed now.

Governor Riley of Alabama, he wants it now. Governor Barbour of Mississippi, he wants this legislation passed now. Governor Blanco of Louisiana, she would certainly like it passed now.

I might say, too, this is a compromise. There are Senators here who would like to offer more sweeping legislation and try to get that legislation up for a vote. I daresay, if that legislation were up for a vote, it would pass by a very large margin.

But there are Senators here who do not want to vote. They do not want to vote on that legislation. They do not want to vote on it. They do not want to vote on it. What is my evidence of that? Many times I have asked unanimous consent to bring up this legislation. Many times the chairman of the committee has asked to bring up this legislation. And we get objections from the other side of the aisle. We get objections from the other side of the aisle. Oh, it costs too much, I heard. That is one complaint.

I do not know. This legislation is temporary. It is only for several months. It is only basically until the end of the year. It is basically to help people get health care under Medicaid, to get health care now.

There are countless examples of people who cannot get health care today, victims of Katrina who cannot get health care today. Why in the world is the Senate, controlled by the same party as the White House, saying no? Oh, we hear: We want a compromise. Let me tell you this. What is the compromise I heard? The compromise I heard is: Take it all out of the $65 billion appropriated for Katrina. Take it out of that. That is what I have heard.

Can you believe that? Can you believe that? They say some of that money has been misspent. So people who need health care shouldn't get the dollars? They shouldn't get support? They shouldn't get their health care because some of the FEMA dollars might have been misspent? Give me a break. Give me a break.

What is going on here? What, in fact, is going on here? I don't understand it. I thought we were Senators. I thought we were elected to do the right thing, to rise up and help people who need help, particularly immediately. Sure, we should scrub this stuff and look at it closely. And we have. We have. Senator Grassley and I have. Our staffs have--very closely. We have tailored this down and cut it back down compared to what other Senators in the body want passed, some of the Senators in the committee wanted passed. We said: Oh, no, no, we are not going to go that far. We will take this a step at a time. We will pass limited legislation, only until the end of this year.

These provisions, the Medicaid provisions, the FMAP provisions, the eligibility requirements only apply for several months, to the end of this year. Then they stop.

Let me tell you, we met today, the Finance Committee, with experts-- one was George Yin, head of the Joint Tax Committee staff--trying to learn some lessons from New York that might be applied in this case. He made a very interesting point to us. He said: You must know, Senators, it is very hard to know the effectiveness of tax breaks because we don't have a lot of evidence. He also said something else. He said: Because these are of a short duration, the ones proposed in this bill, they probably will not be utilized very much because people don't know about them. People don't know they are there. It is hard to get the word out.

So those Senators should not be too concerned this bill will be ``too expensive.'' If they are concerned about fraud, FEMA fraud, if they are concerned about waste, if they are concerned about money not being properly spent under FEMA, and so forth, I suggest when the next appropriations bill comes up to spend more money at FEMA, to give more cash, that is the proper place to look at any potential waste, any problems, if any, that occur under FEMA. I don't know what occurs and does not occur, but the Senators I have heard don't want this bill passed because they say: Oh, it is wasteful. FEMA wasted money. If that is the case, don't take it out of the hides of poor people who need help. You take it out of the hide of FEMA. You take it out of the hide of additional appropriations.

I heard something else here tonight. I have heard the administration is opposed to this legislation. They quietly kind of are. I don't think they want to admit it. They sent this letter that the Senator from Arizona put in the Record. They say: Well, maybe we can do it with waivers. Maybe we can do it a little bit better. Come on. That is not going to work. Why isn't it going to work? It is not going to work because this waiver process is so vague, it is so amorphous. Nobody knows what it is. Nobody knows when it might go into effect.

Let me give you an example of that. Today at the Finance Committee hearing, I raised the question: Governor Barbour, Governor Riley, Governor Blanco, what about waivers?

Governor Barbour did not know anything about it. This is 4 weeks since Katrina. He said: I have to plead ignorance. I don't know. You would think if this waiver process is going into effect a little bit, if there has been discussion between the administration and some of these States, you would think the Governor of Mississippi, if this waiver program is worth anything, would know about it. No, he did not know anything about it. He wants this legislation passed.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter Senator Grassley and I wrote back to Secretary Leavitt in response to that White House letter be printed in the Record.

That letter points out the glaring defects of the waiver process the administration talks about.

First, the Government is amorphous, as I said. Second, the waiver kind of promises money to hospitals for uncompensated care. It does not say how it is going to happen. It is very unclear. It is very amorphous.

I might say, at that point, for 9/11 FEMA was billed for several items, and FEMA did not pay for it. In this case the administration, in the waiver process, says, well, there might be some money for hospitals for all the uncompensated care they have provided. It is a promise. Who knows if it is empty or not empty. There are no dollars behind it.

We have dollars in our legislation. It is $800 million. It goes for uncompensated care to hospitals. You talk to the administrators of the hospitals in these areas--Louisiana, New Orleans; other States, Arkansas, Texas--that are overwhelmed--and most of this is uncompensated care--they need help. We are providing it in this bill, $800 million.

We also provide help for people who need care, who do not have health insurance, who live up to 100 percent of poverty. They are not wealthy people: only up to 100 percent of poverty, and 200 percent of poverty for mothers who have children, pregnant women and children. That is not very much. But no, we cannot pass that. Senators say that is too much. That might be wasteful.

I don't get it. I don't get it. It reminds me of when I graduated from high school. This fellow sent me a congratulation card for graduating from high school. He said basically: Congratulations, and all this stuff. He said: Best of luck in those interstitial spaces when your brain runs against headlong perversity. This is one of those interstitial spaces in the sense that I don't get it. I can't fathom why people would not want to get this passed.

We can go to conference. We can modify this bill in conference if there are real problems. That is what we do around here. If something is not perfect--nothing is ever perfect--you don't let perfection be the enemy of the good

around here. We go to conference. By that time, little wrinkles crop up, little problems. We take care of them in conference. No, we can't do that. We can't even pass the legislation. Some Senators say: No, we can't pass it. Wrong. Take it out of FEMA. It won't work. For the life of me, I don't understand why we are here.

One small example, not so small for Tina. Who is Tina? Tina Eagerton is a lady who fled Louisiana 7 months pregnant but could not find a Florida doctor who would accept her Louisiana Medicaid card, wouldn't do it. With this legislation, Tina can get some help.

I can talk about Rosalind Breaux, who has colon cancer and was scheduled for her third round of chemotherapy on August 31, the day after the flooding began. Her husband has lost his job. There is no health insurance. Rosalind is in a real bind.

I mentioned the letter the administration has sent. The Senator from Arizona has mentioned that letter. I also mentioned the letter we sent in response, the chairman of the committee, Senator Grassley, and I. That letter from the administration says the administration claims it can provide relief without the need for congressional action. It can't. I must also say they do not have the authority. They do not have the authority to provide additional appropriations. That takes an act of Congress. They say, apparently, by implication, they do not need any dollars. That is the implication of that process. They don't appropriate dollars. It is against the law. We have to do that. They do not want us to do it.

The waivers, I might say, also limit eligibility for Medicaid coverage to only those groups of people traditionally eligible for Medicaid. Adults without children, no matter how poor they are, or how much they need health care, would not be covered under the administration's waiver policy suggested by the letter the Senator from Arizona mentioned.

The woman with diabetes would not be covered. She would not be covered. Diabetes is a very time-sensitive illness. Limiting access to benefits in the waiver would mean leaving tens of thousands of Katrina victims without aid.

After Katrina, Louisiana dispatched Medicaid eligibility workers to more than 200 shelters to enroll evacuees in Medicaid. Of the 4,000 potentially eligible families screened in these shelters, more than 1 in 5 were screened out as ineligible. They did not meet Louisiana's traditional eligibility rules--1 out of 5. No help there. One out of five: You do not meet the traditional screening test.

Our legislation would address that. One out of every three people who have applied for Medicaid in Louisiana following Katrina have been denied coverage. Let me repeat that. One out of every three people who applied for Medicaid in Louisiana following Katrina have been denied coverage. The waiver process is not going to help that out because the eligibility requirements are not raised. Most of these people are denied because they don't meet the eligibility criteria.

Adult Katrina survivors need access to health care. A recent study of Katrina evacuees in Houston shelters found that most of the adult evacuees without children were uninsured. Among those, more than 40 percent reported having a chronic condition. A third reported having trouble getting the prescription drugs they need. I can't believe it. What is going on here?

Differentiating among individuals during this time of need is not right. This isn't legislation that is usual; this is an emergency. People need health care right now. Katrina did not differentiate. Katrina hit all the residents of the gulf hard. We should not differentiate in our efforts to help those in need.

The second key difference between the administration's policy and what our bill does is the funds provided to defray the cost of uncompensated care that thousands of health care providers across our Nation are giving to Katrina survivors. I have already mentioned that. Let me repeat that point. The administration has said it will provide an uncompensated care fund. But the administration, in this waiver letter referred to on the floor a few minutes ago, has not given any further information about how much would be provided, not one iota, whether it be $1 or zero dollars. The administration has not even given information about how it will be spent.

By contrast, the Grassley-Baucus bill includes an uncompensated care fund of up to $800 million to be spent on compensating those health care providers--that is, hospitals--who have seen a dramatic increase or drop in their patient load as a result of Katrina. The administration promises, but under our bill, there would be no doubt. We would be there. It is not words but deeds. The administration is words. Our legislation is deeds. It is getting it done.

Third, our bill provides 100 percent Federal funding for all evacuees covered under Medicaid, wherever they are, and for the affected States. By contrast, the administration's waiver policy promises to make States whole. What does that mean? I have serious questions about how they can deliver on that without legislation, because it is unclear that the administration could, under its current statutory authority, provide these additional funds to States. I referred to that earlier. I don't think they have the legal authority to provide additional funds. I have no doubt they intend to do so. I am sure they do. Why wouldn't they? I just do not believe they have the legal authority to do so. So why should we get involved in this legal morass--do they have the authority; do they not have the authority? Are we going to sit down and argue about this, while the people need health care? I don't get it.

At the same time the administration has asked for the three most affected States to sign a memorandum of understanding making them financially responsible for paying the cost of evacuees' care in other States. Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama need our help, not more bills to pay--not now. We could straighten that out later.

It is an outrage that a small number of willful Senators continue to stall this bill. Hurricane Katrina's health costs continue to spill in waves across the gulf coast region. Victims continue to suffer without proper medical care. Our bill will restore immediate access to basic health care. Our bill would relieve the financial burden health care providers have shouldered. We must act. Thus, at the appropriate time, I intend to join with my colleagues and ask unanimous consent for the Senate to pass our bill.

In fact, I do so now. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 214, S. 1716; that the Grassley-Baucus substitute amendment which is at the desk be considered and agreed to, that the bill as amended be read a third time, passed, and that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and that all of this occur with no intervening action or debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me set the stage of this discussion. When it comes to Hurricane Katrina, its impact and aftermath, especially on the poor, disadvantaged and the children, our most vulnerable population, let me sum it up. We do not know what we do not know.

Before us today is the TANF Emergency Response and Recovery Act. It is a marker, modest at best, meant to buy some time. I hope that is what it is.

We certainly stand with Representatives McCrery and Jefferson, two friends and colleagues who are at ground zero at this tragedy. We want to be as helpful as possible. I know that Mr. Jefferson is working on a comprehensive program for what is necessary in his district, and I think that will come forward as we go down the road a little bit.

It is going to be overwhelming, but in the process, we cannot act like we have done enough. The American people have had their fill of that kind of false rhetoric since this tragedy first roared on shore. As ranking member of the Human Resources Subcommittee, as a medical doctor and child psychiatrist, let me say we had better use the precious few months we are buying today to find out what we do not know and then address the real needs of real people. Band-Aids alone will not heal this wound.

We have more questions than answers, and we must act actively and aggressively to find out what we need to comfort the afflicted, heal the sick and mend the tattered bodies and minds.

First, we ought to add the word ``temporary'' to the title of this legislation. Here is why.

The legislation extends TANF, Temporary Aid for Needy Families, for 3 months. The 7th of December, it goes away. We are not sure we will even have a complete casualty count in the next 90 days.

This bill increases TANF funding for Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama by 20 percent in the next fiscal year. The truth is, we do not know what the real cost will be, and 20 percent may well become the proverbial drop in the bucket.

This is a time when people and local governments expect leadership out of the Congress. Arbitrarily increasing funding by 20 percent had better be a sign of our initial commitment, not a cap on our already inadequate leadership.

We are going to completely reimburse neighboring States that provide short-term TANF assistance. Not only is that the least we can do, we should not tell States in this legislation that the meter is running and will run out in 3 months. What about Arkansas, all the people that went up there? There is no mention in here about them. We do not need any more confusion and missed opportunities than we already have.

This legislation waives some TANF requirements and penalties. Let me ask everyone something: Who in the world thinks this is the time to add more bureaucracy? We ought to be waiving every requirement and penalty for the indefinite future. We do not even know where the people are yet; this aid bill could end up hurting, not helping, people who need America more than ever.

We ought to add another word to this legislation, ``incomplete.''

There may be as many as 10,000 foster kids somewhere in the disaster region. Words like ``displaced,'' ``abandoned,'' and ``alone'' come to mind, and that ought to mobilize the conscience of the Nation. We do not know if these kids are safe, we do not know where they are, and we do not know if they are getting the services they need. We do know they have witnessed unspeakable horrors.

As a child psychiatrist, I know something about what these children are going through.

We ought to have a separate piece of legislation before us that focuses on these children. They will need grief counseling. They will need food, shelter, clothing and love. They will need guardians, and we do not even know today where they are.

The sad fact is that the current child welfare program dramatically limits services, including mental health, that these children can receive once they are located. Does anyone think we need another bureaucracy for that?

Early estimates from the Congressional Budget Office tell us that a half million workers will likely qualify for unemployment compensation as a result of the hurricane. The Federal program was short-sighted and underfunded before. What will we tell these people when their benefits run out, their communities have been washed away, what, go look for a job?

This is not a time to wash away the Federal response. Benefits should be there as long as they need to be, period. How long is that? The answer to that is how long it will take to raise and restore these communities. Within 6 weeks, something like 11,000 people are due to lose their unemployment benefits. Let us not compound last week's disastrous Federal response by ignoring another human disaster which we know is on the horizon. Those 11,000 people are out there right now getting their last check in the near future.

Mr. Speaker, we do not know what we do not know, but there is something we had better face up to. The poor, the disadvantaged, and children deserve an America of equal measure to the rest of the population.

For 10 years, the burden of care and compassion has been shifted away from the Federal Government by the Republican majority who wanted to create an ownership society by disowning those who needed us most. Programs like TANF and a host of other Federal programs that address human needs were cut, blocked, and shifted by Republicans who believed it was someone else's responsibility.

For 10 years, the burden of care and compassion has been shifted from the Federal Government by the Republican majority who wanted to create an ownership society by disowning those who need it most. And is owning something more valuable than going to work every day and playing by the rules?

For 10 years, we have aimed to shift the lifeline for all Americans on the local institutions. Therefore, today there are different TANF and unemployment and foster care programs in each one of the 50 States and they provide varying levels of support that are too often inadequate.

I heard from the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) that children brought from Louisiana wind up in Arkansas needing health care because they were in an institution down there, and Medicaid in Louisiana says we will not pay for them when they are in Arkansas. So a Congressman has to intercede on the basis that he has to move the bureaucracy in the middle of this mess. That is what you get when you get 50 programs, all different.

America's poor should be entitled to support no matter where they go in this country. They are an American. They are not a Mississippian or an Alabaman or a Louisianan. They are Americans, and we have got to get back to the principle that these should be national programs that reach the entire country.

We do not know where the next tragedy will be, but for us to stand here and figure we are going to make these little minor adjustments here today, and we are going to vote for it, we will all be for this, but there is a lot more work that needs to be done out there.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Orleans, Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

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

Mr. Speaker, the chairman seems to think that if somebody is upset by this, they ate lemons for lunch. My belief is when we are dealing with the problems

in the three States with the lowest unemployment insurance rates, the three lowest TANF rates, with a city that had 38 percent of the children living in poverty when this started, we are dealing with a problem which we should have dealt with long ago.

This Band-Aid today is nothing more than that. There should be a comprehensive dealing with this issue, and we should be all ashamed of the fact that that situation exists in this part of the country.

The next issue we are going to have to face, and I have not heard a single person mention it, is the cost of gasoline. If we can give food stamps to people in this country, we ought to begin a gas stamp program so that poor people who have to drive to work can afford to fill the tank and get there.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3672) to provide assistance to families affected by Hurricane Katrina, through the program of block grants to States for temporary assistance for needy families, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), the committee members of the Committee on Ways and Means who are obviously dealing with that very difficult situation in their districts, for their input on this emergency legislation.

This is the first response from the Committee on Ways and Means, and it is designed to deal with immediate relief. We will have additional pieces of legislation that we will work with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle dealing with recovery and reconstruction, and these will come in a timely fashion over the next several weeks.

The reason we want to move this legislation as quickly as we can is because it will provide immediate payment of TANF's funds. We have included the extension of TANF to the first quarter of 2006, which immediately frees up $4.2 billion in flexible funds to assist those families affected by the hurricane. In addition, it makes additional TANF funds available to the States devastated by the hurricane. We have a de facto contingency fund, and we have a loan fund. This turns the loan fund into, in essence, a contingency fund to provide even additional money.

Also, we do not want anyone worried about costs that are incurred as States adjacent to the disaster areas are providing assistance, and we are going to hold States harmless for costs incurred to immediately assist evacuees.

There are additional funds that are unused, and we make sure we maximize the flexibility available to States for providing assistance to families impacted by the hurricane.

In addition to that, although there are specific rules for receiving the funds, we want to make sure that during this assistance period that those rules do not become a barrier and that we will waive program rules for hurricane victims receiving the short-term TANF assistance.

Especially, for those States who do provide various supports, we want to make sure that where there may have been penalties triggered by decisions made, those certainly would not be applicable either.

We believe that with expeditious movement by the Senate and not extended debate on what we do or do not do, this will free up literally billions of dollars available to assist those people directly affected by the hurricane and those States and others who are assisting them with funds otherwise unavailable to them.

As I said, this is the first step. We will look at the recovery and the reconstruction phases, which will entail a more detailed examination of the Tax Code and assistance in a timely fashion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I want to first of all take a deep breath before I begin addressing that diatribe.

The gentleman well knows that Medicaid is a program within the Committee on Energy and Commerce, that it is not within our jurisdiction, and we obviously are working with other committees.

The gentleman also knows that the program that he just denigrated was signed into law by President Clinton, and the vote in this House was more bipartisan than the vote on Medicare in 1965. In addition, we have an unemployment law that has been on the books since FDR that provides the 26 weeks.

Mr. Speaker, I said in my opening statement that this was the first, immediate response and we will have additional legislation addressing unemployment. And the extension of unemployment is obviously going to be in the next piece of legislation.

I do want to urge my colleague from Washington to join me at lunch so that he perhaps could have something other than sucking lemons for lunch prior to coming to the floor to address this House.

I will also respond to his comment about the fact that Arkansas is not mentioned. In the legislation on page 4, line 14, it says ``a State,'' and it defines any State that responds to the needs. It does not name State by State. If in fact the circumstances are provided, given the facts, then that State receives the programmatic changes that we are offering in this legislation.

I do appreciate the gentleman's last sentence in which he said he plans to vote for the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of the bill we have under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will say for the third time during this debate this is the first piece of legislation 2 days after we came back. We are responding with the maximum flexibility for money available on an immediate-relief basis. Clearly over the next several weeks as we examine the problems and are able to write legislation responsive to those problems, we will continue to bring legislation to the floor.

I would urge my colleagues, as they express their concern about what has not been done, that they should urge their colleagues on the other side of the Capitol not to engage in an exchange of legislation in which, on this initial humanitarian relief provision, they want to try to outdo each other. The most important thing is to get this out of here and make it available as soon as possible.

Over the next several weeks, we will be working with those Members and on this committee, principally the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), who have already provided invaluable assistance and who are very supportive of this legislation, with additional legislation. I look forward to working with colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are willing to come forward in constructive ways in making adjustments.

I do want to underscore the fact that we are nearer to the beginning of the hurricane season than we are the end of the hurricane season.

No one wishes another hurricane to touch the United States, but no one knows for certain that that will not happen, that as we are assisting those individuals who have had a very tragic occurrence, we are laying the groundwork for the possibility that we have to repeat this more than once.

I want to thank those colleagues who will help us move this expeditiously and in advance of the assistance on additional legislation dealing with more fundamental revisions in the Tax Code and extensions of various deadlines. I thank them for their cooperation, and I look forward to producing additional legislation that will be available for my colleagues' consideration.

Let me underscore, we need the other body to move immediately and not engage in attempts on this very first effort to expand and explore more fundamental changes in programs. So I plead with my colleagues here and on the other side of the Capitol, we have had enough talk, let us show some action.

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

Mr. President, today Congress is confronted with how to best provide tax relief to American families earning slightly more than the minimum wage. We can do that by expanding the availability of the child tax credit to more working families.

In 2001, I pushed to make the child tax credit refundable for workers making around the minimum wage. As enacted in 2001, a portion of a taxpayer's

child tax credit would be refundable--up to 10 percent of earnings above $10,000.

Last year, Congress passed the Working Families Tax Relief of 2004, which increased from 10 percent to 15 percent the portion of the child tax credit that is refundable. Although the legislation increased the amount of the refundable child credit, it failed to increase the number of families eligible for the benefit. The consequences are serious for low-income Americans living paycheck to paycheck. It means that tens of thousands of low-income families will be completely ineligible for a credit they should receive.

This year, because the income threshold is indexed, only taxpayers earning over $11,000 are eligible to receive the refundable portion of the child tax credit. Low-income families earning less than $11,000 are shut out of the child tax credit completely.

For example, a single mother who earns the minimum wage and works a 40 hour week for all 52 weeks of the year fails to qualify for the refundable portion of the child tax credit. Since the mother earns $10,700, she is a mere $300 away from qualifying for the credit. Worse, if the single mother does not receive a raise the following year, it will be even tougher to qualify because the $11,000 she originally needed to earn is adjusted for inflation and will increase.

I am introducing legislation, the Working Family Child Assistance Act, with Senators Lincoln, Chafee, Obama, and Rockefeller that will enable more hard-working, low-income families to receive the refundable child credit this year. My legislation returns to $10,000 the amount of income a family must earn to qualify for the credit. Moreover, my bill would ``deindex'' the $10,000 threshold for inflation, so families failing to get a raise each year would not lose benefits.

Most notably, my bill is identical to the refundable child credit proposal the Senate passed in May 2001 as part of its version of that year's tax bill. Although I was able to ensure that a refundable child credit would be part of the final bill sent to President Bush, conferees did index the $10,000 threshold to inflation despite my best efforts.

The staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that this legislation will allow an additional 600,000 families to benefit from the refundable child tax credit.

For example, the legislation provides a $113 child credit to a mom who earns $10,750 per year. That's money she could use to buy groceries, rent, school books and other family necessities.

The Commerce Department recently reported that between August 2004 and August 2005 average weekly wages adjusted for inflation fell 1.1 percent. Obviously, families need all the help we can give them.

Our families and our country are better off when government lets people keep more of what they earn. Parents deserve their per-child tax credit, and this bill rewards families for work.

I am committed to this issue and have called on President Bush to work with Congress so we can help an additional one million children, whose parents and guardians struggle every day to take care of them.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to raise some concerns about H.R. 3672, the TANF Emergency Response and Recovery Act of 2005 passed recently by the House of Representatives.

I regret that the House Ways and Means Committee did not have the benefit of the insights of those in Louisiana responsible for administrating this critical Federal program. Because if they did, I think that the bill might have been drafted very differently. I very much appreciate the leadership allowing me this opportunity to state these concerns for the record and am hoping that we can work together in the days and weeks ahead from this point on to be certain that these concerns are addressed.

Hurricane Katrina has left the Southeastern part of Louisiana in a state of emergency which, by all accounts will have significant and wide spread impact on our State and local economy. As a result, larger than expected numbers of individuals will be left without employment and in need of the services and support provided by the TANF program. It is precisely to address these circumstances, although I am not sure Members anticipated a disaster of this magnitude that compelled Congress to create a contingency fund in the 1996 Act. The purpose of the contingency fund was for States to be able to access additional funds in a time of need. But instead of availing ourselves of the funds contained in the contingency fund to carry us through this unexpected downturn, the House bill limits the use of these funds for nonrecurring, short term benefits to persons displaced by this disaster. I am afraid that this narrow definition of eligibility will stand in the way of people in need getting the support they deserve. I am pleased that the Grassley-Baucus proposal would allow Louisiana access to these funds and allow my State to direct these funds to families in need.

In addition, it should be noted that while the House bill contemplates that some families affected by Hurricane Katrina will need some short term benefit that should be considered differently from regular welfare, it does not extend eligibility for these emergency benefits to all families in the affected States. I believe that we should extend this benefit to all families in need. I am pleased to note that the Grassley-Baucus welfare proposal would extend eligibility of ``Hurricane Katrina Emergency TANF Benefits'' for over a year to affected families in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama regardless of their circumstances prior to this disaster.

I will raise my final point in the form of a question to my good friend, the Senator from Iowa, Chairman Grassley. The House bill includes a provision that provides that no penalty may be imposed against any of the States of Louisiana, Mississippi or Alabama for failure to repay a loan made to a State before October 1, 2007. Given the current financial conditions, our Governor is concerned about the State's long term ability to pay a loan of this size back in such a short time. They have been assured that the intent was for this provision to serve as a grant and that there is no penalty should they be unable to fully reimburse the Federal Government. Is that the Senator's understanding?