Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of legislation to bury the destructive death tax once and for all; and I might mention that my personal experiences, even with my own family and others, has been just the opposite of the gentleman who just spoke before.

Nearly everywhere I go throughout my largely rural, agricultural district in northern California, I hear from businessmen and businesswomen and many farmers and ranchers who have had to liquidate and sell a family business or farm just to pay the Federal estate tax. This is simply wrong.

Four years ago, I joined with President Bush and a majority of Representatives and Senators in an effort to enact into law historic tax relief legislation, including repeal of the death tax. Unfortunately, due to outdated Senate budget rules, the 2001 tax law will sunset on December 31, 2010. This has created an incredibly unfair and arbitrary situation.

Consider that the heirs of those who pass away in 2010 will face no death tax whatsoever, while those whose families are unfortunate enough to pass away in 2011 or thereafter will face tax rates of up to 55 percent on their assets, forcing many of them to have to sell. Certainly no one can reasonably argue that this is rational tax policy.

Furthermore, the death tax extracts a high cost from American taxpayers. Studies have found that family businesses spend up to $125,000 on attorneys, accountants and financial experts to assist in estate planning. These dollars could otherwise be used to modernize equipment, expand their business or farms and create new jobs.

Mr. Speaker, the death tax is, without question, one of the most destructive, counterproductive and unfair provisions of our Tax Code. Let us bury the death tax once and for all. Vote ``aye'' on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago Congress, working together with President Bush, enacted into law the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. Among other provisions, the law strengthened and expanded the expensing provisions afforded to small businesses under Section 179 of the Internal Revenue Code. As such, the law encouraged small businesses to make new capital investments, thus spurring our economy and creating jobs. I believe Congress should make this provision permanent and today I am introducing the ``Small Business Expensing Permanency Act of 2005'' to do just that.

Specifically, the Jobs and Growth Act increased from $25,000 to $100,000 the amount of new investment a business can expense--or deduct from income--in a given year. The law also increased--from $200,000 to $400,000--the amount of total investment a business can make in a year and still qualify for expensing under Section 179. Unfortunately, under current law, these provisions are set to expire after 2007.

My legislation will repeal the 2007 sunset. If the higher expensing limits are good for our nation's small businesses over the next two years, they should be good for small businesses indefinitely.

Small businesses truly are the backbone of our economy, representing more than half of all jobs and economic output. We should not take small business vitality for granted, however. Rather, our tax laws should support small businesses in their role as the engines of innovation, growth, and job creation.

Mr. Speaker, in difficult economic times, we must do all we can to encourage new investment and job creation by creating certainty and predictability for America's small business owners. The ``Small Business Expensing Permanency Act of 2005'' will help accomplish this worthy goal. I applaud the Administration for its consistent leadership on this issue, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this much needed legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1160) to reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant program through June 30, 2005, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1160, the Welfare Reform Extension Act of 2005. Mr. Speaker, this legislation will continue funding for the Temporary Assistance For Needy Families Program and other related programs for 3 months through June 30th, 2005.

Mr. Speaker, this is the ninth extension of these programs we have considered since their original authorization expired at the end of 2002. In 2002 and 2003, the House passed comprehensive welfare reform legislation that would promote more work, provide more child care assistance and help more low-income families become self-sufficient. Unfortunately, our friends in the Senate did not follow suit, and therefore we have been forced to mark time.

Still, we are encouraged that on March 9 the Senate Finance Committee approved a welfare reform bill and hope that this year the full Senate would pass such legislation so that we can make real progress.

It is important that we are here today to continue funding for this remarkably successful program. Since the welfare reform law was passed in 1996, the number of families receiving welfare assistance has fallen more than 60 percent. More than 1.4 million children have been lifted from poverty. However, as we have marked time with this program through a series of short-term extensions, we have seen evidence that the gains made over the years are in jeopardy.

Work among welfare recipients has declined in 3 of the last 4 years. Two million families remain dependent on government assistance, and we are not taking enough steps to strengthen families which will improve child well-being. We must do more to help strong families form and more parents go to work and achieve independence.

Mr. Speaker, on the first day of the 109th Congress I joined the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader, as well as the committee chairman and subcommittee chairman with jurisdiction over these programs to introduce H.R. 240, the Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2005.

Tomorrow, the Subcommittee on Human Resources, which I chair, will mark up this legislation, the first step in the process of again bringing it to the floor for a vote in the coming weeks. This legislation is nearly identical to the legislation this House passed in 2002 and 2003, with appropriate updates given the passage of time since the last time the House acted.

I look forward to working with all my colleagues to pass this legislation so we can get to conference and get a bill for the President's desk. House Republicans stand with President Bush and support the proposals he has championed that encourage more work and promote stronger families, and we will continue to work towards their implementation.

It is unfortunate, as I have said in the past, that we have not been able to get such comprehensive welfare legislation to the President's desk for his signature. The budgetary pressures this year are a reality we all will work to address, which may involve difficult choices in some of these areas.

Our previous legislation ensured full funding for the TANF program while providing up to $4 billion more for child care so more parents could go to work. With record-high Federal budget deficits, the longer we wait, the harder it will be for us to provide for this level of welfare-to-work programs.

I hope this extension is our last and by June 30 we will have sent long-term reauthorization legislation to the President. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make this a reality. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation before us today.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, in 2002 and 2003, this House passed long-term reauthorization legislation to encourage more work among welfare recipients and to provide more resources for States to assist low- income families. I am encouraged that last week the Senate Committee on Finance reported a welfare reform bill. Tomorrow, the subcommittee I chair will mark up long-term reauthorization, and it is my hope that over the next few months we can pass long-term legislation and send a bill to the President for his signature.

But until that happens, it is important that we continue these programs, so we do need to pass this bill. Therefore, I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

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 H.R. 1160.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in introducing H.R. 240, the Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act of 2005. This legislation reauthorizes and strengthens the successful welfare reforms begun in the 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193). Joining me introducing this legislation are Representatives Pryce, Thomas, Boehner, Barton, Goodlatte, McKeon, Bilirakis, DeLay, Shaw, Cantor, English, Camp, Nancy Johnson, Weller, Norwood, Joe Wilson and Kline.

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

Mr. Speaker, today we mourn a friend and able colleague. It is a tremendous loss to each of us and to our country.

Bob Matsui was someone that virtually everyone in the Sacramento area knew and respected. Indeed, I was not elected to Congress until 1986, almost 10 years into Bob's service in the House, but my wife Pam and I already knew Bob and his wife Doris. One really could not be from the Sacramento area and not know and have tremendous respect and admiration for the Matsuis and for their work in the community.

As a representative of a congressional district to the north of Sacramento, I worked frequently with Bob on issues of regional importance to northern California. He was a passionate and effective advocate for his constituents on a myriad of issues, particularly on flood control, one of the most critically important issues for those of us who live in flood-prone northern California.

He will certainly be remembered by all of us as a leader on these and many other issues important to the region and as an able and dedicated voice for his constituents.

I also had the pleasure of serving with Bob for many years on the House Committee on Ways and Means. A long-time supporter of free trade, Bob was willing and determined to reach across the aisle and work together on the challenging issue of trade policy.

He worked hard for policies that expanded trade, but that also ensured that it was fair and that the playing field was level for American companies and agricultural producers. Those efforts went a long way to helping expand economic opportunities for our northern California region as well as the Nation.

In all his dealings, both public and private, Bob Matsui personified integrity. It was an honor to have called him a friend. On behalf of my wife, Pam, and me, I would like to extend our personal, heartfelt condolences to the Matsui family, his wife, Doris; his son and daughter-in-law, Brian and Amy; and his granddaughter, Anna, for their tremendous loss. They can be proud knowing that their husband, father, and grandfather worked incredibly hard to serve the people he represented, always with the noblest of intentions and always with the level of intellectual honesty, ability and skill that commanded enormous respect from everyone who knew and worked with him. He will be greatly missed by all.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, a committee that Bob Matsui served on for many years.

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

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

It has really been a great honor and privilege for me to be able to at least control part of the time on our side on someone who is one of the most respected and most honorable and outstanding individuals that I have known in my lifetime, my friend Bob Matsui.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark).

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4504) to improve protections for children and to hold States accountable for the orderly and timely placement of children across States lines, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

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

I rise in support of H.R. 4504, the Safe and Timely Interstate Placement of Foster Children Act of 2004. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this bipartisan legislation sponsored by the distinguished majority leader from Texas (Mr. DeLay). I thank him for introducing this important legislation and for his dedication and efforts to ensure foster and adopted children are better protected.

Madam Speaker, since November 2003, the subcommittee that I chair has conducted numerous hearings examining the Nation's child protection system. We have heard testimony from more than 45 witnesses who all agree on one important point, our current system fails to protect children and, therefore, needs improvement. The legislation before us today is an important first step in our effort to ensure children are not needlessly lingering in foster care. This legislation would encourage States to expedite the safe placement of foster and adoptive children into homes across State lines. Currently, these placements take an average of 1 year longer than placements within a single State, delaying permanency with loving families for thousands of children.

H.R. 4504 would establish deadlines for completing home studies that assess whether the home is appropriate for a child. The legislation also authorizes up to $10 million in each of fiscal years 2005 through 2008 for incentive payments to the States for home studies completed in a timely manner. In addition, the bill includes provisions to better ensure safety for children and foster and adoptive homes and to give foster parents and relative caregivers a right to be heard and notice of any court proceedings held concerning a child in their care.

I thank my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, for their support of our efforts to move this bill. I urge all my colleagues to join me in voting for this legislation so that we can ensure children are placed with loving families in a timely and safe way.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), majority leader, the author of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for his support of this important legislation.

And as he has mentioned, the legislation requests that GAO study the reasons for delays in conducting background checks, and I am very interested in what the GAO has to say on these issues given the importance of completing home studies in a timely manner so children may quickly, but safely, be placed into permanent homes. I hope we can continue to work together to explore these issues, building on what the GAO reports to us.

I thank the gentleman for his interest in this important issue and for his support of the legislation before us.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means and the Human Resources Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), and all of the gentlemen and gentlewomen we have worked with on this bipartisan legislation. The legislation we are considering today is an important step that will ensure timely and safe homes for children.

It also has the support of the Bush administration, which today issued a statement of administration policy. This statement says the following: ``The administration supports House passage of H.R. 4504. This bill would help speed up the interstate adoption process so that children could be placed in permanent, loving homes more quickly by authorizing the Department of Health and Human Services to make incentive grants to States that complete timely interstate home studies.

``The administration is particularly pleased that the House bill includes a provision that eliminates the ability of States to opt out of requirements to conduct criminal background checks on foster and adoptive parents.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the administration for their support, and I urge all my colleagues to join us in support of this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5149) to reauthorize the Temporary Assistance For Needy Families block grant program through March 31, 2005, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise today in support of H.R. 5149, the Welfare Reform Extension Act, Part VIII. Why Part VIII? Because, unfortunately, we are here again for the eighth time to pass short-term legislation that simply continues the status quo for one of our most important social assistance programs.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will continue funding for the Temporary Assistance For Needy Families program and other related programs that assist low-income families through March 31, 2005. I support this legislation, but as I have said before and will say again today, I wish we were here today to vote on comprehensive, forward-looking legislation like the House has already approved and the President has supported.

In his convention speech, President Bush said, ``Because family and work are sources of stability and dignity, I support welfare reform that strengthens family and requires work.'' In his call for more work and stronger families, House Republicans stand with the President. That is why we approved comprehensive welfare reform legislation twice in the last 2 years, bills that promote more work and stronger families.

Unfortunately, the other body has not yet passed its own bill, and many on the other side of the aisle continue to oppose more welfare reforms designed to promote work and reduce dependence and poverty. Why do some continue to ignore the three overwhelming lessons of the 1996 welfare reform law?

Lesson one: Real welfare reform means more work, less dependence, and less poverty.

Lesson two: Real welfare reform means stronger families and more healthy marriages, improving children's prospects for the future.

Lesson three: Real welfare reform frees up money from welfare checks that is better spent on services like child care so families can support themselves.

Perhaps one reason for the Democrats' opposition to more welfare reform is that many on that side of the aisle opposed real welfare reform all along. Since Congress started voting on welfare reform bills in the mid-1990s, there have been eight major votes in this House. During that time, Democrats collectively registered 1,392 votes against welfare reform and only 188 votes for it. Eighty-eight percent of the time congressional Democrats have opposed welfare reform bills. Half of the Democrats even opposed the landmark 1996 welfare reform law. On those same votes, an overwhelming 98 percent of the Republicans supported welfare reform.

The debate in the past 2 years has been a reminder of what we saw in the mid-1990s. Whatever their reasons, whether it is because they oppose requiring a 40-hour work week of welfare recipients, like other American families, or they oppose promoting stronger families and healthy marriages, or insist on billions more in welfare spending despite the reduced caseload, some have consistently opposed meaningful updates to welfare reform. That is despite the obvious success of welfare reform since 1996, and despite the obvious need to make adjustments that would help the 2 million families still on welfare achieve independence and better lives.

That is precisely what the legislation passed by the House twice, and supported by the President, achieves. Those who oppose this legislation also continue to ignore letters from the States urging forward movement on a long-term authorization. Most recently, the State of New York sent a letter to their Members in the other body and said, ``In these very difficult budget cycles, delaying TANF reauthorization until the next congressional session will certainly jeopardize the current block grant funding level of $16.5 billion currently maintained in both the House and Senate bills, and the Senate-passed $7 billion child care

amendment, which will annually support over 70,000 additional children of New York's working parents.''

Mr. Speaker, now is the time to act, but today we are here to pass yet another piece of short-term legislation that only maintains the status quo. Unfortunately, this placeholder does exactly what the States fear: places any reforms of additional funding in jeopardy.

Just yesterday, I heard from representatives from my own State of California that continued extensions are standing in the way of more welfare reform there. In short, States serving families on welfare are unable to take the next steps to help them achieve independence when there is not certainty of funding and clear goals are not established. Passing the legislation before us today is a necessary step, since we need to help States keep writing welfare checks to 2 million families.

What more we should be doing is obvious: expecting and supporting more work instead of simply supporting more welfare checks. House Republicans supported the President and have twice passed legislation designed to help more parents know the dignity of drawing a paycheck instead of a welfare check. Others who oppose that next step must explain why they continue to block forward movement.

Mr. Speaker, before I conclude, I would like to mention an individual who has been a tremendous asset in our efforts to reform these programs, Ms. Vee Burke. As my statement reflects, Ms. Burke will be retiring from the Congressional Research Service this year after more than 30 years of service to the Members and their staff. Ms. Burke joined CRS in 1970 as a recognized expert in the field of public welfare. For more than three decades she has worked diligently and professionally to assist us with our efforts. Her contributions and knowledge of these programs have had a direct, positive impact on the lives of millions of families and children. We will miss her and we wish her well and thank her for her many years of service.

Mr. Speaker, today I'd like to pay tribute to Vee Burke, a policy specialist in low-income programs at the Congressional Research Service. Ms. Burke joined CRS more than 30 years ago as a recognized expert in the field of public welfare. Much to the regret of many Members of Congress and their staff, Ms. Burke will retire at the end of November.

During her tenure at CRS, Ms. Burke became a leading expert on the history, evolution, and interaction of welfare and public assistance programs for low-income individuals and families. Over three decades, Ms. Burke has played a role in all major congressional deliberations affecting low-income individuals including the sweeping welfare reforms enacted in 1996. Largely considered the most significant social policy change in the past 60 years, Ms. Burke's in-depth knowledge of low- income programs and her tireless efforts to assist Members and their staff with this legislation were instrumental in our success.

Because of her stature as one of the leading authorities in the country in this policy area, Ms. Burke's advice and assistance has been regularly sought by the congressional committees with legislative jurisdiction. She has offered expert testimony and authored numerous reports that have served as the basis for legislation considered by Congress. Her most unique contribution is the series of CRS reports entitled Cash and Noncash Benefits for Persons with Limited Income that she began in 1976. This initially annual and more recently biennial report provides detailed and comprehensive information and statistics on program rules, participation and spending for some 80 means-tested Federal programs. Ms. Burke also has been a key contributor to the House Ways and Means Committee Green Book since that report's inception in 1981. Anyone who has used either of these resources understands the amount of time and effort that such significant undertakings require, but also appreciate the value and contributions they make to our efforts to assist low-income families.

Ms. Burke is respected and admired by congressional staff and Members, by her colleagues within CRS, and by the broader research and policy community. Her contributions have had direct impact on the lives of millions of Americans. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking her for her service and I wish her all the best in her future endeavors.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the chairman of the subcommittee and author of the welfare reform legislation which has done such an incredible job of bettering families.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just like to respond. We hear the other side, the Democrats, indicating, and I have heard them indicate this over and over, that somehow there was bipartisan support, that somehow the Democrats worked with the Republicans. But if we look at what the votes were, we find an entirely different result completely.

For example, in 1995 on our Committee on Ways and Means, zero votes came from Democrats the first bill that came through. The second bill coming through, again, zero Democrats on the Committee on Ways and Means supporting it. Again, where is this bipartisan support? Finally, the third bill that finally after President Clinton vetoed it twice, the third time around, the bill coming through the same Committee on Ways and Means, the first time through all the Democrats except one voted against it. Then the conference committee, over half of the Democrats on the Committee on Ways and Means still voted against it. And on the House floor the Democrats, over half of them voted against it.

So I am not quite sure where all this bipartisan support is. It seems that the Democrats came kicking and screaming all the way to having the welfare reform.

Let me also refer to this book. They indicate that there is not enough money. Let me quote from how a recent book by New York Times welfare reporter Jason DeParle puts it: ``Falling caseloads brought one problem States welcomed. It left them rolling in dough. States literally had more money than they knew how to spend. Over 6 years, States collected $59 billion more than they could have under the previous system, when falling caseloads brought reduced Federal dollars. Having promised to do more with less, the Governors wound up with more, much more, than anyone imagined.'' That is on page 215 from this book. Again, the facts do not meet the reality of what we are hearing from the other side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) who has been an active member of the committee on this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, in February of 2003, this House passed long-term reauthorization legislation to encourage more work among welfare recipients and to provide more federal dollars for States to assist low-income families. The other body's unwillingness to work with us to move this legislation forward has resulted in lost resources to the States and 2 years of lost opportunity to provide more assistance so more low-income parents can make the transition from welfare to work.

I wish the legislation before us today were not needed. As I have said before, I wish we were here debating a long-term reauthorization bill. But we do need to pass this legislation. Therefore, I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 5149, the bill just considered.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill to suspend the duty on electronic educational toys for children. This duty is, in fact, an educational tax on the consumer.

At a time when we as policymakers are focusing on ways to enhance education for our children, it is important to aggressively promote tools that are valuable in teaching fundamental skills. Penalizing the consumer for buying educational toys is contrary to the country's educational goals.

Currently, computers and toys enter the United States duty free. But electronic educational toys have a duty. This duty is inevitably passed on to the consumer. We do not want to create a situation where a consumer may be less inclined to buy an educational toy versus a regular toy, which has not had to absorb the cost of the duty.

The company leading the fight to eliminate the tax on electronic educational toys is a California company, LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc. LeapFrog is an innovative company and a leading developer of educational products, currently employing 1,000 people in my state.

I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort to end an unwise tax on education.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Child Safety, Adoption, and Family Enhancement Act (Child SAFE) of 2004. This legislation would reform the Nation's child protection programs to ensure that children are safe and families are strengthened.

Like the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program before the historic 1996 welfare reforms, the Nation's child protection programs are broken. More than 500,000 children are in foster care today. Foster care should be a temporary, short-term placement for children until they can be reunited with their parents or placed with a safe, adoptive family. However, on average, children remain in foster care for almost three years. Unfortunately, too many of these children also will experience further abuse and physical and emotional scars that will haunt them for decades.

Every State's child protection program failed recent Federal reviews. Since November 2003, the Ways and Means Human Resources Subcommittee I chair has heard from more than 40 witnesses who have testified that the current child protection programs are ill-equipped to prevent abuse and keep children safe. In May 2004, after a year of study, the nonpartisan Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care proposed major changes to current financing rules for child protection programs. Many of the Pew Commission's recommendations are included in the Child SAFE Act. It is time to respond to the growing body of evidence demanding change and better accountability from our Nation's child protection programs.

The Child SAFE Act would focus on outcomes, rather than process, to better protect children by (1) providing more resources, (2) promoting better outcomes, (3) increasing accountability for results, and (4) increasing State flexibility. The legislation would increase overall child protection program funding over the next 10 years by $2 billion. Federal funding for every child protection activity--foster care, adoption, family services, and caseworker oversight--would rise over the next 10 years.

Current child protection programs provide limited funding for services to assist families and keep them safely together. At the same time, the system provides open ended funding if kids are removed from their families, leading many to conclude that the system encourages an over-reliance on foster care. The result is that countless children are abused and too many families broken up.

The Child SAFE Act would provide Federal foster care aid for every child regardless of income, addressing a longstanding concern among families, advocates and program officials. It also would guarantee rising foster care funding to States regardless of the number of children in care. That means that States that promote more up-front services to either keep kids out of foster care or move them more quickly through foster care will have even more dollars to invest in additional services. This will remove any financial incentive for a State to needlessly remove a child from their family or let that child languish in foster care for years.

The Child SAFE Act also would promote adoption of children from the public child welfare system. Federal adoption assistance will be available for these children regardless of income. Since 1995, the number of children adopted from the public child welfare system has more than doubled. However, more than 129,000 children in foster care await adoptive families. We must encourage States to do more to find safe, loving homes for these children.

The legislation would increase Federal aid for family services and caseworkers. Federal aid would be (1) merged, (2) guaranteed, and (3) increased by a total of $2 billion over 10 years. States would have more funds, more flexibility, and greater incentives to serve families and prevent children's removal to foster care.

The Child SAFE Act also provides increased funding to Indian tribes for child protection programs. It expands funding and services for children placed with relatives. The legislation requires an assessment of children entering foster care--many of whom have deep physical and emotional scars--to determine what services they might need. States that excel in protecting children would receive a share of $400 million in new performance funds. And the legislation is fully offset by provisions previously passed in the House welfare reform bill (H.R. 4).

I thank my colleagues, Mrs. Johnson, Mr. DeLay, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Camp, and Mr. Cantor for joining me in introducing this important legislation. This legislation will improve our Nation's child protection programs so that children are safe and in loving families. I invite all Members to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3463) to amend titles III and IV of the Social Security Act to improve the administration of unemployment taxes and benefits, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 3463, the bill now under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today with my colleagues from the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), who is chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight, and the ranking members of the Subcommittee on Human Resources and Subcommittee on Oversight, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

We are here, Mr. Speaker, to consider bipartisan legislation to stop businesses and those who advise them from wrongly manipulating their corporate structure to avoid paying their fair share of State unemployment taxes, a practice that has been dubbed SUTA dumping.

Not only does the bill before us today, H.R. 3463, bring a halt to the fraudulent and abusive practice of SUTA dumping, it will help strengthen the Nation's unemployment compensation system by requiring businesses that are shirking their tax responsibilities to pay up.

At the June 2003 joint hearing before the Subcommittee on Human Resources and the Subcommittee on Oversight, the U.S. General Accounting Office reported that in three-fifths of the States, laws are insufficient to prevent SUTA dumping. The GAO testified that millions of dollars already have been lost, $120 million in just 14 States over a 3-year period. This loss must be made up by higher taxes on other employers or by lower benefits for unemployed workers.

In my home State of California, estimates of the loss from SUTA dumping run as high as $100 million. In North Carolina, where State legislation already has been enacted to stop SUTA dumping, $6.8 million additional unemployment tax dollars have been collected from 10 companies that should have been making those payments all along. Another 50 companies are being investigated, and up to 100 companies are suspected of wrongdoing. This is just in one State. This is unacceptable.

The bill before us today addresses this problem by amending Federal law to direct States to have effective provisions in their State laws to prevent SUTA dumping. It also gives State unemployment program officials access to data in the National Directory of New Hires to ensure unemployment benefits are not wrongly paid to those who are working.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that H.R. 3463 would save about $.5 billion over 5 years. However, saving money is not the only reason for us to be passing this bill today. When businesses wrongly minimize or even avoid paying their proper share of State unemployment taxes, they undermine the Nation's unemployment benefits system. They also unfairly dump their costs onto other employers.

And it is not just honest employers who lose when their competitors pay less in taxes than they should and gain an unfair competitive advantage by SUTA dumping. Employees lose if employers are more willing to lay them off or delay hiring them back, since they know higher employer taxes will not follow the layoffs. States lose as their trust fund balances fall, possibly leading to expensive borrowing, tax increases, and benefits cuts. The economy loses as businesses fold or fail to start and workers are laid off or never hired.

It is time for us to stop this practice. I ask my colleagues to join me today in passing H.R. 3463, the SUTA Dumping Prevention Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight.

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

I would like to point out to the gentleman from Michigan, Congress provided extended unemployment benefits for 2 years in the wake of the 2001 recession and terrorist attacks. We also provided record Federal funds for States to assist the unemployed which included $1.1 billion to 330,000 workers in the gentleman from Michigan's own State.

I would like to thank my colleagues for joining me here on the floor today to discuss this important bipartisan legislation. I urge all of my colleagues to support the SUTA Dumping Prevention Act to stop fraud and abuse and make our unemployment compensation system stronger and fairer to all. This is good bipartisan legislation. Let us pass it today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Just in response to my good friend from Maryland, thanks to the Republican tax cuts, the economy is strong and getting stronger. The economy recently grew faster than any time in the past 20 years. In the past 4 months, 1 million new jobs were created. The unemployment rate dropped in the last year from 6.3 percent to 5.6 percent. Today's unemployment rate is lower than the average during the 1970s, the 1980s, and the 1990s. Instead of engaging in partisan rhetoric, we should focus on the bipartisan bill before us which will strengthen the unemployment compensation system and make it fairer to all.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read from a fax that I just received from the Office of the President of the United States. It is a Statement of Administration Policy in which it states: ``The administration strongly supports House passage of H.R. 3463, the SUTA Dumping Prevention Act, which would strengthen the financial integrity of State unemployment insurance (UI) programs. The bill would support the President's management agenda by saving hundreds of millions of dollars in fraudulent UI benefit payments and reduce tax avoidance by employers. The administration urges Congress to act on these commonsense reforms to promote fairness and reduce erroneous payments.''

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the bill offered by my good friend from California and Chairman of the Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power, Congressman Ken Calvert.

Mr. Speaker, on balance, H.R. 2828 is not a good bill for rural Northern California. While it takes some positive steps forward to improve the administration of CALFED by instituting greater financial accountability and ecosystem reporting requirements, it still allows the implementation of an expensive, and ill-advised program that has not produced storage nor positive results for Northern California. The bill basically adopts and focuses on the CALFED Record of Decision (ROD) as a framework, which does not provide a comprehensive water solution for the State. CALFED has always been heavily weighted toward ecosystem restoration and increasing exports from the Delta. I don't see that changing sufficiently under this bill. New storage under CALFED has been only empty promises, and the language in H.R. 2828 doesn't ensure otherwise. The state should take a new direction that places a greater emphasis on water storage and constrains the ability of state and federal agencies to buy more land and water. In short, there is not much to be gained, but much to be lost under H.R. 2828 for our area. As such, I strongly oppose it.

I originally supported the CALFED program in concept. Recognizing the very serious water challenges facing our state, I shared the view held by many other Members of Congress from California that such a joint state-federal program could provide an opportunity for developing a framework to solve our water woes for the long-term. Unfortunately, rather than providing a realistic solution to allow the water

interests in the state to ``get well together,'' as CALFED had originally promised, the program has become heavily weighted toward ecosystem restoration and focused on buying land and water to shift around already constrained water supplies, rather than on developing new water storage to meet our state's growing water needs. In addition, there has never been sufficient local control. Instead, federal agencies have been empowered to make important decisions about land and water resources impacting communities.

California faces a water deficit of potentially crisis proportions. The water supply in the state is already stretched to its practical limits. To put the current situation in perspective, recognize that the State Water Project was constructed when California's population was only 16 million people. Today it is over 34 million, and growing at a rate of roughly 600,000 new citizens a year. Yet California's water supply yield has increased by a mere 2 percent over the last 20 years. And the California Water Plan Update, Bulletin 160-98 from a few years ago indicates that existing supply shortages will get appreciably worse over the next 20 years as the state's population continues to increase. Water deficits are projected to reach approximately 2.4 million acre feet in an average water year and 6.2 million acre feet in drought years by the year 2020. If history is any guide, Californians are likely to face major drought conditions not unlike the 500-year drought that is currently plaguing the Colorado basin states some time in the near future. Yet despite this pending crisis, the central focus of the CALFED program has been a plethora of costly environmental projects and plans to increase ability of the State and Federal water projects to move more water to Southern California,

CALFED has failed to make the hard decisions necessary to meet this incredible challenge. While it publicly recognizes water shortfalls, the storage solutions it has proposed will not provide sufficient supply benefits. A new Sites Reservoir, raising Shasta Dam and augmenting Los Vaqueros could be essential pieces of our water puzzle, but my concern is they really won't inject significant additional water ``yield'' into the system. CALFED has taken solutions such as an Auburn Dam, a Yuba Dam, and other on-stream reservoirs off the table because of the environmental controversy they might cause, despite the fact that they present opportunities for new cost-effective water supplies, and provide other benefits like flood control, electricity generation and recreation.

Our current situation is so desperate, and the possible impacts to the economy and public safety of another sustained drought so horrific, that we're not in a position to take these options off the table because they're politically unpalatable. To the contrary, we should be vigorously pursuing them, setting deadlines and goals, streamlining environmental review requirements, and updating federal laws to ensure cost-effective, feasible projects will actually be built and provide water to communities and farmers. Yet, despite several years and millions of dollars of investments from the state and federal government, CALFED has only studied and restudied a limited number of small storage options, without moving the ball down the field. Meantime, our water needs continue to grow dramatically. Fundamentally, when the problem is too many people and not enough water, I believe the answer is to create additional water storage, not sacrifice some parts of the state, including California's thriving agriculture industry, so others can get better. Carving up and reallocating an already constrained water system will not allow everyone to ``get well together.''

The ``Water Supply, Reliability and Environmental Improvement Act'' takes some positive steps forward in some areas, and will institute some accountability into a program that desperately needs it. For example, CALFED has spent taxpayer dollars without Congress or the public knowing or understanding where those funds have gone, and what the benefits for the state have been. H.R. 2828's financial reporting requirements will help Congress better track those expenditures. In addition, the annual reporting requirements for ecosystem restoration provided for in the bill will help Congress better monitor those projects, including land and water purchases. The bill also clarifies that local fish screen projects are a legitimate and helpful way to help local farmers meet federal and state endangered species requirements. I believe each of these program changes represent positive steps forward.

That being said, I do not feel this bill goes far enough to fix a program that is fundamentally flawed and moving in the wrong direction. While its expedited ``preauthorization'' process for CALFED storage projects elevates storage as a principle and could set an important new precedent for future infrastructure development, it appears to authorize only those projects approved pursuant to the CALFED ROD. I have long argued that CALFED's storage proposals are woefully insufficient to address our state's water needs. According to some estimates, a small Shasta raise, a new Sites Reservoir and a project at Los Vaqueros--the CALFED ROD's storage projects--the approximate yield would be only about 300,000 acre feet--far short of addressing a water shortfall in the millions of acre feet.

The bill also does not require expedited consideration for these projects. We have seen time and again how CALFED has dithered and stalled in pursuing new storage. In my view, a responsible CALFED should set hard and fast deadlines and move storage forward on an aggressive schedule. Moreover, the federal environmental review process, as we have seen on forest health projects, can take years and cost millions of dollars, only to be obstructed in the end by radical environmentalists through appeals and court challenges. The bill does not recognize and address those hard realities. In my view, it doesn't do enough to streamline the environmental review process, or to address the obstacles that unbalanced environmental laws are likely to pose to their ultimate development.

There is nothing in the bill to prevent CALFED agencies from continuing to purchase land and water as proposed in the ROD. Indeed, the bill explicitly authorizes the purchase of land and water as an acceptable CALFED activity under existing authority. And while there are reporting requirements, the impetus is on Congress to specifically defund these agency-approved acquisitions, rather than on the agencies to ask Congress to specifically approve and justify them. Because of the community impacts and private property rights concerns of additional land and water acquisitions, it should be the other way around.

I am also concerned by proposals to place the burden of CALFED funding on the shoulders of Sacramento Valley water users, but I understand Chairman Calvert has attempted to address that issue. In accordance with language contained in the report accompanying H.R. 2828, the ``beneficiary pays'' principle specifically applies to direct beneficiaries of projects that improve the Delta. According to this principle, project participants in the CALFED solution area are not considered direct beneficiaries of the CALFED program. Therefore, Sacramento Valley water users who participate in projects to improve the Delta are not subject to any fees or taxes imposed on beneficiaries of the CALFED program.

In closing, something needs to be done--and soon--about the water situation in California. It is only getting worse with each passing day. Today's legislation takes some positive steps forward and I commend my colleagues for their efforts in this regard. However, I fear that the task at hand is so great that unless stronger and more aggressive changes are made to the CALFED program, the state will fail to meet today's and tomorrow's infrastructure challenges.

Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 308 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Stated against:

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4589) to reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant program through September 30, 2004, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Speaker, well, here we go again, another 3 months, another extension of welfare programs. Today, the House will approve the seventh straight extension of welfare programs since September 2002. Since then, the number of Americans collecting welfare has continued to track downward. Fewer people are dependent on welfare checks, which is good. That follows historic declines in welfare caseloads from 1996 through 2001 as pro-work reforms cut caseloads in half and more than 2 million children left poverty, but we want to do much much more.

We want more welfare recipients to prepare for work, which is the true path off welfare. We want to help more parents marry or stay married, which helps them and helps their children. We want to help more parents get ready for full-time work, which is what it takes to lift families out of poverty. We want to provide more child care so more parents can go to work, knowing their children are cared for and safe.

For the past 2 years, we wanted to do all of those things. In fact, the House passed legislation to do all of that and more, twice. In both 2002 and 2003, the House passed comprehensive welfare bills to strengthen the historic 1996 welfare law for years to come. More low- income families would have gotten more help and more would have left welfare for the workforce; but instead, we have waited and waited and waited some more.

For the past 2 years, we have waited on the other body to pass its version of a real welfare bill. For a time this spring it looked like the other body would pass a bill to make available these additional resources for low-income families. That did not happen, and so we are here waiting some more.

Some in this town apparently think by delaying and obstructing the legislative process they will get their way in the end. I wish them luck. I think they are wrong, and low-income families will continue to pay the price for their obstructionism.

I am a fiscal conservative. I am for less government spending, not more. I think that expands the bounds of freedom and opportunity, but I am also a realist. I have seen how welfare reform has lifted literally millions of families out of dependence.

Welfare reform has saved taxpayers money, but it has not been free. It will not be free in the future. The House-passed welfare bill includes reforms and resources needed to help more low-income parents go to work. The families in need will not get a dime of the additional help we included in the House-passed bill unless we can reach final agreement on a real reform bill.

As time passes, budget pressures will only squeeze tighter and tighter, and the additional help we have offered will become only harder to come by.

Given that fact, and the fact we offer to do so much more, give much more to help needy families, it is a tragedy we are back here today with yet another short-term extension that does not give States the certainty they need to best plan for the future.

Mr. Speaker, I wish the legislation before us today were not needed, but we do need to pass this bill. I urge support for this bill, which buys us another 3 months in the hopes the other body will finally act on a broader welfare reform bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, also the former chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources, where this historic legislation originally was enacted in 1996.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), a former chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources.

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

We have heard a great deal from the other side indicating that evidently when this bill originally came through, the historic 1996 legislation, that it was bipartisan. Yet we have heard the chairman that was chairman of the committee during that time indicate just the opposite, and I believe that the record certainly indicates that. The other side, the other party, opposed this legislation in committee and opposed it on the floor when it was voted on. It did that three times. It overwhelmingly opposed it. It was not until President Clinton finally said he was going to support it that there was finally, for basically the first time, any support from the other side. I think the record should show that to be the case.

Another point is when all we do is extend this legislation and do not go with H.R. 4, what we are doing is denying an additional $4 billion for child care over the next 5 years. There is no assurance of full TANF funding for the next 5 years. In the area of marriage and families, there will be no additional $1.5 billion targeted to promoting healthy marriages, no added State flexibility to count spending on strengthening families. It goes on and on on what we will be denying ourselves. It also denies the added flexibility to spend an additional $4 billion in unspent prior TANF funds.

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

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

I wish the legislation before us today were not needed. But we do need to pass this bill. That is the only way we can have any hope of reaching agreement this year on ways to better assist low-income Americans in going to work and supporting their families.

I am pleased that the House has taken action on that important goal and look forward to defending our broader welfare reauthorization bill, H.R. 4, in conference. It is a good bill which promotes stronger families, healthy marriage, and more involvement by fathers in their children's lives, which all would improve child well-being. H.R. 4 also expects and supports more work in exchange for welfare benefits. That is what made the 1996 welfare reform so successful at lifting families off of welfare and out of poverty and dependence.

It is past time for additional commonsense measures to help the 2 million parents that remain on welfare today go to work and better support their families.

Mr. Speaker, during the June 22, 2004 House debate on extending welfare programs, Democrats suggested the process behind the historic 1996 welfare reform law was far more bipartisan than today.

They need to recheck the facts.

The Republic reauthorization bills passed by the House in 2002 and 2003 were more ``bipartisan'' than two out of three welfare bills considered in the mid-1990s.

During the 1990s, the vast majority of House Democrats OPPOSED welfare reform at every stage in the legislative process. The single exception was on the conference report that became the 1996 welfare reform law, when 50 percent of Democrats voted for welfare reform--but only after then-President Clinton announced he would sign the Republican bill.

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