Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am introducing legislation today to ensure that burdensome regulation does not add unnecessarily to the cost of housing.

The need for this legislation is brought about because the Department of Treasury has issued regulations to provide guidance on the definition of contributions in aid of construction, so called CIAC, as enacted under the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996. Despite the fact that Congress specifically removed language concerning ``customer services fees'' in its amendment in 1996, the Department added the language back into the proposed regulation specifying that such fees are not CIAC. They then defined the term very broadly to include service laterals, which traditionally and under the most common state law treatment would be considered CIAC.

Because state regulators require all of the costs of new connections to be paid up front, these regulations will force water and sewerage utilities to collect the federal tax from homeowners, builders, and small municipalities. Because they collect it up front, the utility is forced to ``gross up'' the tax by collecting a tax on the tax on the tax, resulting in an over 55 percent effective tax rate.

This bill will clarify prospectively that water and sewerage service laterals are included in the definition of contributions in aid of construction (CIAC). It clarifies current law by specifically stating that ``customer service fees'' are CIAC, but maintains current treatment of service charges for stopping and starting service (not

Mr. Speaker, I am introducing legislation today to help small and family owned timber owners comply with the passive activity rules as set out in the Internal Revenue Code and the Treasury Department regulations. The current rules require a taxpayer owning timber to devote at least 500 hours per year to the tree growing business or 100 hours of personal work under an unpredictable ``facts and circumstances'' test.

While the typical small grower assumes huge risk from pests, fire and wind and costs such as local property taxes, clearing and pest control, he or she would be hard pressed to devote even 100 hours a year to working in the forest. With little or no income in the years between harvests, small timber owners' expenditures become passive losses deductible many, many years in the future, severely impacting the owners' already modest cash flow.

My bill would provide a narrow exception to small (80 percent owned by no more than 5 people) and family timber owners. The bill would provide an exception for these taxpayers performing fewer than 100 hours or in the instance when the owners manage a third party to perform the needed services.

We must create a self-sustaining resource of trees to ensure raw materials for paper products as well as to provide a continuing supply of reasonably affordable building materials for consumers. And it is increasingly obvious that our most reliable source will be the millions of acres of privately owned forestlands. Timber farming is a long-term, high-risk venture, subject to the uncertainties of disease, fire and a highly unpredictable marketplace. My bill will ensure that small timber holders continue to be a viable part of this essential industry.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) for his outstanding leadership in crafting this bipartisan legislation, as well as commending the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the ranking member, for his work on it as well. I am very pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation.

As chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources, I appreciate the dedication and commitment of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) to children's issues. Nationally, more than 18,000 children have been adopted since Congress created the Adoption Incentive Program in 1997. In my home State of California, adoptions have more than doubled. This is tremendous progress. As a result, States have received almost $160 million they can use to support families and children in distress. Despite this progress, there are still 126,000 children waiting to be adopted. This legislation will encourage States to find adoptive families for these children by continuing and improving the Adoption Incentive Program for 5 more years.

I am pleased this legislation adds a new incentive to promote adoption of children age 9 or older, as the Bush administration proposed. These children are most at risk to spend their childhood in foster care and never find an adoptive family, so they deserve our special attention.

I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their support of this legislation. I look forward to working with them to promote safe adoptive placements for children in foster care. This bill is certainly a worthy step in that direction. I urge all Members to support this excellent legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) apparently has not read the House-passed bill. The House-passed bill is the same as the motion to instruct in the treatment of low-income families. Both accelerate the refundability of the child tax credit effective this year, exactly the same as the motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley). We all agree that changes need to be made in the child tax credit. The legislation passed by the House earlier this year, legislation that passed by voice vote, by the way, makes a number of beneficial changes to the child tax credit. For example, the House legislation will ensure that child credit remain at $1,000 per child through the year 2010. Under current law, the credit is scheduled to be reduced after 2004 resulting in a tax increase on American families. I hope we can all agree to keep the credit at $1,000.

The House bill also eliminates the marriage penalty in the child credit. Eliminating this marriage penalty will provide more than $20 billion of tax relief to middle-income families over 11 years.

The House bill enhances tax fairness for the members of the U.S. military who risk their lives to defend our freedom by granting capital gains relief on home sales, making death gratuity payments tax free, and other important provisions.

Perhaps of most interest to those who are supporting the motion, the House bill increases the amount of the child tax credit that is refundable from 10 percent of income over $10,500 to 15 percent of income over this amount. Our bill would make this increase effective this year.

The motion to instruct, on the other hand, would reduce the child tax credit for millions of children. It would allow the child credit to drop from $1,000 per child to $700 per child.

The motion to instruct does not eliminate the marriage penalty in the child credit until 2010 and then it only does so for 1 year.

Under this motion to instruct, millions of children will be denied the child credit simply because their parents are married. The House bill benefits middle-income families by eliminating the marriage penalty in the child credit immediately.

Finally, let me make clear that the House passed bill does not, I repeat, does not deny the child credit to military families. Military families, including those who are deployed abroad, are already receiving a refundable child credit and will continue to receive a refundable child credit under the House bill.

The motion to instruct would use a different definition of the income when determining the child credit, thus increasing the child credit for some military families. But I would note that this definition of income is different than the definition of income recommended by the prior administration, a Democratic administration. In fact, the current definition of income, as proposed by the Clinton administration, was enacted in the law in order to simplify the program and limit the potential for fraud and abuse.

So let us be clear. The House bill provides more tax relief to military families because it includes $806 million in military tax benefits that are not included in the motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, we should support the very worthy legislation passed by this House and reject the motion to instruct.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, my friend is incorrect. The House bill does not give any benefits to the wealthiest 1 percent of families because the wealthiest are not eligible for the child credit. Our bill benefits low-income and middle-income families who are left out of the Democrat motion to instruct.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, this House passed a good bill to improve the child tax credit and to provide tax relief to our brave men and women in the Armed Forces.

Now is not the time to abandon what we have already done. We should continue to work with the other body to resolve this issue, but we should not settle for a bill that is inferior to what was already passed by this House. Hardworking families and the military men and women who preserve our freedom deserve tax fairness today more than ever. Let us show our support for the House bill by rejecting this motion to instruct.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3146) to extend the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant program, and certain tax and trade programs, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3146, which extends various government programs beyond the September 30 end of the fiscal year. Within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means, this includes certain tax and trade programs, as well as a simple 6-month extension of key parts of the Nation's welfare system.

The historic 1996 welfare reform law has been an unparalleled success. Nearly three million children have been

lifted from poverty. Record shares of current and former welfare recipients are working, and welfare dependence has been cut in half.

Despite the challenges facing our country, these welfare reforms continue to benefit families with children by promoting work by low- income parents. Unless we act, the authorization for key welfare programs will expire on September 30, 2003. H.R. 3146 will continue current funding for these programs through March 31, 2004.

Earlier this month, a bill to reauthorize and improve our Nation's welfare program was reported out of committee in the Senate. This extension will provide the Senate more time to consider this bill and pass a broad welfare reauthorization bill.

Members will recall that the House passed a broad 5-year welfare reauthorization bill in 2002. This bill was a product of intensive research and evaluation, including more than 20 hearings in the House. Key provisions focused on achieving more work, less poverty, and stronger families. However, the Senate did not act on that bill before the 107th Congress adjourned.

In February 2003, the House again acted on a full 5-year welfare reform reauthorization bill and approved H.R. 4, an updated version of its 2002 bill. We continue to wait for a consensus on a long-term reauthorization of our Nation's welfare programs. In the meantime, we continue to see evidence that welfare reform continues to work.

A report released in August presented key indicators of well-being for America's children that once again show positive results for our children. Birth rates for unmarried teenagers have dropped considerably since 1994. The poverty rate for children raised by single moms also has declined markedly.

However, there is still more progress to be made. Today, fewer children live in married-couple families. We have seen a steadily growing stream of evidence that children do best when raised by married-couple families. That is why the House-passed welfare reform bill provides flexibility to States to promote marriage and strong families. States and families would be on the receiving end if we reach agreement on a long-term reauthorization bill.

Unfortunately, the improvements included in H.R. 4 will continue to remain on hold while we pass short-term placeholder extensions.

In addition to funds to promote strong families, H.R. 4, as passed by the House, also provides at least $2 billion in added child care funds over 5 years, along with more flexibility in spending cash welfare funds on child care and other needs.

So long as we continue to extend our Nation's welfare system on a short-term basis, States cannot take advantage of these additional dollars or improved flexibility. The means low-income families will not see the benefits of the improvements we have proposed for the program. Ultimately, the success of the 1996 law reforms may begin to erode as well. Recognizing the importance of continuing these programs, the House and Senate have agreed to four short-term extensions of our Nation's welfare programs. However, I hope that in the next 6 months we get a comprehensive welfare reform bill to the President's desk for signature.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

This is indeed a very important piece of legislation which keeps welfare programs that promote work and independence operating from coast to coast. It is important that those programs continue to be funded beyond their current September 30 expiration date. It is unfortunate that we have not yet reached a deal on a full 5-year welfare reform reauthorization bill that promises many improvements to the welfare reform policies now in place. The House welfare bill includes an additional $2 billion for child care so that more parents can work and more flexibility for States to spend their welfare funds, but until we get agreement on such a broader bill, we need to keep today's program operating. That is what this bill does.

I urge all Members to support this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully oppose the substitute to H.R. 7 offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin). I oppose the tax increases included in the substitute. As the Subcommittee on Human Resources chairman, I also oppose increased funding in the substitute for the Social Services Block Grant.

First, such funding is really a welfare, not a charitable giving, issue. In the House welfare reform bill passed in February, we continued record welfare

funding despite 50 percent caseload decline since 1996. We even proposed more than $2 billion in increased funds for child care to support more parents in work and other activities. We already have proposed increased funding for welfare and related benefits in our welfare bill.

Second, Members will recall we just gave States $20 billion in May in the jobs and growth tax relief bill. Of that, $10 billion can be spent however States choose, including for social services.

Third, last week the General Accounting Office reported that States have $5.6 billion in unspent welfare funds today.

Mr. Speaker, this Congress has been very generous in terms of funding, including for the very types of services my good friend from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) addresses as part of the welfare reform bill.

One final point, we know many are insisting on more funds in exchange for continued welfare reforms. Providing more funds without achieving such reforms would inadvertently undermine the potential for getting a welfare reform deal done this year. We should resist anything that does that.

I urge opposition to the substitute and support for the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of this. I represent one of the richest agricultural areas in our Nation in northern California, the northern Sacramento Valley, just north of Sacramento. This agreement will be very, very helpful to our agricultural commodities.

Singapore imports virtually all of their food products. Trade and agricultural products represent a net trade surplus for the United States. In 2002, American farmers exported around $259 million worth of food products to Singapore. By binding all of its tariffs at zero, Singapore will open its markets to American agricultural products and create new opportunities for American farmers to sell their produce to a nation whose small size prevents it from being able to grow enough food for consumption by its citizens.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I feel that this would be very beneficial for our country, for their country, in general; and I urge support of this.

Mr. Speaker, concerning rollcall vote 108-364, On Agreeing to the Amendment of Representative Ron Paul of Texas to H.R. 1950, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 2003: Although I was correctly recorded as voting against the passage of this amendment, which eventually failed by an overwhelming vote of 74 to 350, I would like the Congressional Record to reflect that my ``no'' vote was in error, and I would have liked to have voted ``aye'' on this provision.

Specifically, Representative Paul's amendment would have prohibited funds authorized under H.R. 1950 to be used to pay any U.S. contribution to the United Nations or any affiliated agency of the United Nations. Like many, I firmly believe evidence of the need for a dramatic reevaluation of current U.N. policy is glaring. Over the years, the United States has been a host nation to the United Nations, headquartered in New York City, and has contributed greatly to the funding for the organization, including the enormous cost to the American taxpayer of deploying our military on the numerous U.N. peacekeeping missions worldwide, amounting to roughly one-quarter of the peacekeeping expenses of the 191-member body. However, recent events surrounding the ousting of Saddam Hussein's tyrannical regime in Iraq, and the inability of the United Nations to enforce its own Security Council resolutions, has renewed questions of the legitimacy of this body, as well as the necessity and level of U.S. participation in its funding and daily activities.

I would also like to note that I have cosponsored a number of pieces of legislation in the House of Representatives, which, I believe, address these questions more thoroughly. While I do not object to the U.N.'s founding objectives of peace through positive discussions and diplomacy, the organization has clearly failed in this charter mission. As it currently exists, the United Nations merely provides a weighted platform to nondemocratic and anti-American nations. Perhaps a more constructive and strategically important avenue would be to pursue an entirely new federation of nations, limiting voting membership to democratic countries that share our values and goals.

For these reasons, I have cosponsored H.R. 1146, introduced by Representative Ron Paul, which calls on the United States to withdraw from the United Nations entirely. I have also cosponsored two related bills, which would impact our involvement in the United Nations in lesser ways. H.R. 800 would provide for the withholding of United States contributions to any U.N. commission, organization, or affiliated agency that is chaired or presided over by a country that has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism. H. Con. Res. 116 takes this bill a step further, issuing a sense of Congress that the United States should withhold all payments to the United Nations until its bylaws are amended to prevent countries whose leaders are not democratically elected from holding a position of authority within the United Nations.

Mr. Chairman, concerning Rollcall Vote 108-364, On Agreeing to the Amendment of Representative Ron Paul of Texas to H.R. 1950, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 2003: Although I was correctly recorded as voting against the passage of this amendment, which eventually failed by an overwhelming vote of 74 to 350, I would like the Congressional Record to reflect that my ``No'' vote was in error, and I would have liked to have voted ``Aye'' on this provision.

Specifically, Representative Paul's amendment would have prohibited funds authorized under H.R. 1950 to be used to pay any U.S. contribution to the United Nations or any affiliated agency of the United Nations. Like many, I firmly believe evidence of the need for a dramatic reevaluation of current U.N. policy is glaring. Over the years, the United States has been a host nation to the U.N., headquartered in New York City, and has contributed greatly to the funding for the organization, including the enormous cost to the American taxpayer of deploying our military on the numerous U.N. peacekeeping missions worldwide, amounting to roughly one-quarter of the peacekeeping expenses of the 191-member body. However, recent events surrounding the ousting of Saddam Hussein's tyrannical regime in Iraq, and the inability of the U.N. to enforce its own Security Council resolutions, has renewed questions of the legitimacy of this body, as well as the necessity and level of U.S. participation in its funding and daily activities.

I would also like to note that I have cosponsored a number of pieces of legislation in the House of Representatives, which, I believe, address these questions more thoroughly. While I do not object to the U.N.'s founding objectives of peace through positive discussions and diplomacy, the organization has clearly failed in this charter mission. As it currently exists, the United Nations merely provides a weighted platform to non-democratic and anti-American nations. Perhaps a more constructive and strategically important avenue would be to pursue an entirely new federation of nations, limiting voting membership to democratic countries that share our values and goals.

For these reasons, I have cosponsored H.R. 1146, introduced by Representative Ron Paul (R-TX), which calls on the U.S. to withdraw from the United Nations entirely. I have also cosponsored two related bills, which would impact our involvement in the U.N. in lesser ways. H.R. 800 would provide for the withholding of United States contributions to any U.N. commission, organization, or affiliated agency that is chaired or presided over by a country that has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism. H. Con. Res. 116 takes this bill a step further, issuing a sense of Congress that the United States should withhold all payments to the U.N. until its bylaws are amended to prevent countries whose leaders are not democratically elected from holding a position of authority within the U.N.

Mr. Speaker, it is an incredible privilege and honor to serve in this body.

This is not a happy or a proud day for any one of us. We were all here late last night until midnight. Those of us who serve on the Committee on Ways and Means, as I do, were here early this morning. I was sitting throughout the entire meeting. I was sitting up on the dias. I personally looked down and was able to see what took place, and I support our chairman in his calling for support at that time.

Mr. Chairman, so this amendment seeks to save the wildlife refuges of the Klamath Basin. From what, Mr. Chairman? Farming in the refuge of the Klamath Basin has occurred since they were created nearly 100 years ago. Today it continues to represent a shining example of how agriculture and wildlife cannot only coexist, but thrive together.

And as if the farmers I represent in this area of Northern California have not suffered enough, it would cause them even more economic harm. And not unlike the disastrous decision that shut off 100 percent of their water just 2 short years ago, there is absolutely no valid justification or factual basis for it.

Row crops are an essential part of the balance that embodies the lease land farm program. They are specifically required under the law, because they benefit wildlife and maximize revenues for farmers in local counties. On average, row crops have generated $10 million annually. If those same acres were planted only in grain, as this amendment would require, they would generate only $1 million. Make no mistake: that $9 million loss would cripple this economy.

The irony, Mr. Chairman, is that despite the gentleman's desire to help wildlife, this measure would do precisely the opposite. For generations, farmers have worked and nurtured these lands for the benefit of the wildlife. Waterfowl populations in particular are thriving. Consider this statement from the California Waterfowl Association: ``For nearly 100 years, farmers and ranchers in the Klamath Basin have coexisted with immense populations of wildlife. Many wildlife species, especially waterfowl, are familiar visitors to their highly productive farms and ranches. Klamath Basin agriculture provides a veritable nursery for wildlife.''

Row crops are not just an economic necessity to farmers; they provide food for migrating birds. Crop rotation improves the health of soil and, therefore, the productivity of the cereal grains that provide other essential wildlife benefits.

Allow me to address the notion that this measure would somehow provide more water to the refuges. That is simply inaccurate. For 100 years, all interests in the Klamath Basin, farmers, fish, and refuges, have gotten by together, sharing the pain and the profit alike. It was not until 2001 that the Endangered Species Act caused some interests to do without. Shortages are not the result of an overallocation; they are the result of environmental laws that do not allow for balance.

Mr. Chairman, the lease land program is a win-win. It benefits the environment. The Fish and Wildlife Service have found that it is entirely compatible with refuge management, and a Federal district court has agreed. So what is the problem, Mr. Chairman? Why the persistent attacks on farmers when these facts are so clear?

The purpose of the radical environmental groups supporting it is the removal of agriculture entirely. Consider that virtually the same groups behind today's amendment pursued a version several years ago to eliminate any new leases, and the same kinds of radical environmental groups have unsuccessfully attacked the program again and again in the courts.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to look at the facts and consider the lives and the families of those who will be directly impacted should this amendment succeed. Reject this veiled attempt to undermine agriculture.

Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 378 I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Stated against:

Mr. Speaker, last year Congress, working together with President Bush, enacted into law the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. Among other provisions, this new law strengthens and expands the expensing provisions afforded to small businesses under section 179 of the Internal Revenue Code. As such, the law encourages 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 2003'' to do just that.

Specifically, the Jobs and Growth Act increases from $25,000 to $100,000 the amount of new investment a business can expense--or deduct from income--in a given year. The new law also increases--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 the new law, these provisions are set to expire after 2005.

My legislation will repeal the 2005 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 2003'' 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. 2350) to reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant program through fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2350, the Welfare Reform Extension Act of 2003. This legislation is a simple 3-month extension of key parts of the Nation's welfare system.

Since the historic 1996 welfare reform law, nearly 3 million children have been lifted from poverty, record shares of current and former welfare recipients are working, and welfare dependence has been cut in half. Despite the challenges facing our country, these welfare reforms continue to benefit families with children by promoting work by low- income parents.

Unless we act, the authorization for key welfare programs will expire on June 30, 2003. H.R. 2350 will continue current funding for these programs through September 30, 2003. That will provide the Senate more time to consider a broad welfare reauthorization bill along the lines proposed by the President and already passed by the House.

Members will recall that the House passed a broad 5-year welfare reauthorization bill last year. The Senate did not act on that bill before the 107th Congress adjourned. The 2002 House bill was the product of intensive research and evaluation, including more than 20 hearings in the House. Key provisions focused on achieving more work, less poverty, and stronger families.

In February 2003, the House again acted on a full 5-year welfare reform reauthorization bill and approved H.R. 4, an updated version of its 2002 bill. While we have been waiting for consensus on a long-term reauthorization of these programs, the House and Senate have agreed to three separate short-term extensions. Those extensions covered the first, second, and third quarters of the current fiscal year.

The legislation before us today would do more of the same, extending these programs for the fourth quarter of the current fiscal year, or through September 30, 2003. States and families would be on the receiving end if we reach agreement on a long-term reauthorization bill.

The House-passed 5-year reauthorization bill, H.R. 4, encourages even more low-income parents to work while providing more resources to support them. Unfortunately, the improvements included in H.R. 4 will continue to remain on hold while we pass short-term placeholder extensions. For example, H.R. 4 as passed by the House provides at least $2 billion in added child care funds over 5 years, along with more flexibility in spending cash welfare funds on child care and other needs.

So long as we continue to extend our Nation's welfare system on a short-term basis, States cannot take advantage of these additional dollars or improve flexibility. That means low-income families will not see the benefits of the improvements we have proposed for the program. Ultimately, the success of the 1996 law reforms may begin to erode as well.

It is my hope H.R. 2350 will be the final short-term extension we approve, and in the next 3 months we get a comprehensive welfare reform bill to the President's desk for signature.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind everyone that what we are renewing is an updated legislation that we had some 20 hearings on in the last Congress. It is legislation that is updating probably the most successful social welfare reform in our Nation's history. More than 50 percent of those who have been on welfare are now out being productive. Child poverty levels are at the lowest in history. Again, what we need to do is extend this for the 3 months so that we can get agreement in the Senate so we can move forward with this updated legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), a member of the committee and subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind the other side how successful this legislation has been since 1996. Child poverty has fallen sharply. Nearly 3 million children have been lifted from poverty. The black child poverty rate is now at a record low. More parents are working. Employment by mothers most likely to go on welfare rose by 40 percent from 1995 to 2000. Dependence fell by unprecedented levels. Welfare caseloads fell by 9 million, from 14 million recipients in 1994 to just 5 million today.

Again, this is legislation that has been updated this year that we had some 20 hearings on in the last Congress and which passed earlier this year; and I might mention also that we provide an additional $2 billion in added child care funds in our legislation which hopefully will be renewed here in 3 months. We provide the States with more State flexibility in spending cash welfare funds, we focus more on promoting healthy marriage and child well-being, and we encourage more work, higher incomes, and less welfare dependence.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me remind the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) that just in the last 2 weeks we passed legislation which was signed by the President which gives to the States an additional $20 billion in State aid. The States also have some $6 billion in Temporary Aid to Needy Families or TANF surplus that is available to them. We also transferred some $3 billion of surplus that they have available. We also have $6 billion of unemployment that they have in surplus available.

The gentleman asked if the legislation is so successful, why would we want to make changes; child poverty has fallen, more parents are working, dependence fell by unprecedented levels. But the fact is there is still more that needs to be done. There is still 58 percent of recipients who are not working or trained. There are too many families that are breaking up, who never formed, that this legislation will address, and there are some 2 million families that remain dependent on welfare. And that is why even though this legislation has been so incredibly successful, we still have more to do.

With that, I would urge the body to support this legislation, this extending of 3 months. I urge an ``aye'' vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 256 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''