THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Contents Display
[Page: H2491] GPO's PDF---
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 422 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 422
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4737) to reauthorize and improve the program of block grants to States for temporary assistance for needy families, improve access to quality child care, and for other purposes. The bill shall be considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) two hours of debate on the bill, with 50 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means, 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; (2) an amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered by Representative Cardin of Maryland or his designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter); pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 422 is an appropriate, but fair, rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 4737, the Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act of 2002.
This rule provides for a total of 2 hours of general debate in the House, with 50 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means, 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and, finally, 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
After general debate, it will be in order to consider the substitute amendment, if offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) or his designee, printed in the Committee on Rules report, which is debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill as well as against the amendment printed in the report.
Finally, the rule permits the minority to offer a motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to clarify for my colleagues that H.R. 4737 represents a new version of our welfare reform legislation and incorporates one new change. That first bill was filed on Thursday. The new legislation contains two new provisions. It continues to provide broad authority to the executive branch to waive provisions of law in an effort to streamline certain administrative and programmatic requirements of several programs related to welfare assistance. However, this bill now contains a new provision, G, on page 118, and H, on page 119, which basically maintains the congressional responsibility for this country's pursestrings, those set forth
[Page: H2492] GPO's PDF
Mr. Speaker, 6 years ago many of us stood in this very Chamber surrounded by skeptical eyes and wary glares. The debate before us then was welfare reform. The day we voted on the final conference report, August 1, 1996, was also payday for many Americans. But unlike many Americans, and contrary to the central tenet of the American Dream, 14 million people who cashed their check that day did not work for that money. Such was the nature of our welfare state 6 years ago.
On that day, back in 1996, Congress passed one of the most historic reform bills of all time, one that truly changed the culture of the system from one of cynical dependence across generations to one of personal responsibility. Since 1996, we have witnessed welfare rolls drop from 14 million persons to 5 million nationwide.
In my own home State of Ohio, we were passing out welfare checks to the tune of $82 million per month. Post the reforms, the price tag has been reduced to less than $27 million a month, and it is going to those who really need the help. In one State alone that is a savings of $50 million a month of hardworking taxpayer money.
And while I speak with great enthusiasm about the extraordinary achievements of our friends and neighbors, those who have moved onward to the path of independence, I speak with equal pride of the compassionate Nation that we call home. We live in a country that is built on the rewards of hard work and the generosity of a society that offers assistance to those in need of a helping hand. The underpinnings of our democracy give us reason and incentive to take responsibility for our lives, but to ask for assistance if we really need it, and then be ready to get back on our feet, when we can, with the help of our neighbors and our community.
We will not turn our backs on those who need help. Instead, we will provide them with the tools and the resources they need to overcome adversity, to reverse course, and to rebuild their lives. We have before us today a tremendous opportunity to build on the success of welfare reform. H.R. 4737 is a product of strong reflection and cooperation between the House leadership and the committees of jurisdiction.
While I have the honor and distinction of introducing this legislation on behalf of the House, it is the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), chairmen of the committees and subcommittees of jurisdiction, and many others who have worked the long hours together to craft a bill that truly will protect children, strengthen families, and increase State flexibility. At the same time, it will support further declines in poverty through job preparation, stronger work requirements, and healthy marriages.
First, H.R. 4737 provides $16.6 billion for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF , block grant, which is the program we created in 1996. Funding for this block grant goes directly to state-designated programs to help move more welfare recipients into productive jobs.
H.R. 4737 will require more welfare families to be engaged in work-related activities from the current 50 percent to 70 percent by fiscal year 2007. Increased work requirements are a critical aspect of welfare reform, because according to the Health and Human Services' ``Third Annual Report to Congress,'' 58 percent of welfare recipients are not participating in work activities as designated by Federal law.
Not only will this save money, it will help recipients achieve self-sufficiency, give them that pride that goes with responsibility, and then they can pass it on to their children and their grandchildren.
This bill also offers parents the tools and resources they need to secure a job and provide for their independence. In addition to the $4.8 billion support for child care through the Child Care and Development block grant, we have provided an extra $2 billion in child care money as well as an increase in the amount of money States can transfer to the block grant from 30 percent to 50 percent.
By providing access to reliable child care, recipients will have peace of mind knowing their child is safely cared for as they train for, find, and keep a job.
We all know that training and education are the backbone of advancing one's professional opportunities. Since the average workweek for most Americans is 40 hours, H.R. 4737 brings welfare reform up to par by requiring recipients to be engaged in work activities for 40 hours per week, up from the current 30. While 24 of the 40 hours must be spent in actual work, the remaining 16 hours may be defined by States and can include education and training .
[Time: 20:30]
This bill will also allow for up to 4 months during a 24-month period to be counted toward State work rate requirements if the individual engages in education or training programs leading to work.
Additionally, H.R. 4737 directs up to $300 million annually for programs that encourage healthy, stable marriages, and authorizes $20 million grant funds to support community efforts to promote responsible fatherhood.
Finally, H.R. 4737 gives unprecedented flexibility to States by establishing broad new State flex authority which has the support of the Nation's governors because it will provide the States and their governors with new and creative tools to meet their own State's needs. In an attempt to cut down on the arduous, costly and burdensome waiver application process, States will be able to improve program effectiveness by submitting a single application to tailor Federal education, child care, nutrition, labor and housing programs to fit their State's welfare needs.
Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that the reality of welfare reform success will silence the grumbles that echoed throughout this Chamber back in 1996. I wish to extend an invitation to my colleagues who may be hesitant to support this rule for partisan reasons to take a good look at where we were 6 years ago and where we have come today. Members will find hundreds of children and families in their districts that are better off now than they were 6 years ago. They are working, they are proud, they are teaching their children about the dignity of having a job and providing for their families. They see a better future for themselves and their loved ones, and they are encouraged to tell their stories.
A check in the mail every month will not teach responsibility, will not build confidence, and will not break the cycle of intergenerational dependence we witnessed for decades. A check in the mail for a job well done will open up the doors of opportunity and offer all Americans an endless supply of pride and self-worth for generations to come.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill is one that impacts millions of Americans. Many of them are our most vulnerable constituents, but the process before us today shuts out any meaningful debate, and blocks consideration of important amendments affecting the elderly, mothers and children. This is not a welfare reform bill; this is spite.
Moreover, the entire legislative body is put on hold. The Committee on Rules, as I said earlier, was shut down at midnight and forced to postpone our vote on the rule until 8 this morning, but then we repeated the process a little while ago with yet another version of the bill. As has been pointed out, in 24 hours this bill has become three. Today's drafting and redrafting makes a mockery of regular order, and Mr. Speaker, this has got to stop.
It is duplicitous for the Committee on Rules to take testimony from our colleagues while they know full well that the bill before us will not be considered in its final form. I oppose this heavy-handed process and the cynicism it embraces, and urge my colleagues to defeat this ill-conceived rule.
In the light of day, we can see that the underlying bill is one that can desperately use some improvement, and is clearly not ready for prime time. In fact, the Committee on Rules went out of its way to ensure that these much-needed changes will not be considered.
Several critical amendments were struck down repeatedly on a party line vote in the Committee on Rules. In a slap to legal immigrants, the committee voted down efforts by the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) to protect legal immigrants from being singled out in the measure.
My colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), attempted to provide adequate funding for child care; but he, too, was rebuffed. And the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) found her years of work on the farm bill to protect food stamp recipients under attack only days after significant improvements to the program were signed into law by President Bush. The Committee on Rules saw fit to shut her out as well. Most of my colleagues' efforts suffered a similar fate.
Moreover, it is becoming clear that the underlying bill fails to address the most fundamental goal of welfare reform, moving recipients into real jobs and out of poverty. While caseloads since 1996 have fallen over 50 percent nationally, the poverty rate has decreased only 13 percent over the same period. This means that even during a time of historical economic expansion, many who have left welfare remain dependent on food stamps, WIC and other public assistance. Recipients are raising children without the education, training or child care that is necessary to move to real independence.
We have heard from governors, mayors, State legislators, welfare directors and poverty experts who all say the same thing: The bill is a step in the wrong direction. We have heard from a bipartisan group of Senators, led by Senators BREAUX and HATCH, that we should expand access to vocational education, give States credit for placing people in real jobs, maintain State flexibility, increase child care funding, and remove restrictions on serving legal immigrants. But, unfortunately, none of these proposals are contained in this bill. In fact, the legislation eliminates vocational education from the list of activities that count as work-related activity.
The message is clear: Education is the key to every American's future except for poor single mothers with children.
Child care also takes a hit. The new legislation stiffens the work requirements, but fails to increase the child care money beyond the additional $400 million a year that the House majority proposes. Instead, parents get care vouchers, and it is up to them to find the care. And how many welfare parents have been able to find accessible, high-quality child care near their homes, or care available on nights and weekends? How many vulnerable kids in our communities are now in what is known in the welfare reform business as self-care, which is to say, they go home after school, lock the door and stay inside. No one has any idea.
The Congressional Budget Office has informed us that implementing the new work requirements in the bill would cost States between $8-11 billion over the next 5 years. In addition, the Congressional Budget Office has indicated that maintaining the current purchasing power of the child care block grants will cost States another $7 billion over 5 years. This unfunded mandate could force States to cut child care funding for the working poor in order to finance the additional day care costs in the workfare programs.
Moreover, new requirements in this bill will focus States on placing recipients in make-work activities, rather than in real jobs. In fact, 41 of the 47 States surveyed by the National Governors' Association indicated that the proposal would require them to make fundamental changes to their welfare programs.
A recent study by the University of Washington found that States' workfare program had much less impact on the wages of former welfare recipients than preemployment training did.
This research is one of the reasons that very few States have implemented large workfare programs over the last 6 years. Some jurisdictions that did create work experience programs are now beginning to scale them back. For example, New York City enrolled less than 10 percent of its adult caseload in work experience programs at the end of last year compared to 15 percent 2 years ago.
Mr. Speaker, there is a better way, one that maintains State flexibility, one that focuses on real work, and one that seeks to help families escape poverty. My colleagues and I support strong work requirements that seek to move people into real jobs. We believe States should have the flexibility to determine the best mix of services and activities to move welfare recipients towards self-sufficiency.
We want to end discrimination against legal immigrants and provide welfare recipients with access to vocational training so they can find good jobs. And we support providing the necessary resources, especially for quality child care, to help families leave welfare for work. I am afraid this measure fails to do just that.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, assistance to those in need is not only important, it is vital. However, that assistance must be enabling, not disabling. To me, welfare reform success must be measured by how many people no longer need temporary assistance, food stamps, or Medicaid, and how many are moved to a life of self-sufficiency, dignity, opportunity and hope.
Before moving forward, it is useful to review and look back on the welfare reform legislation from 1996. It had three goals. First, reducing welfare dependence and increasing employment. Today 4 million fewer people are living in poverty than when welfare reform was enacted.
Second, reducing child poverty. Since welfare reform, welfare dependence has been cut nearly in half.
Third, reducing illegitimacy and strengthening marriage. For nearly three decades, out-of-wedlock births as a share of all births rose steadily at a rate of almost 1 percentage point per year. Welfare reform has stopped this trend in its tracks.
H.R. 4737 is based on the principles of this past reform. It increases minimum work requirements, but it builds in cushions for sick days and holidays, simulating a typical American work schedule.
| >>> |
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Contents Display