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    

   It makes special accommodation for parents with infants, and for individuals who need a substance abuse treatment, rehabilitation or special work-related training .

   It provides financial incentives to the States to give as much money as possible to mothers and children, and it directs up to $300 million for programs that encourage healthy, stable marriages, including communications and conflict resolution training .

   It provides grants to support community efforts to improve parenting skills and promote responsible fatherhood.

   It encourages State innovation that will help States design revolutionary programs to help bring welfare reform to the next level.

   Mr. Speaker, I encourage all Members to support this rule and to support H.R. 4737.

   Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).

   Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).

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

   Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, this process of the rule shows contempt for poor people and poor children, just as legislation also shows contempt. Welfare legislation should not demonize poor children. Yes, first we must remember that the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Act is a safety net program for children, for poor children. Helping mothers to find jobs is only a means to accomplish the end of providing necessities for children.

   These children are a vital part of the fabric of America. History clearly exposes the fact that poor children of America have grown up to supply the majority of the foot soldiers who have been maimed and killed by the wars of

[Page: H2494]  GPO's PDF

   If we are so unfortunate that we are entrapped into a prolonged war against terrorism and it becomes necessary to institute a draft again, the first and greatest number to be drafted will be the children from the poorest families in America.

   Helping children out of poverty and not harassing the so-called welfare mothers should be the goal and mission of the reauthorization of TANF legislation. After 5 years of this program, which has been labeled a great success, why are there more children living in poverty than before? Have the infant mortality rates decreased? Are children who have been pushed off Medicaid receiving adequate health care? Are there more children in juvenile delinquent detention facilities? What proportion of the prison population were teenagers on welfare 5 years ago?

   To bring legitimacy and humanity into this lawmaking process, these are a few of the questions that we should answer. We have rushed to declare a success without applying any basic scientific research principles. Instead, we are passing a rule tonight which facilitates a cold-blooded grab for another pound of flesh from the demonized welfare mothers.

   Today it is approximately 2 weeks since we passed the largest safety net under congressional jurisdiction, the farm subsidy program. Although it has a few other features, it is primarily to convey $20 billion per year to so-called poor farmers who constitute less than 2 percent of the population.

   This is not the only tax dollar give away orgy that we have seen recently. In the nearly $400 billion defense bill, we threw billions of dollars at several unnecessary weapon systems, such as the dangerous Osprey helicopter gadget, a missile defense system that will not protect us from terrorists, and other high-tech overweight gun monsters that the Secretary of Defense has declared obsolete.

[Time: 20:45]

   There have been other tax giveaway orgies, but the farm bill is the most relevant comparison because the farm subsidy is a safety net program. Most people do not understand; it is a safety net program. The means test for the agriculture safety net benefit is $2.5 million. If you make more than this, you are not eligible for the safety net benefits of the farm program. In any one year, you can only receive $390,000. Do farmers have to work for these taxpayer dollars? Or are they paid not to work to grow food? Farmers are important, but no more important than the families that supply the majority of the foot soldiers who fight and die in the wars of America. Poor children in America are as important as anybody else. We should not continue to demonize them. We should understand what Osama bin Laden and a number of people in the Islamic world understand. They are precious, they take them and they train them to hate; and they have become a resource to be used against America. Our children deserve the same kind of attention, not to be demonized but to be nurtured.

   Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

   Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I support the rule and the underlying bill. It seems to me that we often devote most of our time in this body attempting to fix that which is broken and very little time preventing damage before it occurs. The greatest cause of poverty in this Nation is fatherlessness. Children without fathers are five times more likely to live in poverty. They are five times more likely to depend on welfare. The greatest cause of dysfunction among young people is fatherlessness. Fatherless children are three times more likely to have behavioral problems, two times more likely to commit a crime, and much more likely to be involved in teen pregnancy, drugs, suicide and dropout from school. We have 18 million fatherless children in our country today.

   The President's welfare reform plan addresses these problems. It eliminates the higher work requirements for two-parent families. It removes a disincentive to marriage. It provides $300 million to allow States to provide marital preparation programs, to provide counseling to strengthen marriages, and to promote fatherhood programs which encourage fathers to take responsibility. This bill strengthens families and attempts to eliminate the root cause of poverty. It is proactive rather than reactive.

   I urge support for this bill.

   Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson).

   Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask Members to vote against this rule. The American taxpayers who pay our salaries deserve a full and open debate on the most significant piece of legislation concerning the lives of families and children across this country. If this were an open rule, of course, I would try to offer an amendment that does in fact enhance the position of fatherhood and fatherhood programs in a State. But, Mr. Speaker, States around the country are financially strapped. Indiana alone would be affected $211 million with the passage of this incredible legislation. Because it is as significant as it is, it deserves full and open debate. We have pushed unfunded mandates for education of our children from the Federal Government to the States; and the last time I looked at this bill, by whichever number it may be at this particular point, it would even deny persons an opportunity to get vocational education which would push them into the economic mainstream, into the job opportunities that would be afforded them from vocational education.

   I think that it is grossly unfair to punish American families and to punish children by this bill. That will be why, Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the Members to vote against the rule and recall the words of Abraham Lincoln, I believe, that a House divided cannot stand. Certainly this particular legislation is very divisive, and we should not support the rule.

   Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

   Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).

   Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

   Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor tonight to express my great dismay, consternation and disillusionment with the decision of the Committee on Rules to deny every single amendment that had been proffered for debate in this House on this very, very important bill. I cannot fathom the reason why there would be a total rejection of all of these important measures. They could select out some. The four that I proposed could easily have been eliminated. I would have been angry, but at least the process would have been preserved. This House has a world reputation to maintain as a great deliberative body. What are we afraid of in terms of a full debate? There is no way in which you can take a general debate and a debate on a substitute, to have that constitute an amendment on specific provisions of the bill.

   An amendment would allow us to single out an issue, to target it, to talk specifically about one particular provision, such as education, why that is so important. It seems to me that the leadership of this House, the Committee on Rules, has completely abdicated its responsibility to preserve the very heart of this Chamber and, that is, to allow the diverse opinions, the discussion and debate to formulate the final outcome of this bill. As it turns out, none of the amendments are going to be considered. We will have just the debate on the main bill and a debate on the substitute. All the other things of importance will be relegated to the trash heap. I think that that is really a disgrace.

   I hope that the Members of this House will understand that this is a degrading operation on the integrity of this House, and I hope they will vote down this rule.

   Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).

   (Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

   Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, we need to block this block grant proposal. This welfare reauthorization bill

[Page: H2495]  GPO's PDF

   I offered an amendment to remove from the bill these two provisions, the five-state block grant provision and the super waiver provision. The Committee on Rules denied that amendment. This rule, therefore, needs to be defeated on process.

   This block grant proposal ought to be blocked for a number of valid policy reasons: first of all, this proposal undermines the ability of the food stamp program to respond to human needs during economic downturns. The States will face pressure to transfer food assistance spending to employment and training .

   The Congressional Budget Office estimates that between 2002 and 2007, expenditures for food stamp benefits, administrative costs and employment and training programs will increase by 13 percent, from $21 billion to $24 billion. Indeed, if this should occur, where would this money come from? Fixed block granting of food stamps would not allow for those expenditures.

   Finally, the restoration of legal immigrants, unlikely under food stamp block grants. Just Monday, I stood beside the President when he bragged about the fact that he was restoring legal immigrants to have the provision of food stamps. Well, they will not have it if five States can block grant, because the immigrant cost is not in the base of it; and that cost, therefore, would be impossible for States to assume, and that provision would not happen.

   Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to act responsibly by indeed responding to the increasing need of food assistance during economic times and not to block-grant food stamps. The States cannot afford it. Therefore, I implore my colleagues not only to defeat this rule but also to defeat this bad proposal.

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

   (Ms. SOLIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

   Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I also rise today in strong opposition to this unfair rule. I am strongly disappointed that my friends on the other side of the aisle decided that a debate about the future of working families, working poor families in this country does not deserve more than a few hours of discussion. And I am disappointed that they decided that amendments on important issues like child care and restoration of benefits for legal immigrants, legal immigrants, does not deserve to be heard on the floor of this House. These are vital issues to my community.

   In Los Angeles County alone, there is a child care crisis. Only 16 percent of the children in my community there receive child care. And for a family earning the minimum wage in my community, it takes about 61 percent of their income just to place one infant in child care. So I attempted to offer an amendment to allow mothers who are receiving welfare benefits and have infant children or a child or a disabled child to stay at home and care for that child because it is so costly to place these children in child care. It is hard to get, and it costs a lot of money. This request was denied.

   Mr. Speaker, I also represent a community with a large number of immigrants, many from Mexico, Central America, and Asia. I attempted to offer an amendment with the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) to restore welfare benefits to legal immigrants. But this request was also denied. I cannot support a rule which does not even allow me to debate the issues that matter most to men and women from my district who are struggling to get out of poverty. They want to have dignity. They want to have a job. But they also need assistance from this government.

   I urge my colleagues to oppose this unfair rule and oppose the previous question so we can make our voices heard and allow for a free and fair debate.

   Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek).

   (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

   Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this welfare reform rule should be defeated in that there is really no reformation of welfare here. There are just some glib statements of people who would not know a poor person if they saw them walk by them tonight. They need to get into the shoes of poor people. Then they can realize that this bill does nothing to increase self-sufficiency of poor people.

   We use a lot of buzz words here in the Congress. We keep talking about self-sufficiency. You do not find it here. None of your welfare reform bills or your welfare programs have brought self-sufficiency, because the people you say will be out of poverty are still in poverty. You are not meeting the child care needs. The children are getting poorer and poorer. Poverty resides just away from here, not two blocks from here. Yet you cannot realize that this bill does nothing to address self-sufficiency.

   In 1999 in the middle of the economic boom, ex-welfare recipients who worked earned an average of nearly $7,200 a year, approximately $6,000 below the poverty line for a family of three. Think of that. Nearly one out of five children in the United States are still living in poverty. And we are here in this great land, we are able to give away money to everyone; but we cannot look down to the least of those, our small children who need help in this country. Poverty is not so that we cannot overcome it. Other governments have tried it. Why is it that our government is so bitterly opposed to helping poor people? You are helping the rich. Why not put the same measurement on the poor? You are not helping them.

   Are we providing recipients with the education and training ? I see these women who come in and out like they are on an escalator with all of these training programs. There are people who are getting rich off your poverty program under the guise of bringing about welfare reform. That is why we sit here and make these obsolete kinds of measures, not letting people talk about them. You have got to have some real jobs, not dead-end jobs, so that these people can become self-sufficient and educate and train them. It can be done if we really want to do it.

   Defeat this rule.

[Time: 21:00]

   Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

   (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend His remarks.)

   Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to this rule.

   A fair rule should give us a chance to build a consensus; this rule does not. Women on public assistance with children under 6 years of age have three full-time jobs. They are expected to work, as they should, in exchange for their welfare benefits; they are expected to get an education so that they can leave welfare and get a better job, and they are expected to be full-time moms 7 days a week, 24 hours a day. Only a magician can pull off that triple-threat problem, unless she has adequate child care.

   There are Members in this Chamber who believe strongly that the work requirement should be increased to 40 hours, and there are those of us who believe that that increase is punitive and counterproductive. There is an opportunity and a possibility for compromise, and that compromise would be to guarantee, not to promise, but to guarantee first-rate child care when needed for these moms that we are telling to get out and get an education and go to work. Amendments that would have given us a chance to strike that compromise have been stricken from this rule.

   Mr. Speaker, this rule fails the test of serious compromise and it should fail the vote of this House. I would urge my colleagues to defeat the rule.

   Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown).

[Page: H2496]  GPO's PDF

   (Ms. BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

   Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, there is two words to describe what is wrong with this welfare bill: Rile-ya Wilson, this beautiful baby. Right now, this 5-year-old child from my State is missing somewhere in this country, and this Congress wants to give full responsibility to under-funded State agencies without any Federal oversight.

<<<

>>>

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