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 is truly an outrage that we are tonight debating how much money to dedicate to the weakest, when the President and the Republicans want to make permanent extending tax credits to the richest in our country to the tune of over $500 billion. And worse, the children of Florida have double jeopardy because we have a governor, Jeb Bush, that gives all of the money to the wealthy businesses instead of making sure that the State can account for all of its children.
Our priorities are all wrong. It is time that we start thinking of the children first. What happened to ``Leave No Child Behind?'' Well, Mr. Speaker, the Republicans are really good with coming up with catchy statements, but I have one for you: Where is the beef? I say, where is the beef?
The Republicans do nothing to improve the state of children in this country. The Republicans want welfare recipients to work 40 hours a week, but where is the money for child care? This bill does nothing to allow parents to receive an education and training to get good jobs to get off the welfare rolls.
The proof is in the pudding. Do not just talk the talk, walk the walk. Instead of sending money to the States to try to get people to get married, we need to focus all of our energy on what is really important: making sure that the States are equipped to take care of all of the children. We cannot afford another tragedy like this precious, precious baby.
Mr. Speaker, to whom God has given much, much is expected, and they are expecting much from this Congress.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
(Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. It is an unfair rule, and it does not give the minority party a chance to engage in a meaningful, substantive debate about the base bill by offering amendments.
Now, during the course of this debate as it resumes tomorrow, we are going to hear a lot of fluff and a lot of bluster about empowering individuals with work and jobs, but if we are truly interested in lifting people out of poverty, we must be interested in giving them an opportunity for work. Yet, an amendment that myself and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) wanted to offer which would have established a work credit, an incentive for States to move people off of welfare into meaningful, respectable paying jobs, is denied an opportunity to be fully heard.
We are also going to be hearing a lot of talk about the importance of two-parent families and the role of fathers with welfare reform. Yet an amendment I wanted to offer with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) that would create an incentive for States to make sure that noncustodial parents get work and also pay child support payments, which is important for the upbringing of these kids, is denied a meaningful debate during consideration of this legislation.
Also, another important area that needs to be addressed with the base bill, and that is victims of domestic abuse and sexual assault are in a unique situation. They sometimes have deep psychological scars and it is not easy for them to turn their life around. Yet, consideration of those issues, which are very important for a lot of people currently on welfare rolls throughout the country, is not given meaningful attention under the base bill.
These issues, however, have been addressed in the Democratic substitute, one that we will be hearing more about and the differences, the basic differences between the two bills, and that is why I would encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule so that we can open up the base bill for more discussion. But if that fails, support the Democratic substitute and vote ``no'' on the Republican underlying bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) for following the time-honored tradition of allowing the Democrats to have a substitute under the rule, but let me urge my colleagues to vote against the rule, because in a bill of this importance amendments should have been made in order and no amendments were made in order.
Mr. Speaker, I listened to many people who were saying they are going to support the underlying bill talk with pride of what we have accomplished during the past 5 years, but then they are supporting legislation that moves backwards and takes away a lot of tools that States currently have that have been responsible for the success during the past 5 years. Our States have said that if these new requirements become law, it is going to require them to have workfare programs rather than getting people real jobs.
But let me talk about the amendment that I took to the Committee on Rules that deals with education, because I think education is key. The current law allows vocational education training to count towards a State's work participation rate for up to 12 months. That is the current law. The Republican bill takes that out of the law. It says basically that education is important for everyone in this country, except the most vulnerable, the people that are on welfare. Is that the message we really want to give to the American people?
The amendment that I submitted to the Committee on Rules would have continued education as a core requirement under the work participation. It would have expanded it to 2 years. It would have included English as a second language and GED, and expanded the opportunities of using education so people cannot only be lifted out of cash assistance, but can have a good job and lifted out of poverty. That is the type of debate that we should be having tomorrow. But the rule that we have before us denies us that opportunity to debate that issue.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue, TANF reauthorization and welfare. It deserves debate in this Chamber so that we can talk about education and we can talk about the other issues as to whether there is adequate resources for our States but, unfortunately, the rule before us will not let us do it. I urge my colleagues to reject the rule.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I understand my colleague has no further requests for time, nor do I, so I yield myself the remaining time.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will allow us to consider two important amendments denied in the Committee on Rules.
The first amendment, offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), would remove the ban on welfare benefits to legal immigrants. Legal immigrants contribute greatly to our society and they paid an estimated $50 billion in surplus taxes just last year, and 20,000 legal immigrants serve in our Nation's Armed Forces but they are banned from receiving funds in this bill. We would have an opportunity to vote to change this, and the amendment would give us that chance.
The second amendment offered by the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) would strike the food stamp program from the super waiver in the five-state block grant. Food stamps are often the only source of Federal assistance for many low-income working Americans. This program should not be tampered with by the House.
Please vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can have an opportunity to debate and vote on these two very important issues.
[Page: H2497] GPO's PDF
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
GENERAL LEAVE
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. 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 House resolution 422.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time. In closing, I ask my colleagues to look back at the welfare reforms of 1996 and to remind them that we have come a long, long way.
Today we will find children and families in each of our districts better off than they were 6 years ago. We have reduced the welfare rolls and helped those who were once down and out to lift themselves up. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4737 builds on these efforts to further protect the children, to further strengthen families, to further increase State flexibility, and to further continue the decline in poverty.
It is often said that the best social program is a job. This legislation provides the needed tools for people to move from welfare to work and opens up for them the door of opportunity, pride, and a better future. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and bill before us today.
I want to make it clear that I strongly advocate giving the states the flexibility that they need to effectively serve those citizens who strive to break the cycle of welfare dependence. That is why I am troubled by the provisions in the bill before us today that severely restrict the flexibility of states such as Texas to continue the activities that have been successful in their welfare to work programs and place a tremendous unfunded mandate on states.
For my own state of Texas, this bill would create an unfunded mandate of $166 million a year, in addition to the $78 million shortfall they will face under current law by 2007. Under the bill, Texas would be forced to implement policies which Texas has already rejected as unworkable and change parts of its welfare reform effort that have been a success in moving welfare recipients into real jobs because of the mandates in the bill. The welfare reform effort in Texas has been a success. It would be the height of arrogance for me to stand here in Washington and vote to require Texas to implement policies on welfare reform that the Texas legislature has already considered and rejected.
The so-called ``super-waivers'' advocated in this legislation has the potential to undermine current food stamp policy that has a sound track record of providing nutrition assistance to all eligible citizens if they face economic hardships. The question is not whether states should or should not receive the flexibility under waiver authority to tailor the food stamp program rules. States already have that flexibility. The question is whether states should be allowed even greater flexibility to change the very nature of the food stamp program.
If there are innovative reforms that states would like to implement that are prohibited under current law, we should examine how to address those specific problems. That is what the Committee process is intended to do. Let state administrators testify before the Agriculture Committee about the changes they believe would allow them to run the program better, let the Committee examine the consequences of those changes, and then come up with legislation to address those concerns.
The delay in bringing this bill to the floor today highlights the problems of ignoring the committee process and writing bills in the leadership offices. Welfare reform is too important to consider under a process that has more to do with scoring political points than building on what has been successful.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4737 is a top priority for President Bush and one of the most important bills we'll consider this year.
The 1996 welfare reform law--one the most successful social policy initiatives in recent memory--is set to expire later this year. In February, President Bush unveiled his principles for reauthorizing this important law; H.R. 4737, the Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act, is based on those principles.
Its goal is simple: to put even more Americans on the path to self-sufficiency and independence. While the '96 law has been an unqualified success, there is more work to be done. A majority of TANF recipients--58 percent--still aren't working for their benefits.
That's why H.R. 4737 strengthens current work requirements. It asks welfare recipients to engage in work-related activities for 40 hours a week--16 of which could be in education, job training , or other constructive activities as defined by states.
The measure also gradually increases the work participation rate required of states--by 2007, 70 percent of a state's TANF recipients must be in work-related activities, up from 50 percent in current law.
Moreover, the bill makes significant improvements to the Child Care and Development Block Grant. It adds $1 billion in discretionary funding to the program over five years and requires states to devote more money to improving child care quality. The bill also incorporates key elements of President Bush's Good Start, Grow Smart early childhood education plan, encouraging states to make sure children are developmentally prepared to enter school.
H.R. 4737 also significantly enhances flexibility for states and localities to integrate a variety of federal programs, including TANF , food stamps, housing assistance, the child care block grant, and workforce investment programs.
This innovative plan will give states and localities the opportunity to respond creatively to recipients' needs and improve the efficiency of federal welfare and workforce programs. As a recent Wall Street Journal editorial noted, the State Flex proposal ``has the potential to spur the next wave of reform.''
With this bill, we have the chance to build on the success of the last five years. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue as we move forward.
This proposal has been approved by three different House Committees; many Members have had the opportunity to consider and amend this bill. The rule today before us is a fair rule, and I urge members to support it.
The amendment previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:
Strike all after the resolved clause and insert the following:
That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. __) to reauthorize and improve the program of block grants to State for temporary assistance for needy families, improve access to quality child care, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed two hours, 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. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution or the amendments specified in section 2. Each amendment specified in section 2 may be offered only in the order specified. The amendment printed in the report of the Rules Committee may be considered only after the amendments specified in section 2. Each amendment may be offered only by a Member designated in the report or in section 2, as the case may be, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report or in section 2, as the case may be, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such amendment are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. The amendments referred to the first section of this resolution are as follows:
(1) Amendment to be offered by Representative Becerra of California or Representative Solis of California or Representative Wu of Oregon or Representative Crowley of New York or a designee, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes.
At the end of the bill, add the following:
SEC. __. TREATMENT OF ALIENS UNDER THE TANF PROGRAM.
(a) EXCEPTION TO 5-YEAR BAN FOR QUALIFIED ALIENS.--Section 403(c)(2) of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
[Page: H2498] GPO's PDF
``(L) Benefits under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program described in section 402(b)(3)(A).''.
(b) BENEFITS NOT SUBJECT TO REIMBURSEMENT.--Section 423(d) of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1138a note) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(12) Benefits under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act except for cash assistance provided to a sponsored alien who is subject to deeming pursuant to section 408(h) of the Social Security Act.''.
(c) TREATMENT OF ALIENS.--Section 408 (42 U.S.C. 608) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(h) SPECIAL RULES RELATING TO THE TREATMENT OF 213A ALIENS.--
``(1) IN GENERAL.--In determining whether a 213A alien is eligible for cash assistance under a State program funded under this part, and in determining the amount or types of such assistance to be provided to the alien, the State shall apply the rules of paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (5), and (6) of subsection (f) of this section by substituting `213A' for `non-213A' each place it appears, subject to section 421(e) of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconcilation Act of 1996, and subject to section 421(f) of such Act (which shall be applied by substituting `section 408(h) of the Social Security Act' for `subsection (a)').
| <<< | >>> |
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