TANF and Related Programs Continuation Act of 2004
TANF AND RELATED PROGRAMS CONTINUATION ACT OF 2004 -- (House of Representatives - June 22, 2004)
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4589) to reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant program through September 30, 2004, and for other purposes.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation to extend the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, program for the next 3 months. The bill will allow our States to continue to provide assistance to struggling families while also providing a variety of services to help people leave welfare for employment.
Additionally, this legislation would extend a number of important related programs, including transitional Medicaid which provides continued health care coverage for people leaving the welfare rolls to go to work.
Like the previous six welfare extensions passed by Congress over the last 2 years, this bill is a simple extension of current law. It does not include any of the controversial policy changes to the underlying program which were incorporated in the legislation that passed this body; and for not including those controversial provisions, I commend my friends on the other side of the aisle.
While I support this temporary extension, I wish we were here today, as the chairman of our subcommittee has said, to pass a long-term bill to help our States plan future efforts to move individuals from welfare to work. I, however, disagree with my subcommittee chairman in that the legislation that passed this body, in my view, and I think in the view of the experts in this area, makes it more difficult for us to accomplish the goal of a long-term extension of the welfare program.
The House-passed welfare bill was denounced by Governors, mayors, State welfare administrators, and poverty experts as an inflexible, unfunded mandate. The divisive debate instigated by the legislation has stymied a goal that should be bipartisan, extending the 1996 welfare reform law.
We are now on the seventh temporary extension of TANF funding. This process leaves the States uncertain about the future Federal funding levels and policy requirements, which in turn makes long-term or even intermediate range planning increasingly difficult for the State welfare programs.
Given this problem and the apparent deadlock on a broad reauthorization bill, the time is coming for Congress to pass a long-term continuation of TANF. For example, after this next extension expires at the end of September, Congress could extend the current law for 5 years. Mr. Speaker, considering how we on both sides of the aisle have hailed the success of the 1996 law, it is surprising to me why it is so difficult for us to at least use that as the building block, rather than as an area to impose new requirements on our States that are not funded by additional resources.
If we did extend the current law for 5 years, we could use that as a stepping-stone to debate other proposed reforms separately. At the very least, this step would ensure the continuation of a program that many of us have declared a success.
In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, I support the temporary extension of the welfare-related funding provided by the legislation currently before us. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds mainly to comment on the comments of my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), in that I am one of those Democrats who supported the bill in 1996. It was a bipartisan bill. It was a good bill and it did move us forward. What is surprising to me is why the legislation that passed this body is so radically different, so prescriptive at the Federal level as to what the States must do; taking away the flexibility, putting in more mandates, and not providing the funds necessary in order to carry out the new
responsibilities.
I am surprised that we moved in that new direction when we were moving, I think, in the right direction, and all we needed to do was fine-tune the 1996 law.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 9 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 1 ½ minutes.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I think the comparison to how we proceeded in 1996 versus how we have proceeded in the year 2002, 2003, and 2004 is very instructive. In 1996, we had a President who ran for the Presidency saying that he would end welfare as we know it. He established three parameters for a new welfare bill, which were flexibility to our States, accountability, and resources. In 1996 in a bipartisan manner, we passed welfare reform with the support of our national Governors. In 2002 and 2003 and 2004, this body has passed legislation in a very partisan manner, without the support of our national Governors, for good reason.
The three pillars on which welfare reform was built in 1996 which has gotten such praise from both sides of the aisle are severely compromised by the legislation that passed this body.
First, on flexibility to the States, we take it away in the bill that we passed. We cannot use vocational education as the States would like to do, and I can name example after example.
On accountability, we have make shiftwork rather than real jobs, people moving up the economic ladder in the legislation that passed this body. And in resources we provide $1 billion only in new child care that is mandatory, even though the estimates are that the mandates in this bill will cost our States an additional $11 billion, an unfunded mandate.
So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this extension because it is clean. It has none of those extraneous issues in it. It extends the 1996 law for 3 additional months. And then I hope we will get back to working together as Democrats and Republicans for a long-term extension that builds on the success of 1996.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.