[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 69 (Friday, May 24, 2002)] [Extensions of Remarks] [Page E932] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] ON WELFARE REFORM AND TANF REAUTHORIZATION LEGISLATION ______ HON. MARK UDALL of colorado in the house of representatives Friday, May 24, 2002 Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I cannot vote for this bill. In 1996, Congress passed a largely successful welfare reform bill that gave states much more flexibility to manage their own welfare assistance programs as they saw fit. This approach has significantly reduced the number of people who need welfare and put many impoverished people into jobs that have brought their standard of living above the poverty level. Still, there is more that needs to be done. The 1996 law has helped move people from welfare to work. But it has not had similar success in helping people escape poverty--and there is no reason anyone should live in poverty in the most prosperous country in the world. And some important things have changed since 1996--right now, our economy is struggling to recover, many businesses have had to lay people off, and other firms even have had to shut down. So, as we consider whether to renew or revise the 1996 law, we have both important opportunities and serious challenges. But this Republican Welfare reform bill does not rise to the occasion. Their bill would penalize--not assist--people who are trying to escape poverty. Their bill takes away the flexibility states have had to develop their own programs. It discriminates against legal immigrants. It doesn't provide enough funding for childcare. It doubles the number of work hours required for mothers with children under the age of six and provides a new ``superwaiver'' authority to the President to waiver almost any Federal requirement in food stamps and housing. In short, its most important effect would be to make things worse, not better for millions of people--something I cannot support. And that's not all--the Republican bill would make it harder for the States as well. It has been estimated that this bill dictates up to $11 billion in unfunded mandates. In fact, I have seen estimates that my own state of Colorado might have to pony up an extra $84 million to pay for Federal mandates. I very much regret that the Republican leadership has insisted on depriving the House of the opportunity to pass a better bill. The substitute offered by the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Cardin, contained many provisions focused on moving welfare recipients into real, wage-paying jobs. It would have provided the states with the discretion to determine the best mix of activities needed to move recipients toward selfsufficiency. It would have restored the option of states to provide assistance to legal immigrant families with Federal Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) funds and eliminated the current ban on providing Medicaid to legal immigrant pregnant women and children. It would have provided an additional $11 billion for mandatory child care funding over the next five years and would have increased access to education and training for welfare recipients. And, that substitute did not include the new ``superwaiver'' authority that the Republican bill gives to the President--a nearly unbounded authority that I think is excessive. Mr. Speaker, I had hoped it would be possible for me to support balanced, bipartisan legislation to build on and broaden the success of the 1996 welfare reform law. In particular, I had hoped that the House would have the Opportunity to shape a new law that would do more than just get people off welfare roles, but instead would make it more likely that we could achieve the goal of ending poverty. Unfortunately, this bill does not come near to that, and I cannot support it. ____________________