Benjamin Cardin

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), who is one of the co- authors of the substitute.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest during the debate, and there is a better way. The substitute that I am submitting is submitted on behalf of myself, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka), the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer). Mr. Speaker, it provides for a real-work requirement, a requirement for real jobs. We reward the States for finding real employment for the people that are on welfare. We have put in the substitute an employment credit against the work requirement that was suggested by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) that rewards the States for finding employment for the people on welfare. Unlike the Republican bill, the Democratic substitute provides flexibility to our States, particularly as it relates to education. We increase, not eliminate, the opportunity of States to provide educational opportunities for the people on welfare. We increase the amount of education from 1 year to a maximum of 2 years, no caps on the number of people who can participate, specifically provide for English as a second language and GED. Mr. Speaker, by opening this up, there are no requirements on the States. The States can then determine what is in the best interest of the people in their own State. We should not mandate how the States respond to the educational needs of their own citizens. It is their decision, not ours under the substitute. Mr. Speaker, that is flexibility. That is what the States want. The Republican bill moves in the opposite direction and takes away flexibility. The Democratic substitute provides more resources. We do that. We provide $11 billion of new resources in mandatory spending for child care, unlike the Republican bill which is $1 billion in mandatory spending. The Congressional Budget Office has indicated that is necessary, otherwise we are imposing additional mandates on the States without providing the resources. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for bringing forward the child care issue. I regret their amendments were not made in order. The substitute also provides for an inflationary increase of $6 billion over the next 5 years for the basic grants to our States. If we do not do that, we will have level funding for 10 years, and we would actually have had a decline of a significant amount of dollars available in real purchasing power. I have heard the Republicans comment the caseload is down. That is not true. Cash assistance is down, but the people being served by TANF funds is actually increasing because we are now providing employment services and day care to Americans who are working. We also provide additional incentives to States to get people out of poverty. The Democratic substitute moves forward in removing the discrimination against legal immigrants. We allow the States at their discretion to cover legal immigrants with their TANF funds, and we make progress in both SSI and Medicaid in covering children and Medicaid for pregnant women. Mr. Speaker, the Democratic substitute moves us forward to the next plateau, to the next level of expectation on our States. We provide the flexibility and the resources, but we hold our States accountable to not only get people out of cash assistance off of the welfare rolls, but so American families can also move out of poverty. Mr. Speaker, let me close this part of the debate by citing two of the groups that are in support of the substitute, and there are many others. First, the Children's Defense Fund when they say: ``Children deserve the chance to grow up out of poverty. The Democratic substitute bill represents genuine progress for families with children to escape from poverty. I urge you to take the opportunity to help these working families to ensure that we truly Leave No Child Behind.'' From Catholic Charities U.S.A.: ``We believe your substitute will help families escape both welfare and poverty, and we offer our strong support.'' Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), my chairman, wants the record to be accurate, so let me just clarify the point he made about the States' maintenance of effort requirements, which is current law. Wisconsin would receive well over $58 million in additional Federal support over and above the substitute, plus under the Republican bill they would truly have an unfunded mandate of $89 million. So I thank my friend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) for looking after the citizens of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), a coauthor of the substitute.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me just point out to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), my chairman, that this bill spends less than half of what the farm bill spent and will not even keep up the share of the Federal spending on these programs with the increase. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), one of the coauthors of the substitute. (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I understand the Republican sensitivity on the dollars because the people of Maryland over the next 5 years will get significantly more Federal help for their $61 million investment. But under the Republican bill they have to lay out $144 million and they get nothing in return. I can understand the sensitivity that you might have on the other side of the aisle on our States.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me remind my friend that just a week ago, we approved over twice as much for the farm bill, without offsets. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), one of the coauthors of the substitute. (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, if you believe in vocational education, you do not restrict the States, you give them more authority, and that is what the substitute does. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez). (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me just point out that in the motion to instruct on the agricultural bill concerning food stamps, all of the Members and the Republican leadership voted against it to cover legal immigrants. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy). (Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, all I can point out to the gentleman is that in California they will be better off without an extra $2.5 billion mandate. They would be better off without that. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the assistant to our leader.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, if I might, I am going to first urge my colleagues to support the substitute. If my colleagues believe in flexibility on education, if they believe States should have the resources and they think we should have fairness to our immigrants, our only opportunity will be this vote. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), one of the co-authors of the substitute.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, what time is remaining?

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown). (Ms. BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), one of the co-authors of the substitute.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), and I regret we do not have more time. (Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CARDIN

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, there is some good news here. If the House votes against this rule, we do not have to be in until the wee hours of the morning. We do not have to debate one of the major bills of this session so late at night that it is difficult for us all to have the type of debate that is worthy of this body. I urge as a matter of fairness that we reject this rule. Welfare reform and TANF reauthorization deserves to be heard during normal hours of this body. It is wrong for us to have to consider it this late at night. Second, I do not know how many Members are aware when we started today we had H.R. 4700 as the welfare bill. Then it was changed to H.R. 4735; and now tonight it is changed to H.R. 4737. We have had three bills submitted to us for welfare reform. I wonder how many Members of this body are aware of what is in the legislation that they are going to be asked to vote on tonight. Let us vote against this rule so we have a chance to at least read this rule before Members vote on it. How many Members are even aware what was added to this bill, not by any of the committees, but by the Committee on Rules, a provision that will take Medicaid administrative funding away from our States. Each one of our States are going to lose some revenue. Do Members know how much their State is going to lose? Give the Members a chance to know what is in the bill. That is the reason we have a one day layover on rules, and that is why this martial law should not be adopted. Mr. Speaker, how many Members know what has been done to the super waiver. I ask Members to read the language that the Committee on Rules added to the super waiver. We do not have a super waiver the way Members think it is. It has been changed dramatically. I have heard the President say we are giving additional flexibility to the States. We are not in the Republican bill. We are taking it away, less flexibility on how to get the workforce to work, less flexibility on education. The President brags about the super waiver. Do Members know what is in the bill? That is changed now. If we approve this rule, we are going to be taking up another rule that is a closed rule in that it does not allow us to offer amendments to the Republican bill. There are issues that deserve the debate of this Chamber, whether we should make it easier for the States to provide education and job training to people on welfare. That deserves the right to be heard as a separate amendment. I asked the Committee on Rules as the ranking Democratic member of the Subcommittee on Human Resources that it be made in order. It is not made in order. Child care is an unfunded mandate on the States. We should have an opportunity to debate that issue, but the underlying rule does not give that to us. Legal immigrants, whether they should be continued to be discriminated against; that should have a separate vote on this floor. What is wrong with the democratic process so the will of this body can be had, so the majority can rule? No, the Republicans are afraid to let the majority rule. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule.

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.