Opening Statement of the Hon. Charles B. Rangel, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York,
and the Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin, a Representative in Congress from the State of Maryland

Testimony Before the House Committee on Ways and Means

Hearing on the President's Plan to Build on the Success of Welfare Reform

March 12, 2002

Mr. Secretary, you and I have debated the question many times before you took office, when you were a governor. I did not think that the Federal government should sever its responsibility to the poor - the entitlement - then. And I still think that we should have not done that. I didn't think the governors would perform as well as they have. And you were right in stating, as a governor and now I hope as Secretary, that they have the responsibility and the less that the federal government can get involved the better these serious and complex problems can be handled.

I would want you to know that it is my belief, especially after listening to the Chairman and Subcommittee Chairman that the Administration might do better in reaching a bipartisan accord on this issue by working with us and seeing what we can come up with. Because I am afraid my Republican friends are looking for some rhetoric for the campaign and we are just looking for a solution to the problem.

And so, there are many things that I am certain Mr. Cardin will direct himself to if the Administration senses it is impossible to deal with the Members of the other party on this committee. These include the failure to include education as a factor to be considered as something in addition to work; the failure to allow the states - our governors - to provide for legal immigrants in the spirit of welcoming people to this great republic; the fact that there are no funds for additional daycare costs, which is considered to be an unfunded mandate; and, of course, there are no provision for inflation.

But there is something for us to work with. We look forward to working with you and we are not going to allow our Republican friends to stop us from coming up with a bill that we can all agree on.

I would like to yield to Mr. Cardin, who has worked so hard on this with the support of the Administration.

Mr. CARDIN: Let me thank Mr. Rangel for yielding and thank the Chairman for his patience.

Mr. Secretary, I know you want to work out a bipartisan agreement. You have met with us. You have been very open in your exchanges and you have worked with our staffs and we look forward to continuing to work with you so that we can reach a common goal of reauthorizing TANF. And I think that we can do that in a bipartisan way.

I would ask, though, that you look very carefully as I know you will at four recommendations that were made by the National Governors' Association that are not included in the proposed legislation that you have talked about. As a former governor, you will appreciate each of these issues.

I'm concentrating on where we have differences rather than the lots we have in common. Because there is an awful lot that with which we go into this debate on the same level.

The governors are asking for more flexibility, particularly as it relates to determining the mix of training services and work which will best fit the needs of the individual recipient. I am afraid that, in some cases, the Administration's suggestion actually moves in the opposite direction in regards to the flexibility of the states to make that judgement.

Secondly, the governors are asking for inflationary increases in the basic TANF funds. And I know it is a tough year for funds, but if we make no adjustment then over a ten year period, we will actually see a reduction of about 22% in the buying power of the money that the federal government is making available. And, as you know, the states are currently spending $2 billion dollars more a year on TANF than they are receiving because they squirreled away some of the money from the earlier years.

Third, the governors have suggested repealing the ban on the use of federal funds that deal with legal immigrants within the TANF system. This is not really a dollar issue as it relates to federal funds because we make it available in block form to the states - it is how the states choose to use their money. And if they choose to cover legal immigrants under the restrictions that are imposed under general use funds, why shouldn't they be allowed to do that?

And the fourth issue deals with a program which I know that you support and that is wage supplements - getting people who are working the income that they need in order to survive and strive in our economy. And we should remove the penalties in the current law as it relates to wage supplements and our governors have asked us to do that.

Let me just add one additional issue in regards to resources, and that is childcare. You have heard that mentioned by many of us, that we are not providing enough help today for the necessary childcare. And, as we put more and more requirements on work, the pressure for affordable childcare will only become greater.

Finally, I want to make it very clear that there is no disagreement that work must be the central goal of welfare reform. However, there is a clear difference between short-term unpaid work experiences and long-term wage paying jobs. So as we move forward, I know that your goal is to make sure that the next step of welfare reform is to get people not only off of TANF assistance, but out of poverty. Because you know that you want to add the welfare of the child as a principal goal. You know that I feel you should add reducing poverty. So we share a common vision as to where we want to see us move in the next five years. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.