M. President, I wish to inform my colleagues about why I would object
to a unanimous consent request to proceed to HR. 2350, the House Extension
of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families through September 30,
2003. I am compelled to object because the legislation does not allow
Oregon’s TANF waiver to continue beyond June 30, 2003. This
is a difficult decision. Through the years I have been a staunch supporter
of welfare programs, and I am proud of what Oregon has accomplished
through its innovative program. Since 1994, Oregon’s cash assistance
caseload has dropped by more than 60 percent, which is higher than
the national average. These folks have left the welfare rolls primarily
because they found employment. A five year study by the Manpower Research
Demonstration Corporation (MDRC) rated Portland’s JOBS Program
model as one of the most successful in the nation. Specifically, the
MDRC report found Portland’s program to be “unusually
effective” and “produced the largest, most consistent
increases on most measures of employment and earnings.” A recent
National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work study commissioned by the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services determined “[Portland,
Oregon] achieved such success because it was able to continue education
and training with other work-related services under a waiver that
allowed Oregon to develop its strategy without federal mandates.”
Clearly, Oregon was able to achieve such great results because the
Oregon welfare program is targeted at meeting the specific needs of
the people of Oregon.
Oregon made these tremendous gains because, like many other states,
it was granted the flexibility to do what was best for Oregonians.
Indeed, state flexibility was once a hallmark of the TANF program.
The waivers allowed states like Oregon to customize their programs
to fit the unique characteristics of local communities and to address
localized barriers to work. Unfortunately, Oregon’s success
is threatened because the federal waiver allowing the Oregon Option
to operate expires on June 30, 2003. Under section 415 of the Social
Security Act, states such as Oregon with waivers approved prior
to the enactment of the Personal Responsibility/Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) were allowed to continue operating their
programs. However, the Act does not give states authority to continue
their waivers past the scheduled date of termination. The House
provided an extension of TANF with no provision for a commensurate
extension of the waivers. The House failed to provide any reasonable
rationale for shutting down Oregon’s waiver. I cannot let
that happen.
Oregon’s waiver has helped people move out of poverty into
work, but recently, Oregon has been ground zero for the economic
downturn. We have the nation’s highest unemployment rate at
8.1 percent. We have seen welfare rolls in Oregon increase from
15,887 to 19,176 families in less than a year. With the increased
welfare rolls, we have seen a decrease in benefits. Welfare recipients
have suffered under increased co-payments for child care and heightened
eligibility requirements. Meanwhile, our state Department of Human
Services has estimated that it would cost $42 million more to operate
a non-waiver TANF program for two years. Even if we account only
for the period of this extension - three months – Oregon would
be forced to pay over $5 million to alter a program that everyone
agrees has worked. That does not make fiscal sense to me, that does
not make policy sense to me, and I refuse to let Oregon suffer another
blow to its budget and another blow to its welfare program. I ask
unanimous consent that my statement be printed in the record.
### |