Mr. Chairman, the States have made some important progress over the last six years in moving individuals from welfare to work. Many of us want to see them continue this trend, while also helping former welfare recipients move up the economic ladder. 

    Regrettably, the bill before us today not only fails to take this next step in welfare reform, but it also threatens the progress we have made in moving welfare recipients into employment.

    In other words, this legislation takes a step backwards. Back to a one-size-fits-all approach of reforming welfare. Back to requiring States to concentrate on fulfilling federal requirements, rather than moving welfare recipients towards self-sufficiency. And back to putting welfare recipients into "work activities," instead of finding them real jobs. 

    This is not just my opinion. We have heard the same concerns from Governors, Mayors, State legislators, welfare administrators and many others. 

    For example, during our hearing last week we heard from a Republican State legislator who said, 

"What troubles state legislators about the President's plan is not that it focuses on work ... but that it will force states to establish community work programs for those on the rolls at the expense of those who have left or have never been on the rolls. If new and inflexible work requirements are added to the program, states -- constrained by the fixed sum of money available from the block grant and their own economic difficulties -- will be forced to cut back on other TANF funded programs that support work." 

    41 out of 47 States surveyed expressed similar concerns about the Administration's proposal, according to the National Governors Association. They are reacting to the cumulative effect of three provisions in the bill before us today – (1) requiring States to double the percentage of welfare recipients who are engaged in federally-defined work activities, (2) dramatically increasing the amount of required hours of participation per week, especially for mothers with young children, and (3) reducing State discretion to count vocational training toward the participation requirements. 

    The States are concerned that such a structure will force them to focus on setting up "make-work" or work experience programs, rather than getting welfare recipients into real jobs. 

    For example, a welfare recipient could be working part-time in a real, wage-paying job for 20 hours a week, and attending vocational training classes for another 20 hours a week, and the State would receive absolutely no credit toward the Federal work participation rate under this proposal. Such a structure deprives States of the ability to tailor services and activities to the individual needs of each welfare recipient. It also could force States to shift resources away from helping the working poor maintain employment in order to pay for the new unfunded Federal requirements for welfare recipients. 

    Mr. Chairman, I want to work with you and the Administration to produce bipartisan legislation that builds on the strengths of the 1996 welfare reform law. Hopefully, we can move in that direction in the coming weeks. But I cannot support this bill, which ignores the advice we are hearing from the very people responsible for implementing it. Thank you.