[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 54 (Thursday, March 23, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H3581-H3700]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                  PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1995

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dickey). Pursuant to House Resolution 
119, and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration 
of the bill H.R. 4.

                              {time}  1055


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 4) to restore the American family, reduce illegitimacy, 
control welfare spending, and reduce welfare dependence, with Mr. 
Linder in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, 
March 22, 1995, amendment No. 11 printed in House Report 104-85, 
offered 
[[Page H3582]] by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey], had 
been disposed of and the bill was open for amendment at any point.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13, printed in House 
Report 104-85.


            amendment offered by Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut

  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 13, 
printed in House Report 104-85.
  The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut: Page 87, 
     line 3, strike ``$1,943,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,093,000,000''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
[Mrs. Johnson] will be recognized for 10 minutes, and a Member opposed 
will be recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott] will be 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge support of the child care 
amendment which I am offering along with Congresswomen Pryce, Dunn, and 
Waldholtz, which raises the authorization level for the child care 
grant by $150 million a year for 5 years.
  Mr. Chairman, there are three main points I would like to make with 
respect to this amendment.
  First, requiring adults to work in exchange for their benefits will 
increase the need for child care. This is inevitable. Fully 63 percent 
of families on AFDC have children age 5 and under. A significant number 
of children who are in school still need after-school care, since the 
school day and school year are much more limited than the typical 
workday and work year.
  In an ideal world, extended family would be able to provide some 
amount of this care. But in today's world day care and the need for day 
care is a reality for those on welfare and those gaining independence.
  Second, reduced child care funding puts the squeeze on the working 
poor. In recent years, AFDC participation rates have resulted in States 
offering the program tilting more and more toward welfare families and 
away from the working poor.
  Thirty-five States reported last year that they have a waiting list 
for subsidized child care for working poor. My State of Connecticut 
does not even maintain a waiting list anymore, since all slots opened 
up are already spoken for.
  As we require more women on welfare to work, this problem is going to 
get more serious, not less serious.
  I am pleased to be proposing this amendment today because I think it 
expands our resources significantly to address the child care needs 
that will develop as we reform welfare. But this amendment is not the 
whole answer. That is a point that is very important to make because 
there was a lot of misunderstanding in recent days as we debated this 
bill about how we are going to manage the child care needs that welfare 
reform will impose upon society. The heart of the solution is actually 
not this amendment; the heart of the solution is moving welfare from a 
cash-gift basis to a cash-wage basis because if everyone receiving 
welfare were also working and we used our day care resources to pay 
very skilled administrators and lead teachers, child development 
experts to run these day care centers, with welfare recipients now 
being paid to staff them, then we would in fact have the child care 
slots that we need at the money that is currently available.
  So this is simply one step forward, giving States time and resources 
to create really the much greater, broader child care opportunity, 
better connected to education, work, and training that real reform 
demands.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
                              {time}  1100

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, Members of the House, we have again a fig leaf on the 
other side. They have written the bill, they have gotten it out here. 
Then they did a poll. On Monday they did a poll; a Republican pollster 
did a poll, and found that 67 percent of Americans believe the 
Government should help pay for child care for mothers on welfare. They 
found that 54 percent of those surveyed opposed eliminating 
requirements to State-set minimum health and safety standards for child 
care. So they said, ``This is awful what we did. We've cut 400,000 kids 
out of child care.''
  So they have come out here with an amendment today. It is a fig leaf. 
It puts 100,000 back on. There is still 300,000 kids who will not get 
welfare child care under this bill.
  There should be no mistake about it; this does not solve the problem. 
The gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] is absolutely correct. 
It is a fig leaf because they got a poll that said they were in 
trouble.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Chairman, this goes right to the heart of the 
debate, and the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] and I have 
worked on some of these issues over the years, but we part company 
today in addressing day care; the reason is that the Republican bill 
block grants and sends everything back to the State. What we would like 
to do in the Deal amendment is to make sure some of the programs that 
do work stay in the Federal purview.
  H.R. 4 repeals a transitional child care program which guarantees day 
care for the children of parents who leave welfare. This is needed. It 
repeals an AFDC child care program which provides day care for parents 
attempting to get off welfare, and H.R. 4 repeals the at-risk child 
care program for people that try to stay off and do not want to go back 
on, and so we have this amendment before us which is a good amendment 
because it has additional dollars for day care.
  However, Mr. Chairman, the amendment has the correct idea; 
unfortunately the vehicle is the incorrect vehicle. Block grants will 
not be able to provide more with less. If you are serious about taking 
people off welfare and putting them to work, in many cases you have to 
see there is adequate day care. That is what the programs we are ending 
tried to do.
  One of the best parts of the Federal program is taking care of three 
groups needing child care: The family on welfare trying to get off, the 
family that was on welfare and doesn't want to go back, and the family 
in danger of going on welfare. If you work, want to work, or need to 
work, you often need help--especially if you are a single head of 
household. I commend the woman and Mrs. Johnson for putting forth this 
amendment.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, before yielding to my 
colleague from Ohio, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I do want to mention that this amendment was put in 
well before that poll. This is not a poll response. This was put in 
after all the bills came out of committees. We had a chance to evaluate 
their interaction and how the program would work, and this is the money 
that then we decided was needed to be added in order to ensure that 
welfare reform will work for women and children and provide security 
and opportunity in the future.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. 
Pryce].
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment 
offered by my friend, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], 
commend her for her efforts, and in strong objection to the fact that 
there was a statement from the other side that this was the result of a 
poll. This is the result of mostly hard work, consultation with 
Governors and working the numbers, as the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
[Mrs. Johnson] just alluded to.
  Mr. Chairman, moving people from welfare to work and toward self-
sufficiency is the central goal of welfare reform. But only by removing 
the barriers to work can we achieve this goal.
  It is clear that lack of affordable quality child care is a primary 
obstacle 
[[Page H3583]] to employment for many parents, especially single 
mothers. If we are going to require work, and we should, our Nation's 
children must not be forgotten. As the work participation requirements 
under H.R. 4 are phased in, the demand for child care will increase 
dramatically. Federal child care dollars will need to serve today's 
working poor, as well as the new welfare families who will be entering 
the workplace.
  All Americans have an interest in meaningful welfare reform that 
encourages work. Our Nation also has an intense interest in ensuring 
that our children are cared for, especially in their early years so 
that they can grow into responsible, productive citizens. The 
investment H.R. 4 makes in child care will contribute to this goal. 
Young children watching parents go to work every day is a lesson in 
life that cannot be taught any other way.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Johnson-Pryce-Dunn-
Waldholtz amendment to make sure we take care of America's children 
while their parents experience the dignity of work and move into self-
sufficiency.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Levin].
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is better than nothing, but 
it really is not good enough. Real welfare reform is critical. The 
status quo is indeed dead. The key to welfare reform is work, and 
important for getting people off of welfare into work is child care.
  H.R. 4 would gut the child care provisions, and what this does is to 
try to retrieve some of that. According to one estimate, 32 percent of 
what is cut out of H.R. 4 would be restored here.
  So, Mr. Chairman, a third of a loaf is better than none, but it is 
going to leave many people who are on welfare, who must get to work, 
without the provision of child care. The Deal bill goes all the way in 
terms of making work a reality and making day care available, and that 
is why I support the Deal bill.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], chairman 
of the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
[Mrs. Johnson] for giving me the time and also for sponsoring the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, when the legislation left our committee, I said to the 
Committee on Ways and Means that I had two concerns about what we had 
done in committee. One was that perhaps in the outyears we did not have 
sufficient money. I was not worried about the 1st year or the 2d year 
as far as day care was concerned, but I was worried about the outyears, 
and she is taking care of that. The other concern that I had dealt with 
legal aliens, which I believe will be taken care of later also.
  Mr. Chairman, the beauty of the gentlewoman's amendment is that she 
goes way above what the CBO baseline projects for spending over this 5 
years. CBO baseline says 9,396,000,000. With the amendment offered by 
the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] we are now up to 
10,515,000,000. So there is a sizable increase over what the CBO 
baseline projects, and I am happy to support the gentlewoman's 
amendment.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Kildee], and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed 
to control that time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] because it makes the 
bill marginally better. But the structure that has been changed in this 
bill really will not permit me to vote for the bill itself, but I will 
support the amendment in case this bill passes, that we will have 
marginally recognized that this child care is very, very important. Let 
me give my colleagues an example.
  I have been in public life for 30 years now, and of course for 30 
years, like many of my colleagues in public life, I have been asked to 
try to get people jobs. I can recall in one instance I got a woman a 
job working in a restaurant in Flint, MI, and she had three children, 
and she was so happy to get that job, but she really did not have any 
reliable child care. She worked on that job less than 2 weeks and found 
that in less than 2 weeks she had four or five different arrangements 
for child care, with her grandparents, with a sister, with a neighbor. 
One day the kids were left alone--that was the last day she worked--
left home alone, asking a neighbor to look in once in a while on them.
  Mr. Chairman, that is a cruel choice to give to women, to tell them 
that they should work, and certainly work is much to be preferred to 
welfare, but to force a woman to have no reliable child care, to rely 
upon a neighbor, a sister, a grandparent, and then the worst choice, to 
leave them home alone, and that, for her, was the last she could 
choose, and she had to leave that job. Now we can do better than that.
  Now I support the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], but the structure and the cuts we have here 
in child care are enormous. By the year 2000, fiscal year 2000, in 
Michigan, Michigan will lose $16.1 million for this and lose almost 
10,000 child care slots. Now, albeit the Johnson amendment does 
marginally improve that, under that Michigan, by the year 2000, will 
lose $12.1 million and lose only 7,400 slots. But I am concerned about 
those 7,400 slots. That is why I cannot support this bill, but the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] is marginally improving the 
bill with her amendment.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I would urge the support of the amendment offered 
by the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] but urge the defeat 
of the bill.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Archer], I move to strike the last word in order to receive 
the 5 minutes of debate time as provided for in the rule.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has that right.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. Eight and a half minutes.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Including the 5 minutes just yielded?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is correct.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn], a member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means and the chief sponsor of this amendment.
  Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of some of America's 
neediest and yet valued citizens, we begin the process of ending 
welfare as a way of life and restoring welfare assistance to its 
original purpose, to provide temporary help to our neighbors in need.
  Mr. Chairman, Americans are a generous people who have long 
demonstrated our commitment to help our neighbors, families and 
children in need, but the American people also ask for results for our 
efforts.
  To the American taxpayers who have, so far, spent $5 trillion to 
support what has been described by both sides in this House debate as a 
failed welfare system, let me assure them that our bill is a botton-up 
review. The Republican bill will remove the incentives that encourage 
welfare dependency and provide new incentives that encourage work and 
lift people from the cycle of poverty.
  As part of providing support to the soon-to-be working mothers, Mr. 
Chairman, we are offering an amendment that will provide an additional 
$750 million in child care funding to these parents. As people move off 
welfare the women with children, especially preschool children, could 
be caught in a trap. Rightfully they are required to enter the work 
force, and yet also rightfully they are worried about the safety of 
their children. Our amendment helps newly working mothers meet their 
personal responsibility obligations and address the legitimate concerns 
for their children.
  Last Saturday, Mr. Chairman, at home in Washington State I met with a 
group of welfare mothers at a Head Start meeting. They were unanimous 
and emphatic in their desire to get off 
[[Page H3584]] welfare, but one thing they did ask for help on was the 
responsibility of funding day care. Help them find good day care, and 
they will take the responsibility of finding work in the private 
sector.
  Mr. Chairman, as a single mother who raised two sons, I know the 
value of good day care and the peace of mind when it is found. I urge 
my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee] 
pointed out in his very poignant story about the mother who had to 
choose between leaving her child at home or going to work to provide 
for that child, nothing is more important in moving, transitioning, 
poor women from welfare to work than the availability of quality child 
care, and that is what is so sad about H.R. 4, because it eliminates 
child care assistance to more than 400,000 low-income children in the 
year 2000, it eliminates child care funding now guaranteed for AFDC 
recipients participating in education, training or work activities. It 
eliminates the child funding now guaranteed for 12 months to AFDC 
recipients making the transition from welfare to work, and it cuts more 
child care services by $2.4 billion over the next 5 years.
  Now the amendment offered by our colleagues, the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce] and 
the gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz], is a step in the right 
direction, and I commend the sponsors for offering it, but I recall a 
story by the former Governor of Texas who said, ``You can put lipstick 
on a sow and call it Monique, but it's still a pig,'' and this, I 
contend, is a cosmetic change to this terrible bill, H.R. 4.

                              {time}  1115

  In my State of California, H.R. 4 cuts out 35,000 child care slots. 
This bill would restore 9,000 of those. That, as I said, is a step in 
the right direction.
  It is interesting to me that our colleagues keep saying why are you 
criticizing H.R. 4, it is a great bill, and then come to the floor with 
25 amendments of their own to make the bill more acceptable, this being 
one of them, this not being enough, because it does not restore 
traditional, transitional child care services that have been proven 
essential to move mothers with young children from welfare to work, 
does not ensure that the additional funds it authorizes will even be 
available. It only raises the authorization level, and without it being 
an entitlement, the funds may never be there, and would continue to 
cut, I repeat, cut child care services for more than 300,000 low-income 
children in the year 2000. It would continue to pit poor parents and 
their demands to children and to work to provide for those children. It 
addresses the basic fundamental problem with this bill, it is weak on 
work, cheats children, and rewards the rich, all of this to give a tax 
break to the wealthiest Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 4. I commend 
the Members for introducing this amendment.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify the Record. The Deal bill sets aside 
$3.5 billion. The CBO baseline estimate is $4.8 billion, for a total of 
approximately $8.3 billion. With the Johnson amendment, our bill will 
provide $10.5 billion for day care. So there is absolutely nothing cut.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. 
Waldholtz], a chief sponsor of this bill and an esteemed freshman 
colleague.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the greatest failings of our current welfare 
system is that it forces people to choose between work and benefits.
  One of the fundamental principles of this bill is that people should 
be encouraged and rewarded for work, and this bill gives them that 
opportunity.
  But parents cannot reasonably be expected to work their way out of 
dependency if while they are working their children are not safely 
cared for.
  The dangers of inadequate child care are obvious. And forcing low-
income parents to make a choice between welfare and work based on their 
ability to afford adequate child care is cruel--and undercuts our 
efforts to encourage work and promote self-sufficiency.
  This amendment increases the bill's child care block grant by $750 
million, so that the States can fund their own affordable child care 
programs for low-income and working welfare parents.
  It will help ensure safe care for our children, and help their 
parents go to work and stay at work by giving them peace of mind that 
their children are cared for.
  I am proud to join with my colleagues in making this important 
change, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott], has 1 
minute remaining and has the right to close.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, to extend the debate I move to strike 
the last word, and ask unanimous consent to merge that additional time 
with the time I am presently controlling.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Deal].
  Mr. DEAL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, I commend the gentlewoman who has offered 
this amendment, because I think it does recognize a movement in the 
right direction to correct some of the provisions of H.R. 4. It will in 
fact add back additional funds. But as I look as the scoring on this, 
it appears to me that we are still talking about cutting the funding in 
this category by some $600 million below current levels. I think that 
is what places all of us on the horns of a dilemma in this debate about 
welfare reform. On the one hand, if we are going to try to move people 
off of welfare and on to work, especially is we are talking about 
mothers, the availability of child care is an essential ingredient in 
that formula.
  If we are in fact under H.R. 4, even with the amendment, still 
cutting below current levels by $600 million, and if current levels are 
not adequate to change the status quo, then we still have a problem.
  Our Deal substitute, on the other hand, adds $3.7 billion additional 
to the child care fund, and in addition to that we have some $424 
million over a 5-year period to assist the working poor.
  I think we all recognize that this is an essential ingredient in 
making the transformation from welfare to work, and I commend the 
gentlewoman for this effort. I think it is a movement in the right 
direction. I would like to think, however, that our substitute does a 
better job.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DEAL. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the remarks 
made by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal] and just point out that 
in the Deal bill, putting work first, you really put mothers into the 
work force, and you provide additional child care dollars for those 
mothers to go to work, in change from what current law would do. The 
Johnson amendment would, I guess, bring about some help. It will reduce 
the overall package from 400,000 to 300,000 children who will be in 
need of child care, but the Deal bill provides additional resources to 
ensure proper child care.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], the chairman of the subcommittee and 
the chief author of the welfare reform bill.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and 
compliment her on a most-needed amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, we have discussed this in the subcommittee, we have 
discussed this in the full committee, that the success of the jobs 
program in providing real jobs in H.R. 4 would require the necessity 
for additional money to be put into child care. I would like to also 
point out to the committee that under the Deal bill, the child care 
provision is $8.3 billion over 5 years. That 
[[Page H3585]] is a total over 5 years. With the Johnson amendment, 
H.R. 4 will be $10.5 billion.
  So these are the figures. The Johnson amendment brings H.R. 4 far 
ahead of the Deal bill in the amount of money that is put into child 
care. The figures are plain, the figures are there, and you cannot 
argue with them.
  So this bill is much richer in child care and recognizes the need for 
additional child care much more than the Deal bill. I certainly would 
urge all the Members to support the amendment.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just point out to the chairman of the committee 
that he is mixing apples and oranges. The gentleman has taken away the 
guarantee of child care.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Stenholm].
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I again want to come with one set of 
figures, only to hear what I believe to be true is totally wrong. It 
makes me very confused. But I do commend the gentlewoman for offering 
this amendment, because in my opinion, she makes a very badly flawed 
bill a little bit better. But I still believe very strongly the Deal 
substitute is much better, and I believe the debate will show this.
  I want to quickly recount a little conversation that I had with a 
pastor in a church in my district. He said to me, ``Charlie, if you 
just do one thing for me, I have five unwed mothers, teenage mothers, 
in my church. If you do just one thing for me, give me the child care 
money so that I can provide child care while I tell that young mother, 
go back to school and get an education. I will tell her you get that 
education, you make your grades, if you will just help me get the money 
to take care of her child when we do it.''
  That is what the Deal substitute is proposing, a workable--a workable 
substitute, not what we are being offered in H.R. 4.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentlewoman for seeking to make 
improvements in the base bill. Unfortunately, I fear that even were her 
amendment to pass, the child care provisions would be inadequate. 
Therefore, I rise in opposition to the Johnson amendment which falls 
far short of the child care provisions contained in Mr. Deal's 
substitute.
  The Deal substitute provides sufficient funding for child care to 
meet the increased needs under the plan's aggressive work requirements. 
H.R. 4, on the other hand, reduces child care funding $1.4 billion 
below levels provided for under current law and does not ensure that 
child care will be available to individuals who need it.
  This amendment restores only slightly more than half of the funding 
needed to maintain current law. In addition, it still does not 
guarantee that funding will be available for welfare recipients who 
need child care assistance to move into work.
  This lack of funding for child care assistance could mean that either 
welfare recipients won't move into work, or parents will be forced to 
leave their children in unsafe or substandard care if they do get work.
  CBO estimates that the Deal substitute will provide $3.7 billion in 
child care spending to meet the increased demand for child care as more 
individuals move into work. The substitute also increases child care 
assistance for the working poor by $424 million over 5 years above the 
baseline projections.
  The Deal proposal also consolidates child care programs under a 
uniform set of rules and regulations, rather than having to comply with 
a patchwork of rules under different programs.
  The primary source of child care assistance under the Deal 
consolidated block grant would be in the form of vouchers that would be 
used by parents with the child care provider of their choice. Having 
worked on child care in past Congresses, I strongly believe we must 
continue to support parental choice as we have in the Deal substitute.
  In addition, the Deal substitute contains the most aggressive work 
requirements of any bill we will consider today. We also support these 
work requirements with funding for the transitional tools recipients 
need to make the move from welfare to work. Child care is one of the 
most important tools available for working mothers and I believe we 
must provide the necessary funding to see that they are able to work.
  Reluctantly, I urge opposition to the Johnson amendment and 
enthusiastic support for the Deal substitute.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle].
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I 
rise in very strong support of her amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I think child care is a vital function of our welfare 
reform efforts. If you are going to train people, have people work, you 
need to make a provision for children. But I think we should straighten 
out a few facts. One, is it the welfare reform bill that we are 
debating here actually has more money in it than the Deal bill as far 
as child care is concerned. I say that respectfully, because I do 
respect the Deal bill.
  Second, a lot of welfare recipients do not even use State-supported 
child care. We need to understand that issue as we debate this also. 
Also the structure of all this has been criticized, the structure of 
going to a block grant. I would point out a few aspects of going to a 
block grant which I think help with respect to the providing of child 
care.
  First, it provides States maximum flexibility in developing programs 
that best suit the needs of the residents. It promotes parental choice 
to help parents make their own decisions on child care to best suit 
their needs, and we get rid of State set-asides which gives us more 
money as well. It gives us flexibility, and I support the amendment.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Levin].
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I have tried to check out the figures of the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] and I truly think they are 
wrong. You are discussing just part of the Deal bill and not all of the 
pieces that fall in place under the Deal bill. Your approach provides 
less money when you take into account the whole picture than would be 
the entitlement provision under Deal. The analysis is that you provide 
only one-third of what is cut by H.R. 4, and the Deal bill would keep 
all of it. Those are the facts.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant support of this 
amendment, the Johnson-Pryce amendment. I think it is like throwing a 
bucket of water into Lake Michigan. We need that bucket of water; we 
need all the help we can get in child care. I wish that it was more.
  We have heard countless times in our Committee on Education and 
Economic Opportunities that child care is directly connected to getting 
people to work. I strongly support a tougher work requirement. But we 
want people moving off welfare onto the work rolls. We want them to be 
good parents and good workers.
  That is the way that you connect this together, by adequate funding 
in child care. We do not want them to say go to work and neglect your 
family, you cannot be a good parent. We want them to do both. This 
amendment helps in a small way do that.
  I had an amendment before the Committee on Rules that would have 
allowed States to match more money into this program, but that was not 
allowed.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. de la Garza.]
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, listening to the debate, a name burns 
in my mind and in my soul. Alejandrita Hernandez, 6 years old, her 
parents working in a field in Florida. She is found raped and killed 
under a truck.
  These were poor working people, and if you reduce by one the 
availability of child care, I want it to burn in your mind, Alejandrita 
Hernandez. We are talking about savings to give tax credits to the 
rich. We are talking about not welfare, not revamping. We are missing 
the boat altogether.
  As good intentioned as all of us might be, you have not done anything 
to help Alejandrita Hernandez. You cannot bring her back. But it would 
burn in my mind and soul that her name would be forgotten so that we 
can give tax credits to $200,000 and over.
  [[Page H3586]] Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Bilbray], who has had a 
lot of experience in this area.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I stand here today not as a Member of 
Congress, but as somebody who operated a welfare system for a county 
that was larger than 30 States of the Union, San Diego County. I want 
to commend my colleague from Connecticut because she shows the 
awareness of the realities out there that have been ignored by the 
Federal Government for too long.
  I appreciate my colleague from Texas being concerned about the 
tragedies that have occurred. Those tragedies have occurred, Mr. 
Chairman, because of the lack of innovative approaches being allowed by 
local government. This amendment will actually allow women to 
participate in the child care process, to be part of the answer rather 
than part of the problem. And rather than what our colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle would like to do, always finance a larger, 
bigger bureaucracy, this allows the recipients to be part of the 
answer, to participate, to actually earn part of their benefits by 
participating in child care.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that the compassionate approach that our 
colleagues from Connecticut have shown should entice our colleagues on 
the other side to join us in this good amendment.
                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will state it.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, is it not procedurally 
correct that I close?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is choosing to amend 
the committee position. The gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott] 
took the committee position in opposition. He has the privilege of 
closing.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers].

                              {time}  1130

  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment and of the whole concept of block granting.
  We currently have seven different Federal programs: Child care for 
AFDC, Transitional Child Care, At-Risk Child Care, Child Care 
Development Block Grant, State Dependent Care Planning and Development 
Grants Program, Child Development Associate Credential Scholarship 
Program, Native American Family Centers Program.
  This is certainly not a seamless program. There is a great deal of 
bureaucracy and money spent. It is confusing to the recipients.
  I strongly support the block grant and the fact that the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] is adding $150 million which will 
provide even more, certainly, that goes to child care than we are 
providing now. A great deal is lost in the confusion among the various 
programs. I strongly support the Johnson amendment.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Clement].
  (Mr. CLEMENT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Johnson 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the biggest barriers to work for welfare 
recipients is their inability to provide their child with safe and 
affordable care while they work.
  H.R. 4 will make it more difficult for single parents on welfare to 
move into work than it is right now.
  H.R. 4 reduces child care funding and provides no guarantee that 
child care will be available to individuals who need it.
  H.R. 4 as it is currently written reduces funding for child care 
services $1.4 billion below the current levels.
  The Johnson amendment restores more than half the cut but still 
leaves funding for child care services $650 million below current 
levels.
  Supporters of H.R. 4 claim that their bill has real work requirements 
and that they will put people to work. If this is true, they do not 
have enough money for child care and these people will not be able to 
go to work.
  So which is it? Is H.R. 4 weak on work as we assert, or is it that 
H.R. 4 is weak on funding for child care?
  Which is it? You cannot have it both ways?
  Mr. Chairman, another day of debate, another hole exposed.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  We have talked about numbers here. The fact is that the bill that 
came out of the committee, proposed by the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
[Mrs. Johnson] and others, repealed $4.6 billion in child care. That, 
plus the $8 million that the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal] has, is 
more than $12 billion, which is more money than was presently in this 
bill. So there is no question.
  The gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] assures us that there 
is no dealing with polls here, nobody is worried about polls. Well, I 
have a story from the Washington Times on the 5th of March where the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] says, ``The only major area 
of concern I have is the area of day care.''
  This has been known since the 5th of March, when it was in the 
committee of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling]. He did 
absolutely nothing about it.
  When it gets out here on the floor and the American public figures 
out what it is all about, suddenly they say, in the poll, the 
Republicans are cutting child care; they should not be doing that.
  So we suddenly have this little fig leaf amendment. I urge that 
Members vote against this fig leaf amendment and for the bill of the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal].
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15 printed 
in House Report 104-85.


                   amendment offered by mrs. roukema

  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Roukema: Page 114, strike line 4, 
     and insert the following:
       ``(b) Additional Requirements With Respect To Assistance 
     for Pregnant, Postpartum, and Breastfeeding Women, Infants, 
     and Children.--
       ``(1) Minimum amount of assistance.--The State shall
       Page 114, after line 11, insert the following paragraph:
       ``(2) Cost containment measures regarding procurement of 
     infant formula--
       ``(A) In general.--The State shall, with respect to the 
     provision of food assistance to economically disadvantaged 
     pregnant women, postpartum women, breastfeeding women, 
     infants, and young children under subsection (a)(1), 
     establish and carry out a cost containment system for the 
     procurement of infant formula.
       ``(B) Use of amounts resulting from savings.--The State 
     shall use amounts available to the State as result of savings 
     in costs to the State from the implementation of the cost 
     containment system described in subparagraph (A) for the 
     purpose of providing the assistance described in paragraphs 
     (1) through (5) of subsection (a).
       ``(C) Annual reports.--The State shall submit to the 
     Secretary for each fiscal year a report containing--
       ``(i) a description of the cost containment system for 
     infant formula implemented by the State in accordance with 
     subparagraph (A) for such fiscal year; and
       ``(ii) the estimated amount of savings in costs derived by 
     the State in providing food assistance described in such 
     subparagraph under such cost containment system for such 
     fiscal year as compared to the amount of such savings derived 
     by the State under the cost containment system for the 
     preceding fiscal year, where appropriate.

  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. 
Roukema] will be recognized for 10 minutes, and a Member in opposition 
will be recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I am mildly opposed to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee] will be 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
  [[Page H3587]] Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as you know, I am offering an amendment to H.R. 4 that 
will require States to carry out cost-containment systems for providing 
infant formula to WIC participants under the family nutrition block 
grant in H.R. 4.
  Mr. Chairman, this issue rightfully has been the source of 
considerable debate over the past few months.
  During the Opportunities Committee markup, an amendment was offered 
by my colleague from Michigan [Mr. Kildee], that would have maintained 
the current system of competitive bidding for infant formula for the 
WIC Program. This amendment, which I supported--the only Republican to 
do so--was defeated, which is why I am standing here today.
  Many Members, including myself, continue to be deeply concerned that, 
under the current system in H.R. 4, which eliminates the existing 
competitive bidding system for infant formula, States might no longer 
choose to carry out competitive bidding.
  Mr. Chairman, under current law, States are required to have infant 
formula producers bid competitively for WIC contracts, or any other 
cost-containment measure that yields equal to or greater savings than 
those achieved under competitive bidding. And, currently, according to 
the USDA, this system achieves an estimated savings of over $1 billion 
annually which is used to provide WIC services to 1.6 million 
economically disadvantaged pregnant women, postpartum women, 
breastfeeding women, infants, and young children every month. This, of 
course, is why I support retaining competitive bidding.
  And, although my amendment does not mandate competitive bidding, I 
believe that it takes a big step in ensuring that States achieve the 
necessary savings in their infant formula program so that eligible 
individuals can receive essential WIC services.
  Importantly, Mr. Chairman, my amendment would require that States use 
the savings achieved under this system for the purposes of carrying out 
all services under this nutrition block grant--child and adult care 
food, summer food, and homeless children nutrition. As a result, States 
are given the flexibility to use these savings where they see the 
greatest need.
  Moreover, my amendment would have States report annually to the 
Secretary of Agriculture on the system they are using, the savings 
achieved, and how this savings compares to that of the previous fiscal 
year. This is an important part of the amendment because it gives 
infant formula producers the incentive to keep their bids low. Without 
this safeguard, no one has to know what, if any, savings are being 
achieved. Nor can we assess whether fraudulent practices are adding to 
costs.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the block grant approach. However, some block 
grant supporters argue that States are capable of carrying out their 
own cost-containment systems without Federal involvement, and that 
States will continue to carry out cost-containment systems that best 
serve those in need. But we should not assume that States will do the 
right thing when this kind of money is at stake.
  That is precisely what this amendment attempts to do, Mr. Chairman. 
The Congress has an obligation--a fiduciary one--to evaluate and 
monitor how Federal tax dollars are being spent.
  And, I would argue against those who claim that this would be a 
mandate on the States interfering with flexibility because my amendment 
neither tells the State what type of cost-containment measure to 
implement, nor does it tell the State how much savings to achieve.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment, and a necessary one. I urge 
my colleagues to support it.
  This amendment would require States to carry out cost-containment 
systems for infant formula included in food packages provided under the 
family nutrition block grant.
  The State will report to the Secretary of Agriculture on an annual 
basis: the system it is using; the savings generated by this system; 
and how this savings compares to previous savings under the Federal 
system.
  The State shall use whatever savings it achieves for the purpose of 
providing services to the programs under the family nutrition block 
grant.
  While I am about to mention four current alternative cost-containment 
systems, States are certainly not limited to these options but can 
combine and/or devise new ways to contain costs.
  One, multisource systems--State agencies procuring infant formula can 
award contracts to the lowest bidder as well as other manufacturers 
whose bids fall within a certain price range of this bid. States can 
determine how big this margin should be.
  Two, open market rebate systems--State agencies can negotiate 
separate rebates with each infant formula manufacturer so that WIC 
participants can choose between those infant formulas being offered.
  These rebates do not increase a manufacturers market share nor will 
choosing not to offer a rebate prevent a manufacturer from having less 
shelf space.
  This merely assures smaller or newer infant formula manufacturers 
some access to the WIC infant formula market.
  Three multistate systems--cooperative purchasing--States within a 
region of the U.S. can join together under one type of rebate system to 
procure infant formula.
  Rebates tend to be higher in large States because in those States 
there are more people which means that there will most likely be more 
WIC participants and subsequently a larger market share at stake for 
which infant formula manufacturers are willing to pay a higher price.
  Conversely, rebates tend to be lower in smaller States because these 
States have smaller populations most likely translating into fewer WIC 
participants which means that the market is smaller and, subsequently, 
less of an incentive for an infant formula manufacturer to offer a low 
bid.
  It has been suggested that, as evidenced through past multistate 
systems, larger States join with other large States and that small 
States join with other small States because, when they cross over, 
smaller States will benefit with a higher rebate which might fall below 
the rebate that the larger States were originally receiving.
  Four, fixed price procurement systems--State agencies purchase infant 
formula directly from the manufacturer at some type of discounted fixed 
price.
  The infant formula can then either be distributed by the appropriate 
State agency or by the retail stores.
  And, this fixed price could be determined by all three parties 
involved--manufacturer, agency, and retailer.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, to extend debate, as the designee of the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons], I move to strike the last word 
and ask unanimous consent to merge that additional time with the time 
which the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee] is now controlling.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Washington?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Kildee].
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very disappointed that the Committee on Rules 
would not allow me to offer my amendment to require States to continue 
to use competitive bidding when purchasing infant formula for the WIC 
program.
  That amendment would have saved $1 billion. Although I will support 
probably, if I am persuaded, the amendment of the gentlewoman from New 
Jersey [Mrs. Roukema], as it is well-intentioned, I am skeptical that 
it will really do anything. There is a billion dollars worth of 
difference between the words ``cost containment'' and ``competitive 
bidding.'' A billion dollars worth of difference.
  The amendment of the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema] would 
require States to use cost containment measures. Prior to the enactment 
of the 1989 law requiring States to use competitive bidding, States 
were using a variety of cost containment measures. We found that they 
just did not work. The savings were minimal.
  That is why in 1989, in a true bipartisan manner with the help of 
President George Bush, we enacted a law to require States to use 
competitive bidding in the WIC program. We found that when we required 
States to use that competitive bidding, Mr. Chairman, not mere cost 
containment, that we saved $1 billion a year, $1 billion, $1 billion 
that enabled 1\1/2\ million more 
[[Page H3588]] pregnant women and infants to be served each month under 
the WIC program.
  Many of you will say, well, the States will continue to use 
competitive bidding. But only half the States were doing that before we 
mandated that by law. The other half were using industry-favored cost 
containment systems.
  I would like to ask a question of the gentlewoman from New Jersey, 
who I know is the only Republican in committee who supported my 
amendment on competitive bidding.
  Let us say that the State enters into a contract with one of the 
infant formula companies and gets a $10,000 rebate on a $5 million 
contract.
  Would that qualify?
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KILDEE. I yield to the gentlewoman from New Jersey.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I did not hear the gentleman. I could not 
hear the gentleman over the din.
  Mr. KILDEE. The question is, under the gentlewoman's language, if a 
State entered into a contract with an infant formula company and got a 
$10,000 rebate on a $5 million contract, would that qualify under the 
gentlewoman's language?
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
if that is the cost containment program, yes. I believe that money 
would then be reinvested back into the WIC program. I am sorry. WIC or 
any other part of the block grant, as I explained in my opening 
statement.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, $100,000 would qualify then, and $1 million 
would certainly qualify, right? If they entered into a contract with an 
infant formula company and say we will get a million dollars rebate on 
a $5 million contract, a fortiori, that would qualify under the 
gentlewoman's language?
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. I think I am not quite sure what the gentleman is 
getting at, but I think he is talking about sole-source bidding, and 
maybe he is not going to make those same savings. That, of course, is 
one
 of the underlying reasons I supported the gentleman in committee.

  We do not have all those benefits here, but this is a giant step, it 
seems to me, in the right direction of exercising, maintaining the 
flexibility of the States and still exercising our fiduciary 
responsibility.
  Mr. KILDEE. My point is that under the gentlewoman's language, a 
$10,000 rebate would qualify for a $5 million contract, and a $1 
million rebate would qualify under a $5 million contract. The fact of 
the matter is that we would do better under a competitive bidding than 
a $1 million rebate under a $5 million contract. We found that out. We 
would save much more under competitive bidding.
  So the gentlewoman can see the markup they have on infant formula. We 
would do far more than even if we got a $1 million rebate on a $5 
million contract, if we used the language I wanted to use and which the 
gentlewoman supported in committee, to her great credit, competitive 
bidding.
  Competitive bidding saves $1 billion a year. We found that out as 
soon as we enacted this in 1989. So the most generous cost containment 
that could be used under the gentlewoman's language would be far less a 
savings than competitive bidding. There is a $1 billion worth of 
difference between cost containment and competitive bidding.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1145

  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. GOODLING. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time.
  I want to echo what she said because it is what I have said since day 
1, that we do not believe in block grants as revenue sharing. We set 
the goals and that is what she is doing. The gentleman from Michigan is 
correct. Back in the old days, and it seems we cannot get beyond the 
old days. But back in the olden days, States did not know all those 
things. They learned all those things now. Would it not be kind of 
foolish now to walk away from the opportunity of getting an extra $1 
billion, or $2 billion if you can get that? So what she does is give 
that flexibility to the States. I cannot imagine any State anywhere 
walking away from getting the biggest amount that they can possibly 
get. As I said, they have learned how to do that now. Ten years ago, 
they did not know that. But they have the experience. So I think the 
gentlewoman's amendment is one that should be accepted and it will go a 
long way to take care of those we wish to take care in a flexible 
manner that more can be served than have been served in the past. I 
would hope all would support her amendment.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would say that I certainly would hope that we all learn from 
subsequent actions. But I having served 12 years in State government 
know the influence of the infant formula companies on State government. 
They do various things on cost containment. They will promise the 
university hospital so much infant formula. They will promise the 
health department so much. They work very closely with the legislature 
too.
  I know that there can be other inducements not nearly as advantageous 
to the taxpayers and to the women and the infants as competitive 
bidding. If you think they are going to do it, why are you so reluctant 
to put it into law?
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] worked with me in 
1989. He, George Bush, and the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Wyden], 
worked with me to get that language in. I think we need that language 
because I know how the infant formula companies work in the various 
States.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. 
Wyden].
  Mr. WYDEN. I want to thank the gentleman for his good work.
  Let me start by saying that I brought to the floor a can of infant 
formula which costs a little bit over 30 cents a can to manufacture and 
sells retail in our stores for maybe $2.70 a can. As a result of the 
free enterprise system that we brought to WIC on a bipartisan basis in 
1989, as my colleague has said, we get 1 billion dollars' worth of 
taxpayer efficiency on this program every year.
  But what I want to say to my colleagues is that after all the talk of 
free enterprise that we have heard from the other side this session, as 
a result of this bill, even with the Roukema amendment, we will be 
going back to the old days of closed markets and backroom contracting.
  We ought to note that the gentlewoman from New Jersey wanted to do 
this right and to keep competitive bidding. What will happen even with 
this amendment is a lot of States will not have to do sealed bids which 
is the way to have real competition. We will also see the infant 
formula companies going about this country offering inducements to the 
States to reject competitive bidding and go with cost containment.
  I would like to mention that the Federal Trade Commission, the 
experts there, are alarmed not just about the negative aspects for WIC 
of eliminating competitive bidding, they have written to me and they 
have said that by eliminating competitive bidding, we will reduce 
competition for infant formula in our stores and for the general 
market.
  The reason that is the case is the way these giant infant formula 
companies get known is to move into the WIC market and get the public 
familiar with their product.
  I just say to my colleagues, particularly on the other side, let us 
reinvent Government where it does not work. This is an example of a 
program where free enterprise, that the parties worked on together in 
1989, has worked. As a result, we are going to be eliminating 
competitive bidding. That is going to take milk from the mouths of poor 
infants and it is going to give cookies and cream to the infant formula 
companies and that is wrong.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record.

                                     Federal Trade Commission,

                                   Washington, DC, March 16, 1995.
     Hon. Ron Wyden,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Wyden: Chairman Steiger forwarded a 
     copy of your March 8, 1995 letter to me and asked that I 
     respond to your inquiries. In that letter, you indicated that 
     the House Economic and Education Opportunities Committee had 
     voted to end the competitive bidding requirement for infant 
     [[Page H3589]] formula contracts that are part of the Special 
     Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and Children 
     (``WIC''). You also noted that three companies dominate the 
     infant formula industry and you pointed to a possible effect 
     in the general retail market from eliminating bidding 
     requirements in the WIC Program, namely, that it might 
     discourage new companies from entering the infant formula 
     market. In this regard, you asked that, based on our 
     experience in dealing with competitive issues related to the 
     WIC and general retail market for infant formula, we respond 
     to a series of questions.
       I should point out that while I have not studied the 
     proposed legislation to which you referred, I have been 
     involved in lengthy litigations relating to the WIC and 
     general retail markets for infant formula, and I am able to 
     provide you with my views on the questions you have raised. 
     These views, of course, are my own and do not necessarily 
     reflect the views of the Commission or any individual 
     Commissioner. This response does not provide any non-public 
     information and, accordingly, I do not request confidential 
     treatment.
       1. Do you believe that eliminating competitive bidding for 
     infant formula in the WIC market will discourage competition 
     in the general market for infant formula? Please explain.
       I agree with your assessment that competitive bidding in 
     the WIC program makes entry into the infant formula market 
     easier. I also agree that to the extent that competitive 
     bidding in the WIC market is eliminated or made less likely, 
     then competition in the general retail market for infant 
     formula would be adversely affected.
       The infant formula market is highly concentrated, with 
     three companies accounting for the vast majority of sales. As 
     I describe below, concentrated markets, sometimes referred to 
     as oligopolies, often result in higher prices for consumers 
     whether or not the companies have engaged in unlawful 
     collusion, particularly where the companies sell a 
     homogeneous product and there are high barriers to entry.
       Entry into a concentrated market can have significant 
     procompetitive effects in a variety of ways. First, new entry 
     into a concentrated market will make it more difficult for 
     the existing companies to collude. For example, in a given 
     market otherwise susceptible to collusion, a price-fixing 
     agreement among three companies is easier to achieve and 
     maintain than would be an agreement among four companies. The 
     fourth company not only adds a forth party that must be 
     convinced to violate the law, but it also is likely to have 
     different incentives than the other companies by virtue of 
     its smaller market share. Expansion may be a more profitable 
     strategy than collusion if the company's share is small.
       Second, even absent collusion, companies in an oligopoly 
     act interdependently. That is, each company recognizes that 
     its pricing decisions affect others in the industry. For 
     example, if one firm raises prices above the competitive 
     level in an oligopoly, the other firms independently 
     recognize that they have two choices. They can raise prices a 
     similar amount, resulting in each company increasing profits. 
     Alternatively, they can maintain their prices, resulting in 
     the price leader being forced to withdraw its price increase 
     so as not to lose market share, resulting in each of the 
     companies forgoing the opportunity for increased profits. 
     Prices in an oligopoly, accordingly, are often higher than 
     they would be in a competitive market. If new entry occurs in 
     such a market, the likelihood of the incumbent firms being 
     able to continue their interdependent conduct is lessened.
       Finally, in general, when additional productive capacity 
     and supply created by a new firm is added to the market, that 
     additional supply will also have a downward effect on price. 
     Other things being equal, as the supply of a product goes up, 
     prices tend to go down.
       Competitive bidding in the WIC Program makes entry into the 
     market easier because a new or small company can, by winning 
     one bid, assure itself of a large portion of the market for 
     an extended period of time. The WIC segment of the market 
     accounted for approximately 40% of infant formula sales in 
     the early 1990's. Winning a WIC bid also effectively assures 
     the winning company of obtaining significant shelf space at 
     retail outlets, which can result in what the industry refers 
     to as ``spill-over'' sales in the non-WIC retail market. The 
     brand name recognition resulting from the significant shelf 
     space typically given to the WIC bid winner is a substantial 
     benefit to the winning company. Finally, obtaining a large 
     WIC contract also can help the company achieve economies of 
     scale in the production of formula, allowing the company to 
     sell at lower prices to non-WIC consumers.
       2. What is your best estimate of the impact of eliminating 
     competitive bidding for WIC infant formula contracts? Please 
     explain the likely effects on WIC users and federal 
     taxpayers.
       Early in the history of the WIC Program, the USDA observed 
     that individual state WIC programs that used sole source 
     competitive bidding systems obtained larger savings than 
     those that used ``open market'' systems preferred by the 
     infant formula companies. Under an open market system, all 
     companies can participate in the program, and WIC 
     participants can choose any company's product.
       Because of competitive pressures associated with bidding 
     for a sole source contract, where sole source bidding was 
     required the amounts of rebates offered by the formula 
     companies escalated over time. These rebates allowed the 
     states to add additional families to the WIC Program, thereby 
     serving more people with the federal grant.
       These sole source rebates benefitted people in other states 
     as well. Under competitive bid procedures, the states often 
     received rebates that were high enough that the state itself 
     did not need the entire amount of the rebate. In such cases, 
     rebate funds were returned to USDA where the money was 
     reallocated to other states.
       As described below, some state WIC programs, in the absence 
     of a federal requirement that there be competitive bidding, 
     preferred that open market systems be utilized. This 
     preference for open market systems in some states existed 
     despite the understanding that competitive bids resulted in 
     lower infant formula prices and despite the understanding 
     that the federal government preferred competitive bidding.
       Competitive bidding has been shown to result in many 
     millions of dollars in savings to the federal taxpayer. If 
     competitive bidding requirements are eliminated, states may 
     again choose to forego competitive bid programs in favor of 
     open market systems that provide significantly lower levels 
     of rebates. In other words, states may choose to opt for 
     programs, paid for by the federal government, that result in 
     higher infant formula prices.
       3. What are the factors that tend to increase the 
     likelihood of anti-competitive collusion by companies and are 
     these factors present in the infant formula market?
       Anticompetitive behavior is more likely in markets where 
     sales are concentrated in the hands of few sellers, where the 
     product at issue is relatively homogeneous, where the firms 
     selling the product are relatively homogeneous, and where 
     there are high barriers to entry.
       The infant formula market has these very characteristics. 
     The top three firms accounted for in excess of 90% of the 
     market in the early 1990's. Federal standards for nutritional 
     quality and safety make infant formula a relatively 
     homogeneous product. Each of the top three firms selling 
     infant formula is a pharmaceutical company; each is similarly 
     integrated; and each markets formula in a similar fashion. 
     Finally, barriers to entry into the manufacture and sale of 
     infant formula are high.
       4. Last year, the state of California decided rather than 
     bid out a new WIC formula cost containment contract, they 
     would extend the existing contract for another year. However, 
     because of the 1987 competitive bidding statute, the USDA 
     required them to re-bid the contract at the end of the year.
       This process saved the taxpayer $22.4 million in the cost 
     of infant formula. A similar situation in South Carolina 
     ended up saving taxpayers $8.97 million in the cost of infant 
     formula.
       From past FTC investigations and current information you 
     may have available, what pressures and incentives do the 
     infant formula companies use to keep states from bidding out 
     infant formula contracts?
       Under the sole source competitive bid procedures, with 
     exceptions being made for physician prescriptions, WIC 
     participants must use one brand of formula. Although all of 
     the brands meet statutory nutritional requirements, some 
     parents prefer one brand over another and made their feelings 
     known to the state WIC director. To avoid dissatisfaction of 
     some WIC participants, some WIC directors prefer the open 
     market system under which parents can choose any brand of 
     formula.
       Because the infant formula companies preferred the more 
     profitable open market system, they were willing to provide 
     the state WIC programs with rebates under an open market 
     system. These open market rebates, though in some cases 
     convincing state WIC programs to opt for open market 
     programs, were considerably lower than the rebates that could 
     be obtained through competitive bidding.
       In addition, formula companies and state WIC programs can 
     structure open market rebates in a way that may meet the 
     state's needs but that result in smaller savings for the 
     federal government. For example, in 1990 in Puerto Rico, a 
     system was put into place under which an open market was 
     permitted by the local WIC program as long as the companies 
     were willing to provide payments, outside of the WIC program, 
     to the Puerto Rico health care system. These side payments 
     were not returnable to the federal government as would be 
     rebate payments not used by the program. Under this system, 
     the formula companies offered WIC rebates equal to 
     approximately $6.5 million in 1991. In 1992, after a 
     competitive bid, the winning company's bid was estimated to 
     result in an annual rebate of approximately $23.4 million.
       Thank you for giving me the opportunity to provide you with 
     my views. If I can be of further assistance to you, please do 
     not hesitate to call me at (202) 326-2821.
           Sincerely,

                                          Michael E. Antalics,

                                            Assistant Director for
                                            Non-Merger Litigation.

  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Bilirakis].
  (Mr. BILIRAKIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  [[Page H3590]] Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman 
for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Roukema amendment.
  Since coming to Congress, I have been a strong proponent of the 
Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children [WIC]. WIC 
funding buys nutritious foods that are tailored to the dietary needs of 
participants and provides nutrition education for participants.
  WIC is a cost-effective program that saves the Government money. 
Every dollar spent on pregnant women by WIC produces between $2 to $4 
in Medicaid savings for newborns and their mothers. In 1992, WIC 
benefits averted $853 million in health expenditures during the first 
year of life of infants.
  Under the current program, States are required to use a competitive 
bidding system or other savings mechanisms for the procurement of 
infant formula used in WIC packages. In 1994, $1.1 billion in rebate 
revenue was generated from the manufacturers of infant formula, 
allowing 1.5 million more participants to be served.
  My home State of Florida earned over $53 million from its infant 
formula rebate contract. These funds were used to provide services to 
more than 100,000 additional clients. Clearly, cost-containment is an 
important component of the current WIC Program.
  The family-based nutrition block grant does not require States to 
establish a cost-containment system. The Roukema amendment addresses 
this important issue and my State of Florida strongly supports her 
amendment.
  Given the tremendous savings States are able to achieve through 
current cost-containment contracts, it is imperative that all States 
establish cost-containment systems and apply those savings to providing 
more services under the family nutrition block grant.
  Over the last several weeks. I have heard from many constituents who 
are concerned about the impact H.R. 4 will have on the WIC Program. My 
constituents are very concerned that funding for WIC would be 
drastically reduced under a block grant.
  Fortunately, the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities 
recognized the effectiveness of the WIC Program. The family nutrition 
block grant requires that 80 percent of available funds be used for 
WIC. This means that under H.R. 4, WIC funding will increase by $500 
million more than is provided under current law.
  The WIC Directors in my district also raised concerns that revisions 
to current nutrition programs will negatively impact the WIC program's 
effectiveness. Although H.R. 4 requires States to set minimum 
nutritional requirements for food assistance, they are concerned that 
under a block grant, nutrition standards will vary from State to State.
  But as they point out, nutrition needs do not vary from State to 
State. The WIC Directors I have spoken to feel it is important to 
preserve the requirement for national nutritional standards.
  WIC Directors are also concerned that State nutritional standards 
will not be based on science. However, H.R. 4 requires the food and 
nutrition board of the institute of medicine to develop model nutrition 
standards for food assistance provided to women, infants, and children.
  These standards must be developed in cooperation with pediatricians, 
nutritionists, and directors of programs providing nutritional risk 
assessment, and nutrition counseling. Hopefully, all States will adopt 
these model standards.
  When H.R. 4 is enacted into law, the Congress must conduct sufficient 
oversight of the implementation of the family nutrition block grant to 
ensure that women, infants, and children receive proper nutrition 
assistance.
  I have seen what the WIC program can do for children and their 
mothers. We must make sure our reform efforts do not erode the ability 
of a proven program like WIC to provide essential services to women and 
children.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Roukema amendment.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate, under present law we 
require competitive bidding, not just cost containment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  Mrs. CLAYTON. I thank the gentleman for allowing me to have some 
time.
  I also want to commend the gentlewoman from New Jersey in her 
intention and support her effort and think that this is a step in the 
right direction but it does not correct the problem.
  The problem is that the program works right now. We have competitive 
bidding. In fact, if part of the reason for reforming is to save money, 
this bidding process and procedure we have allows us now to save the 
money. It allows us to save money and it is fiscally responsible.
  But I ask my colleagues in Congress to recall that the infant 
mortality rate in America before WIC was horrendous. We need to remind 
ourselves why the WIC program is important.
  It is important, therefore, to increase the savings. We had rates 
much lower than we have now and in fact we have increased the rate by 
reducing the infant mortality by increasing the opportunity for 
children to live.
  WIC works. We want to do everything possible to make this successful 
program work.
  We also ask Members of Congress to recall a fact that since the 
institution of the nutritional program, we really have less of a gap 
between low-income diets and those who have affluence and have other 
means of getting their funds.
  Spending has been increased by some 65 percent. Anemia has been 
drastically improved. In fact, low-weight babies have increased.
  I visited my neonatal clinic of the hospital and found that the cost 
just of maintaining a low-weight baby is horrendous, $5,000 and 
$10,000.
  Yet the investment we make in WIC makes all the sense. It saves 
lives. It saves money.
  I urge my colleagues to note that what we are doing here really does 
not correct the issue. It is a movement in the right direction, but how 
we should correct it is keep the current bidding sealed.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, one thing I would like to say before I 
yield, there seems to be a pattern in the Committee on Rules on this 
bill. One Member goes up, asking for a substantive amendment, an 
amendment that makes a real difference, competitive bidding. Another 
Member asks what really is a cosmetic amendment and the Committee on 
Rules in every instance has granted the amendment for the cosmetic 
amendment, not the substantive. I object to that.
   Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Foglietta].
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  I would like to have permission to be a little bit more general in my 
approach to the discussion today. There has been lots of talk today and 
in the last couple of days about the block grant approach as was quoted 
by our gentlewoman from New Jersey as being the proper way to 
administer these programs for the unfortunate and the poor.
  Let me tell Members about a community in the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania who had that option on a local level. This community had a 
substantial number of poor people living below the poverty line, but 
this community decided not to accept the School Lunch Program. Instead, 
I will tell you what they did. This community established a sharing 
table. They established a sharing table, a table in the middle of the 
lunchroom where the more affluent children would come in. If they did 
not finish their sandwiches, if they did not finish their cokes, they 
would leave what was left over on the sharing table for the poorer 
children. So that they could come in and eat the scraps of the 
sandwiches and what was left over of the sodas.
  Could you think of anything more dehumanizing? Could you think of 
anything more destructive of self-esteem, of self-pride, and of self-
worth than that kind of a program? There may be many things wrong with 
these programs, and we should be fixing them, and we should be 
correcting them. But sending them back to the States is not the answer.

[[Page H3591]]

  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New Jersey is recognized for 1\1/
2\ minutes.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to summarize what we have 
said here. This is a good amendment, it allows the States the maximum 
flexibility. It requires reporting to the Department of Agriculture so 
that Congress can continue their oversight responsibility here. I must 
say that I think if we had inquired with all the States that are 
represented here today, we would have found something similar to the 
endorsement that we got from our colleague the gentleman from Florida, 
namely that 100,000 more clients are served in the State of Florida 
using these types of cost containment measures.
  I urge support. I think that it marries the best of the block grant 
approach with the accountability standards that we as a Congress must 
ensure.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, only because the gentlewoman from New 
Jersey had the courage to vote for my amendment in committee, the only 
Republican who had that courage to do so, I will support her amendment 
even though it is grossly inadequate.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Colorado is recognized for 1\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me 
the time.
  I say many will reluctantly support that amendment because I guess 
that is all that side could do.
  I think the gentleman from Michigan made a very good point, that 
these are really cosmetic amendments that do not go to the core of real 
competitive bidding, but it is all they could get agreement on.
                              {time}  1200

  In a way you feel it is almost like we are putting lipstick on pigs 
here, but when you get all done you still got a pig and that is what 
the other bill is.
  We know that we desperately need competitive bidding. I have spent 22 
years on the Committee on Armed Services and believe me, that is where 
we got the $900 toilet seats. If you do not want that in infant 
formula, then what we really have to do is be voting for the Democratic 
bill because you are not going to get there with this.
  We have letters written to Congressman Wyden from the Federal Trade 
Commission talking about the experience of the State of California and 
the experience of the State of South Carolina in competitive bidding. I 
do not have time to go into it, but we have got data all over the place 
that is showing regretfully some of these companies who should have 
better intentions. If they think they can get away with spending more, 
they will.
  Remember, we had $25 million worth of WIC cuts and rescissions, and 
here we go again; if we do not have competitive bidding fully, one more 
time we will be having another cut because we will be knocking people 
out.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Chairman Archer, I 
move to strike the requisite number of words in order to receive an 
additional 5 minutes of debate time as provided under the rule.
  I yield myself the first 30 seconds. I want to assure my colleague 
from Pennsylvania that under our program he can be assured that that 
will never happen in his community again, because we have the rules and 
regulations on how they have to spend the money.
  I would say to my friend from Michigan, cosmetics is a good term I 
suppose. The old Committee on Rules always used to say, ``Well, that 
makes good sense,'' and then you knew positively it would not be made 
in order.
  So it is a little different from cosmetic that it makes good sense; 
it is not in order.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Cunningham].


                        parliamentary inquiries

  Mr. McDERMOTT. A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, is this amendment time on the amendment 
we are discussing or is this on the next amendment?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It is on the next amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] struck 
the last word on the Roukema amendment. The Chair would like to point 
out to the gentleman from Washington that most of the debate has not 
been on that amendment; it has been on the bill.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield my time to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. VOLKMER. A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Even though the debate in the past has not been on the 
amendment, is not the rule of the House, regular order, that the debate 
that follows would still be on the amendment even though others have 
not debated the amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. Unless a point of order is raised, since the Chair has 
been lenient with those who seek to address the bill rather than the 
amendment, the Chair is going to continue to be lenient.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I understand this is coming out of my 
time, so I do not yield to any parliamentary inquiry if it is coming 
out of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is not coming out of the gentleman's time.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] is recognized for 4\1/
2\ minutes.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to offer the next 
amendment, I would say to the gentleman, and I want to explain I had an 
amendment in the subcommittee. The illegal immigration, we cut out all 
23 programs. This deals with legal immigration. I felt that a person, 
once they sign up to become an American citizen, should have the rights 
of American citizens, because the process is often delayed.
  I have been told by the other side if I make a unanimous consent to 
have that improved it would be objected to. So I am not going to offer 
the amendment. It would go down.
  But the gentleman from California [Mr. Kim] and myself have some 
concerns and I would like to yield to the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Kim].
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I presume 
the gentleman is yielding to me because he thinks I am a expert in this 
area. I am. Before I explain what my amendment will do, let me tell 
just a brief background story.
  Under this bill there is one provision which prohibits all of the 
benefits to noncitizens. Who are the noncitizens? It could be anyone; 
it could be refugees, could be anyone staying here temporarily.
  But my amendment is carefully crafted to those folks who are here 
legally and receive permanent residentship, those folks who came to 
this country in search of the American dream. Those folks took a long 
time to follow the legal process to come here and finally received a 
permanent residentship, and they are waiting for citizenship. 
Presumably they are soon going to be a citizen, they are citizens-
elect.
  Denying benefits to those folks, I can understand that. We are in a 
financial crisis with a $4 trillion deficit. I can understand that. 
Yes, we have to treat our citizens first before we deal with other 
noncitizens. I accept that.
  But let me tell my colleagues, once those folks who are permanent 
residents and waited 5 to 6
 years to finally apply for citizenship and that application is 
accepted, he or she should not be treated as a second-class citizen.

  All my amendment does is to treat them just like the citizens, and 
not denying all of the benefits to those folks.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. If the gentleman will yield back, he and I would like 
to enter in a colloquy with the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith], the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, and I would ask 
if the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith] would agree to work with the 
gentleman from 
[[Page H3592]] California [Mr. Kim ] and myself in the committee to 
resolve the problem,to make an amendment in order so that we can deal 
with this issue? And it is bipartisan. We have the task force which is 
made up of Republicans and Democrats, and we will be happy to work with 
the gentleman on this issue [Mr. Kim] and myself, if the gentleman 
would make that in order.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to reassure my friends 
from California, Mr. Cunningham and Mr. Kim, that if the amendment that 
they were planning to offer today is not accepted and if that amendment 
is offered in the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, of which I am 
chairman, when we, in the next several months, are considering other 
comprehensive legislation regarding immigration, we will certainly 
consider their amendment. If that amendment is not approved on the 
subcommittee level, I will certainly work with them and guarantee them 
that I will ask that it be considered on the House floor.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I agree with this approach, and I think Mr. Kim does, 
too.
  I yield back to the gentleman from California [Mr. Kim].
  Mr. KIM. I thank the gentleman for giving me his assurance. And I 
agree with this approach, and I think my amendment will ensure all 
permanent residents and aliens would be legal at the time of the 
acceptance of the application, and I think that is an important message 
we have to send to those folks out there. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I think this is one issue I think we can work very 
well with the leadership on the Democratic side as well as ours, and I 
yield back the balance of our time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 18 printed 
in House Report 104-85.


                 Amendment Offered by Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Ros-Lehtinen: Page 157, after line 
     4, insert the following new paragraph:
       (6) Certain permanent resident and disabled aliens.--
     Subsection (a) shall not apply to an alien who--
       (A) has been lawfully admitted to the United States for 
     permanent residence; and
       (B) is unable because of physical or developmental 
     disability or mental impairment (including Alzheimer's 
     disease) to comply with the naturalization requirements of 
     section 312(a) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. 
Ros-Lehtinen] and a Member opposed will each control 10 minutes.
  Does the gentleman from Washington rise in opposition?


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, are we now doing amendment No. 18?
  The CHAIRMAN. Amendment No. 18, that is correct.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. As printed in the Record?
  The CHAIRMAN. As printed in the Rules Committee report.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] may control the 
10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida, [Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen].
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a straightforward, simple humanitarian 
amendment, which would exempt any U.S. legal permanent residents who 
cannot take the naturalization exam because they suffer from mental 
disorders and physical impairments or disabilities.
  Under title IV of H.R. 4 these people would be cut off from Federal 
benefits simply because they are not American citizens. These 
individuals would not be able to resolve this problem because of their 
inability to take the naturalization exam.
  H.R. 4 currently makes no exemption for these individuals who would 
be the most affected by the elimination of these benefits. The elderly 
who suffer from Alzheimer's disease cannot possibly pass the 
citizenship exam given their debilitating disease. They cannot remember 
or memorize questions, nor are they physically able to present 
themselves many times before the citizenship examination.
  Under this legislation these people unfortunately would be unfairly 
cut off. The same goes for a person who because of a physical 
disability cannot leave his or her home to take the naturalization 
exam. These individuals, many of whom have contributed years of hard 
work and labor to this country, would now be denied benefits simply 
because they cannot because of physically tormenting disabilities take 
the citizenship exam. Under my amendment the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service will be able to have the ability to determine if 
the person is unfit to take the naturalization exam due to this serious 
disability.
  Mr. Speaker, in my south Florida community and indeed around our 
great Nation, many U.S. permanent residents, especially the elderly, 
suffering from such terrible diseases as Alzheimer's are unable to take 
the citizenship test because of their illnesses. This amendment would 
help these most vulnerable permanent residents, many of whom after 
years of hard work and making wonderful contributions to our great 
Nation rely on these benefits for their well-being.
  This humanitarian amendment would exempt those who are the most 
vulnerable by allowing them in a calculated and limited manner to not 
have to take the unfair exam that they are unable to take. This will 
allow them to not be cut from the benefits they need in order to 
survive.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition to the amendment. I 
understand what the gentlewoman is trying to accomplish, and I am very 
sympathetic to her.
  Mr. Chairman, the problem is that the definition of disability or 
impairment is too broad, that like so many other areas where we have 
run into problems when we talk about disability within the welfare 
programs, we have found that it has been tremendously abused. We have 
tried to work with the gentlewoman for tightening up this language and 
have been unable to reach that conclusion at this time.
  However, I would say to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Ros-
Lehtinen], that if it is possible to get more precise language that is 
not so general in conference, I would be more than happy to consider 
that.
  There is the additional problem that CBO has not issued an estimate, 
a revenue estimate on this amendment. The rough understanding that we 
have been given because of the broadness of the definition is that it 
could cost $1 billion.
  So, I would, as I said, reluctantly urge the Members to oppose this 
amendment and give us an opportunity to try to work on the language in 
the conference committee.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the remarks of the chairman. We have in 
fact been working with the staff this afternoon to try to work up the 
language that specifically tracks section 312(a) of the Immigration an 
Naturalization Act, which already gives such waivers to those 
individuals who are suffering from disabilities.
  Our attempt is not to broaden that current waiver any more than it is 
already on the books. It is not to say that anyone who is a drug addict 
and anyone who is an alcoholic would not be exempt from taking the exam 
and would then be able to apply for benefits. That is not the intent, 
nor does 
[[Page H3593]] our language I think in any way allow that to happen.
  I think that the scourge has been unfair in the way they were 
calculating the effects, and in fact in our last discussion the 
calculations were that that scourge was going to come down considerably 
once they understood that section 312(a) already has similar language 
which exempts these individuals.
  This amendment merely puts it in this welfare reform package so that 
it is clear to the INS officials that these individuals are also going 
to be exempt from the citizenship requirement if their disabilities are 
such that it will render them unable, physically, mentally unable, to 
take the exam.
  We have an amendment already drawn up which would be acceptable, that 
we hope in conference would be accepted, to further specify that this 
is a very narrow limitation, and that the budget considerations are not 
as extreme as some would have us believe, and we are very confident 
that that is true because section 312(a) refers to naturalization.
  What we want to do is make sure that we have it refer now to the 
exemption from welfare benefits for those people who suffer from these 
debilitating diseases.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. SHAW. I know you have been working on this for sometime and you 
and I may have spoken with regard to the noncitizen portion of the 
bill, which I know gives you and a few other Members great concern. I 
would just like to echo the words of my chairman, the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Archer], in saying we will be working closely during the 
conference process, and hopefully this is something that we can work 
together on.
                              {time}  1215

  I see that our colleague from south Florida has also come onto the 
floor, who has expressed great concern with regard to this portion of 
the bill, and I can assure you that we will do everything we can to be 
cooperative during the conference process. I am sorry that we were 
unable to change the amendment by unanimous consent, but we did run it 
by the minority, and they were not inclined to allow the change at this 
point.
  So we will continue to work with you and the minority and the Senate 
in trying to resolve this problem.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I thank the gentleman. Yes, it is a shame; we had 
the language drawn up. I think it would have addressed the concerns 
that some individuals had about who specifically would be exempt from 
this exam.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta].
  (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate my colleague yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the amendment offered 
by our colleagues from Florida--and in strong disappointment that it 
has to be offered.
  To me, it is absolutely reprehensible that this bill contains an 
attack on immigrants who were lawfully admitted to this country.
  As the Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, I 
can tell my colleagues that I have seldom seen an issue that has 
generated so much concern among the Asian Pacific American communities 
around the country.
  The rhetoric surrounding this issue has been frightening to many in 
our community--61 percent are immigrants who arrived in this country 
since 1970 alone.
  We began to fear where things were heading last year when Proposition 
187 was being debated in California.
  Asian Pacific Americans in California are second to none in our 
frustration with illegal immigration. Many in the community have waited 
patiently for years for spouses and children to join them through the 
legal process.
  But it quickly became clear to us that the rhetoric and the emotion 
went far beyond the issue of illegal immigration alone.
  Those who supported Proposition 187 told us repeatedly that legal 
immigrants had nothing to worry about.
  But sure enough, here we are today, debating on the floor of the 
House of Representatives whether taxpaying, lawfully admitted 
immigrants will be eligible for the services their taxes pay for.
  Many in our community, particularly those who arrived here fleeing 
Communist oppression and civil war, are frightened of where this will 
lead.
  Already, the rhetoric surrounding this issue has been filled with 
assertions that we should ``take care of Americans first.'' When did we 
change the definition of American? When did this happen?
  Mr. Chairman, my parents were born in Japan, but they chose to make 
America their home.
  I can tell you that never in the history of this country have there 
been two finer Americans. They chose America to build a future for 
their children. There is no decision they ever made for which I am more 
grateful.
  From Albert Einstein to Martina Navratilova; from An Wang, the 
founder of Wang computers, to Elie Wiesel, winner of the Nobel Peace 
Prize--all have come to this country and been accepted as Americans.
  H.R. 4 flies in the face of that principle, and to me it's a sad 
commentary on the state of national debate in this country.
  I urge my colleagues to join with me in opposing H.R. 4.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, 
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart], who is a cosponsor of 
this amendment.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I think that it is very important that 
I commend my colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen], for having introduced this amendment that I have 
cosponsored. It is very important that at the very least those who are 
physically or mentally disabled not be excludable from benefits even 
after being legally in this country because of their disability, and 
that is what this amendment, this very fine amendment, seeks to do.
  I am very disappointed that a ban on SSI and AFDC and food stamps and 
Medicaid remains in the legislation, in the bill, with regard to legal 
residents. I think that ban is unfair. I think it is unnecessary. I 
think there is somewhat of an element of irrationality involved because 
a great percentage of those who may be ineligible, because they are not 
citizens, will become citizens, so the savings will be minimal at best 
from the point of view of those who say this ban will save the 
Government money.
  So it is unfortunate it is in. We will continue fighting against the 
ban, against legal residents of the United States, from services and 
will continue working with the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw] and 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] and, of course, Members on the 
other side of the aisle to remedy this in the conference process.
  But this inclusion, the ban's inclusion in the bill, makes it 
imperative certainly that people that feel like I do, as strongly as I 
do, and I know the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen] does on 
this issue, it is imperative that we oppose this legislation in its 
current form.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Gibbons], I move to strike the last word, and I ask 
unanimous consent to be allowed to yield blocks of time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, this is another one of the 
fig-leaf amendments. Now, this place is starting to look like a fig 
tree. Every time they bring the bill out, people look at it and say, 
``Well, this needs a figleaf.''
  We took benefits away from legal immigrants in this country.
  Now, I went to the Committee on Rules and asked for the right to give 
those benefits to legal immigrants, and I was joined by the gentlewoman 
from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen] and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Diaz- 
[[Page H3594]] Balart]. But the Rules Committee denied that. So we get 
this little figleaf that does not do anything.
  It knocks a half a million people off the aged and disabled rolls. It 
is a help for a few pitiful people who cannot walk into the office and 
file. Now, that, in my opinion, is about 1 inch when we ought to go a 
mile.
  If you are a legal immigrant in this country, you are working here, 
you are paying taxes, and bad times come to you, you ought to be 
entitled to everything else that every American is, and I think that 
this is only a half a loaf.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Berman].
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Berman].
  (Mr. BERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could get the attention of 
the manager of the bill for one moment, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Archer]. I wanted to ask you to explain what I find to be one of the 
most astonishing features of this particular provision which the issue 
is raised by this amendment.
  The majority has decided to deny a series of very important benefit 
programs to legal, taxpaying resident immigrants in this country, and 
has made one exception, that foreign farm workers, guest workers, 
H(2)(a)'s, people who come here on a temporary basis, will remain and 
will be the only group of immigrants that will remain eligible for 
Medicaid, housing, SSI, AFDC, and all of these programs. So that while 
you have thousands of domestic farm workers, many of them here as legal 
immigrants who are paying taxes and are ineligible for these benefits 
and are among the lowest-paid workers in American society, the 
agribusiness lobbyists will be able to, and their clients will be able 
to, bring in foreign guest workers to harvest crops instead of using 
the available domestic farm worker supply and still be subsidized for 
the health care and the housing and other benefits for these workers.
  How could this bill contain such an exception to this provision?
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. ARCHER. Are you talking about farm workers?
  Mr. BERMAN. I am talking about foreign guest workers, farm workers, 
are the only group of immigrants left eligible for these benefits.
  Mr. ARCHER. If the gentleman will yield, I would respond by saying 
these people come into this country under very special circumstances, 
under special provisions in the law, are invited in here to help the 
economy----
  Mr. BERMAN. To work.
  Mr. ARCHER. Under those special provisions. The average immigrant who 
comes to this country agrees, on entry, not the guest workers, but the 
other resident immigrants legally admitted to this country agree, when 
coming in, to be self-supporting. The guest worker does not make that 
agreement.
  Mr. BERMAN. Reclaiming my time.
  Mr. ARCHER. The gentleman does not wish a response?
  Mr. BERMAN. I heard the response.
  Mr. ARCHER. The response is more lengthy than that. If the gentleman 
wants to cut me off, he may.
  Mr. BERMAN. The problem is I only have 3\1/2\ minutes. But I will 
yield as long as I have a little time to respond to your response.
  Mr. ARCHER. Well, on your time. The immigration law of this country 
provides that when you seek residency here as a legal alien that you 
are agreeing to support yourself. If you do not and you become a charge 
of the taxpayers of this country, you are subject to deportation 
legally under the law today. A guest worker comes under a very 
different circumstance into this country and is protected by the law 
that relates to guest workers, and the gentleman should understand 
this.
  Mr. BERMAN. I suggest a very different reason. I suggest that 
somewhere agribusiness stuck into this provision a bill to help 
subsidize the workers they want to import because they do not want to 
hire the domestic farm workers, and I find it just unbelievable that in 
a bill designed to encourage work you are helping to displace and 
subsidize foreign guest workers and displace American workers.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would like to point out that he has tried to 
be lenient on Members who go over their allotted time. If we start 
abusing it, the Chair is going to charge it against the manager's time.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute, the remainder of my 
time, to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Pastor].
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues that, as they 
consider this amendment, they would think of legal immigrants not as 
someone who recently arrived, not someone who only came over to receive 
benefits, but to think of the legal immigrant as a person who has been 
here for many years, who has worked, has paid their taxes, has raised 
their family and has been responsible.
  The only thing that they do not have is the right to vote and are not 
citizens. But this amendment talks about a person who cannot take the 
examination, cannot be naturalized because they are physically or 
developmentally disabled or mentally impaired to take the test. So we 
are talking about a safety net for those legal immigrants who cannot 
take the exam because of their disabilities.
  I would think that Members of this House on both sides of the aisle 
would show compassion to these people and support this amendment.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. de la Garza].
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman and hopefully, when we have more time, we 
will be able to address the underlying motives behind this issue in 
this legislation.
  I thank the gentlewoman.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to my colleague, 
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez].
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, let me just say these people are the 
mothers and fathers, brothers, sisters, and sons and daughters of 
American citizens who came here and should not be denied. They work, 
they contribute, and they should not be denied simply because of their 
status when they have contributed all along, and at least in the 
gentlewoman's case, which I strongly support. We carve out a small 
exception to those people who should not simply be denied.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Becerra].
  (Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding a 
moment of time.
  I also support this amendment. I think she is trying to do the right 
thing. We should not be denying people who do their darndest to work 
hard in this country and do the best they can ultimately to become U.S. 
citizens. They should have that opportunity.
  I urge Members to support this amendment.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope the Members will support this humanitariian 
amendment to at least allow those individuals who are physically and 
mentally disabled to take their benefits that they deserve that they 
have worked hard to get.
  I hope we can see clearly through this anti-immigrant, anti-refugee 
feeling and get on with the real issue of helping those people 
regardless of their citizenship status.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, again, as I mentioned earlier, I understand what the 
gentlewoman from Florida is trying to do. I still have a great concern 
for the broader definition. I think that she actually believes the 
definition to be more constricted than it is.
  What came out of the Committee on rules is so broad in what can be a 
disability or a impairment that I believe we will find the very same 
things happen there that we have already found 
[[Page H3595]] under ``disability'' in other parts of the welfare code 
of this country today. I do not want to see that happen with national 
TV exposes down the line for abuses under this definition.
  I would hope that the members of this committee will vote this 
amendment down, that in conference we might have the opportunity to 
construct more constrictive language, but I would further say relative 
to this and any other amendments of this type, that the law of this 
land, the immigration law of this land, since the late 1800's, provides 
that anyone coming into this country as a legal alien understands that 
they cannot become a public ward.

                              {time}  1230

  They cannot throw themselves into the hands of the taxpayers of this 
country, and if they do, if they go on welfare, they legally, today, 
can be deported.
  In addition, where they come in under the sponsorship of other 
relatives, those relatives take on the responsibility of maintaining 
and supporting their immigrating relatives into this country so that 
they will not become a burden on the taxpayers of this country.
  Mr. Chairman, my ancestors and most of our ancestors came to this 
country not with their hands out for welfare checks, even if they were 
willing to work, they came here for the opportunity for freedom and the 
opportunity to work and to achieve the successes that this country 
offers more than any other country in the world.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Ros-Lehtinen/Diaz-
Balart amendment to exempt legal permanent residents who cannot take 
the U.S. naturalization exam because of a physical or mental 
disability.
  Certainly the denial of benefits under this bill to legal noncitizens 
is unjust and unwarranted. This denial has nothing to do with sponsor 
support. In addition the measures to strengthen and extend deeming 
should be carefully considered.
  The policy in the GOP bill denies benefits to people who have legally 
been in the United States 5 years and have not achieved citizenship, 
even though they may have paid taxes and rent or maybe even own a home 
and have children, who are U.S. citizens. In St. Paul, MN, we have a 
significant settlement of Southeast Asians, the Hmong, who fled Laos 
after fighting along with United States troops against the Communist 
forces of North Vietnam. Because the Hmong did not have a written 
language, many adults have had great difficulty learning English. Under 
the provisions of the GOP measure before the House, they would be 
denied most benefits; $20 billion of the anticipated cuts made by this 
GOP bill come from just such limits.
  This amendment before the House would provide some modest relief to 
the harsh GOP bill which unfairly and arbitrarily discriminates against 
legal noncitizens. The circumstances in St. Paul, MN for the Hmong are 
extraordinary, but individuals who have not become citizens and remain 
in the United States generally are subject to unusual factors. Under 
what logic are they being denied benefits? I heard someone raise the 
notion of fraud and abuse but is there a demonstrated record of such a 
problem? Are legal noncitizens any different in this regard than 
citizens?
  The policy being advanced in this GOP measure is inappropriate and 
while I commend this amendment to my colleagues, the GOP bill is not 
much changed by this amendment. We do not even have an up or down vote 
on the subject of benefits for noncitizens due to the restrictive 
Republican rule and these piecemeal amendments will not remedy this 
punitive measure.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired. The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen] 
will be postponed until after the disposition of amendment No. 20.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 19, printed in House 
Report 104-85.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 20, printed in Report 
104-85.


                     amendment offered by mr. moran

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 20, printed in House 
Report 104-85.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of amendment No. 20 is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Moran: Page 170, after line 12, 
     insert the following new section:

     SEC. 442. PREFERENCE FOR FEDERAL HOUSING BENEFITS FOR 
                   FAMILIES PARTICIPATING IN WELFARE ASSISTANCE 
                   WORK PROGRAMS.

       Section 2 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 
     U.S.C. 1437) is amended--
       (1) by striking the section heading and inserting the 
     following new section heading:


        ``declaration of policy and preference for assistance'';

       (2) by inserting ``(a) Declaration of Policy.--'' after 
     ``Sec. 2''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(b) Preference for Families Participating in Welfare 
     Assistance Work Programs.--
       ``(1) In general.--In selecting eligible families for 
     available dwelling units in public housing and for available 
     assistance under section 8, each public housing agency shall 
     give preference to any family
      who, at the time that such occupancy or assistance is 
     initially provided for the family--
       ``(A)(i) is participating in a work or job training program 
     that is a condition for the receipt of welfare or public 
     assistance benefits for which the family is otherwise 
     eligible, or (ii) is eligible for and has agreed to 
     participate in such a program as a condition for receipt of 
     such assistance; and
       ``(B) has agreed, as the Secretary shall require, to 
     maintain and complete such participation and to occupancy or 
     assistance subject to the limitations under paragraph (3).
       ``(2) Precedence over other federal and local 
     preferences.--Occupancy in public housing dwelling units and 
     assistance under section 8 shall be made available to 
     eligible families qualifying for the preference under 
     paragraph (1) before such occupancy or assistance is made 
     available pursuant to any preference under section 6(c)(4)(A) 
     or 8(d)(1)(A), respectively.
       ``(3) 5-year limitation on assistance.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of this Act, the occupancy of any family in 
     public housing or the provision of assistance under section 
     8, pursuant to the preference under paragraph (1), shall be 
     terminated upon the expiration of the 5-year period that 
     begins upon the initial provision of such occupancy or 
     assistance to the family.
       ``(4) Failure to participate.--If the applicable public 
     housing agency determines that any family who is provided 
     occupancy in public housing or assistance under section 8, 
     pursuant to the preference under paragraph (1), has ceased 
     participating in the program referred to in paragraph (1)(A) 
     before completion of the program or failed substantially to 
     comply with the requirements of the program, such cessation 
     or failure shall be considered adequate cause for the 
     termination of the tenancy or the assistance for the family 
     and the public housing agency shall immediately take action 
     to terminate the tenancy of such family in public housing or 
     the provision of assistance under section 8 on behalf of 
     family, as applicable.
       ``(5) Limitation on availability of preference.--The 
     preference under paragraph (1) shall not apply to any family 
     that includes a member who--
       ``(A) has occupied a public housing dwelling unit or 
     received assistance under section 8 as a member of a family 
     provided preference pursuant to paragraph (1), which 
     occupancy or assistance has been terminated pursuant to 
     paragraph (3), or (4); and
       ``(B) was personally required to participate in the program 
     referred to in paragraph (1)(A).''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Moran] will be recognized for 10 minutes, and a Member opposed will be 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  Is there a Member in opposition claiming the 10 minutes?
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I have not been informed of anyone opposed.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I am unaware of opposition, but I would 
like to control the 10 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] will be 
recognized for 10 minutes and, without objection, the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Archer] will be recognized for 10 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Moran].
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, what this amendment would do, depending upon whatever 
welfare bill is enacted--I happen to support the Deal amendment--but 
what this amendment would do is to say that when you enter a work 
program, then in fact you go to the top of the waiting list for public 
and publicly assisted housing, so there would be an 
[[Page H3596]] incentive for people who seek work to be able to enjoy 
the support of subsidized housing.
  Currently, there is very little turnover in any subsidized housing. 
In fact, there are 13 million people who are eligible for subsidized 
housing. And less than 3.5 million actually receive it.
  Mr. Chairman, the original intent of subsidized housing was that it 
be transitional, that people who needed some help to get their feet on 
the ground would be able to take advantage of subsidized housing in the 
interim until they achieved economic self-sufficiency.
  What this is doing is providing a significant incentive for people to 
find work, to get themselves on the ground, so to speak, and then after 
5 years they would lose their eligibility for this assisted housing.
  So that it will create some turnover in assisted housing as well.
  I would suggest to the Members they consider this with regard to 
welfare reform.
  I will bet that Members are not aware of this.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. PASTOR. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's amendment. I think what he 
wants to do is great because we need a little bit of assistance to the 
people getting off welfare.
  But with the rescissions and the new budget that is coming up and the 
budget for section 8 and the budget for public housing almost being 
destroyed, does the gentleman think it is really going to happen that 
you will be able to implement his amendment, knowing that the 
Republicans are going to destroy section 8 and public housing?
  Mr. MORAN. I would respond to my friend, the gentleman from Arizona 
[Mr. Pastor], the fact is this is a good amendment, regardless of what 
happens to section 8 or public housing. We cannot throw in the towel 
and ignore any improvements possible under the assumption that 
ultimately all housing subsidies programs are going to be eliminated. I 
do not think that is going to be the case.
  In fact, those programs that continue to exist, we have all the more 
reason to prioritize who gets the advantage of them. This does not 
affect elderly or disabled people, because families need more than one-
bedroom efficiencies, which is what is available to elderly and 
disabled.
  I think many people may not be aware of fact that in terms of 
eligibility for housing subsidies, AFDC is counted as income. When 
welfare reform passes and people who choose not to go into a work 
program lose their AFDC, the other part of the Federal Government, HUD, 
is going to make it up for them. HUD is going to reduce their cost of 
subsidized housing so that there will be a reverse, a perverse 
incentive, if you are in public housing, not to participate in the work 
participation program.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I too share some of the concerns raised by the 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Pastor] with regard to the gentleman's 
amendment. I note he suggests it does not explicitly, does not affect 
the elderly and disabled, but there is no explicit exclusion in the 
amendment that the gentleman is offering.
  Furthermore, as the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Pastor], our 
colleague, raised, the new proposals in terms of HUD, the reinvention 
blueprint actually asks to mix more people into housing. Of course, it 
normally leaves the preference decisions, with their long waiting 
lists, to the local control in many instances. This is contrary to 
that.
  Furthermore, I think if this were to--it needs some work, I am sure--
but it sets up a two-tier system for residents of public and assisted 
housing. It could displace many families currently on waiting lists or 
who are not enrolled in training programs, for a variety of reasons.
  The gentleman mentioned the obvious ones in terms of age or 
disability. But others who have been waiting who are not on training 
programs and who have been on the list for years could be displaced. If 
the gentleman would continue to yield, and I appreciate his doing so, 
it makes no exceptions for families who may lose their jobs or whose 
economic situation changed within a 5-year period.
  It makes no exceptions for families who go to work at jobs with wage 
levels that make them ineligible for housing.
  I know the gentleman's contention is if they receive the income, that 
they would not be so affected in terms of still not being impacted. We 
would like to keep those benefits in place.
  I think the intent of it is good. The effect of the amendment though, 
in terms of existing housing polices raises many questions.
  Mr. MORAN. I say in response to my friend, the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Vento], who has been very active in the housing area on 
the Subcommittee on Housing, it does not specifically exclude the 
elderly and disabled, but families looking for subsidized housing are 
not looking for one-bedroom efficiencies. They are not in competition 
with the elderly or disabled.
  I would also say to my friend that one of the biggest problems in 
terms of subsidized housing being used for the people in greatest need 
is that the only area that most jurisdictions are willing to provide 
subsidized housing is for the elderly and disabled because they make 
more profit. The developer makes more profit in building a high-rise. 
They do not like to provide subsidized housing for families. That is 
where the greatest need is; that is, those who compose most of the 
waiting list, families with children, not the elderly or disabled, 
because most jurisdictions are more than happy to provide for the 
elderly and disabled. They do not want families with kids. They assume 
they are unruly, with kids and so on, when they come from a family of 
poverty. That is our biggest problem in making the best use of the 
limited subsidized dollars that we have.
  But I would also suggest that those families that are on this waiting 
list, they ought to have an incentive to get a job, to pursue the 
ultimate objectives of welfare reform, which in fact both Democrats and 
Republicans agree is self-sufficiency. There ought to be an incentive. 
This is one of the most substantial incentives we can provide.
  If you go out and search for a job and find a job, we are going to 
provide subsidized housing for a limited period of time, 5 years, so 
you can get on your feet. This is consistent with both Republican and 
Democratic philosophy. It also would make much greater priority use of 
the limited subsidized housing funds we have available.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MORAN. Is the gentleman speaking in opposition?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Yes.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, 10 minutes is reserved on the other side, 
none of which has been used as yet. I would suggest the gentleman seek 
time there.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  Mr. WALKER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, what I wanted to talk about is more the general 
rhetoric that we have heard on the floor in the last few days about 
this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been astounded and astonished to hear the harsh, 
unreal, and irresponsible talk coming from the Democrats about welfare 
reform. To do as they have done, call State and local governments cruel 
and heartless, is irresponsible. To do as the Democrats have done, call 
our neighbors and neighborhoods mean and insensitive, is harsh to the 
extreme.
  To do as the Democrats have done, refer to the work of our churches 
and charities as uncompassionate, is out of touch with reality.
  Mr. BAESLER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] yield 
for the purpose of a parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. WALKER. I do not, Mr. Chairman.
  [[Page H3597]] The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman does not yield.
  Mr. WALKER. Oh, the Democratic opponents of welfare reform will say 
they have called none of those Americans these names. They claim to be 
attacking the Republican welfare reform bill or the Contract With 
America.
  But the underlying facts belie their caterwauling. We Republicans are 
not empowered by our welfare reform bill. The legislation turns power 
back to States and localities, to neighborhoods, to churches, and to 
charities. The only way that the results can be cruel and harsh, 
insensitive and mean, and uncompassionate is if you do not believe in 
the basic goodness of the American people and the American society. And 
the fact is--confirmed by this debate--the liberals do not believe in 
the basic goodness of the American people and American society.
  The Democrats long ago came to the conclusion that goodness and mercy 
flow through Federal bureaucrats. Opponents of welfare reform truly 
believe in taxing working people more so that they can have more money 
to spend on spreading good will through Washington solutions.
  That's why liberals are opposed to this legislation. It changes 
things. Democrats are in favor of keeping the present welfare system. 
They derive much of their political standing and power from the present 
welfare system. Their talk of meanness and insensitivity is status quo 
talk.
  The opponents of welfare reform have done everything they can for 40 
years to build the present system. It is the symbol of all they 
believe. They do not want to see it changed by a new majority.
  That is the real choice before us in the bill on this House floor.
  Do you agree with the present system that robs working people of the 
treasure of their work in order to support people who refuse to work?
  Do you believe the Food Stamp Program is the best way to feed the 
needy or are you disgusted to see food stamps abused as you walk 
through the grocery store check out line?
  Do you believe the School Lunch Program works well or are you 
disturbed to see the garbage truck haul away half the food, food the 
kids have thrown away?
  What the Democrats are defending with their harsh, unreal, and 
irresponsible talk are programs that are immoral and corrupt. It is 
immoral to take money from decent, middle-class Americans who work for 
everything they have and give it to people who think they are owed the 
money for doing nothing.
  It is immoral to run up our debt leaving our children and 
grandchildren to pay the costs of federally apportioned compassion.
  It is immoral to consign poor people to lives of living hell as 
government dependents so that politicians and bureaucrats can maintain 
power.
  It is corrupt to keep a system that is best known for its waste, 
fraud, and abuse.
  It is corrupt to give money to Federal bureaucrats that should be 
going to truly needy people and call the spending compassionate.
  It is corrupt to pick on the most vulnerable people in our society, 
the children and the poor, to maintain ones own political power base.
  Yet that is what this debate has revealed about the opponents of 
welfare reform. They cannot accept good welfare reform because it 
changes the pattern of power in America. The immoral and corrupt system 
they have fostered comes to an end. What the Democrats speak on this 
floor is the language of fear--fear of the future, fear of change, and 
fear of the loss of their political power. The system no matter how 
corrupt is their system and they want to keep it. The system no matter 
now immoral is their system and they want to keep it.
  What the rhetoric of the Democrats have spoken on this floor tells us 
is that anyone who wants the welfare system changed should support the 
welfare reform legislation that we have before us.
  Sixty years ago, Franklin Delano Roosevelt told us that all we had to 
fear was fear itself. Today, Democrats tell us clearly in this debate 
that all they have left is fear itself.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. Sure, I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. RANGEL. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, is it not a fact that the Republicans are not driven to 
reform the system which Democrats want to reform too but they are 
driven in order to save the money in order to pay for this horrendous 
tax bill that you have introduced on the Contract With America?
  Mr. WALKER. The gentleman is absolutely wrong. What we are attempting 
to do is have economic growth and at the same time make certain we 
bring down the debt and deficit. It is corrupt and immoral what the 
Democrats are out here on the floor defending, I say to the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Rangel].
  Defending this welfare system is actually corrupt and it is immoral.

                              {time}  1245

  This system is absolutely one of the most corrupt and immoral 
systems, and it is about time we reform it.
  Mr. RANGEL. It is tax reduction, not welfare reform, and the 
gentleman knows it.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Baesler].
  Mr. BAESLER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to rise in support of the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran]. It does 
provide incentives, and I do think it recognizes the importance of work 
over those who do not work, and I hope we pass it.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, to extend debate, as Mr. Gibbons' 
designee, I move to strike the last word, and I ask unanimous consent 
to be allowed to yield blocks of time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Washington?
  There was no objection.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry of the Chair 
as to the effect of granting the last request.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. MORAN. In other words, Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] have a block of time to explain his 
position?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott] will 
control 5 minutes and be able to yield it, and the gentleman has 1\1/2\ 
minutes remaining in his time.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I am trying to 
understand. If we have a Democrat and a Republican that are both in 
favor of the amendment and we have a Democrat, a group of Democrats, 
that are opposed to the amendment, how has the Chair divided the time 
in aggregate?
  The CHAIRMAN. Ten minutes went to the proponent of the amendment, 10 
minutes to an opponent of the amendment----
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. The trouble is, Mr. Chairman, that the 
chairman of the committee is not opposed to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. He claimed the time by unanimous consent because no one 
else claimed it, and no one complained about it; no one objected to his 
unanimous-consent request, so the gentleman----
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Did he ask for the unanimous-consent 
request, Mr. Chairman?
  The CHAIRMAN. Yes, he did, and the gentleman from Washington [Mr. 
McDermott], as the designee of the ranking minority member, has the 
privilege of striking the last word, and having 5 minutes, and 
controlling it, and he just did that under unanimous consent.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I understand.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I speak in strong 
opposition to this amendment, not for the intention that the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Moran] has for offering it, but 
[[Page H3598]] rather for some of the bizarre and unanticipated results 
that I think will occur if the amendment were accepted.
  First of all, let us recognize that there in fact would be a 
disincentive to have families get into this program if the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] goes through as it 
is currently written with a 5-year time limitation. Why would any 
family want to get into a program that is going to limit them to 5 
years in one of these housing programs when, if they do not go into the 
housing program under the 5-year provision, they would be able to stay 
in for a much longer period of time? This amendment only affects new 
section 8's that become available. There are very few new section 8's 
that are going to become available in this country in the next few 
years, particularly as a result of the budget process.
  Second, it seems to me that we already have a situation where we are 
creating preference after preference. We have preference for victims of 
AIDS. We have preference for elderly. We have preference for disabled. 
I say to my colleagues, If you're just a regular poor person in this 
country, you can't get on any section 8 voucher list that actually will 
get you a section 8.
  The fact is, in Massachusetts today, we have 17,000 people waiting on 
section 8. The only people that ever get a section 8 voucher are those 
at the very top who end up continuing to trade off between the special 
groups that have gotten these preferences, so it seems to me that what 
we ought to be doing is looking, as this housing committee is going to 
be doing in the next few weeks, not linking housing to the welfare 
debate, as this amendment unintentionally does, but let us review.
  President Clinton has provided a blueprint through Secretary Cisneros 
to have a complete revision of the housing programs. The Republicans 
have done the same. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] and I have 
an opportunity to look through these issues and get this issue resolved 
once and for all.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I hope the amendment is 
defeated. We fall into an unfortunate pattern when we do things like 
this. We, outside the context of an overall consideration of a program, 
say this particular group is very worthy, and we give them a preference 
over everybody else, and Members vote on that thinking of the 
worthiness of the particular recipients of the preference. What they do 
not realize is that giving a preference to group A means giving a 
disadvantage to every other group.
  So I say to my colleagues, You're not voting now, if you vote on 
this, as to whether or not this particular group is worthy of a 
preference. The question is: Is every other group in need of housing 
unworthy? Should every other group be put down? In fact, you have 
people who are very poor. You have people who have been working and not 
quite making enough wages to make it in the private market. Both groups 
get disadvantaged by this. It simply falls into a pattern that we have 
fallen into before. You hinder the law with a set of preferences that 
are often inconsistent, that don't harmonize, that don't, in fact, 
represent a rational preference system because you simply say this one 
group, and this one group is all you can deal with here because we're 
dealing with welfare. So this says this one particular group will be 
deemed by us more worthy than everybody else, and this is not a basis 
on which we should be deciding who everybody else is.
  Mr. Chairman, I have served on the Housing Subcommittee, and I could 
not tell my colleagues who everybody else is, and I am sure other 
Members could not either. So the question is not whether we should do 
something for the people in this program. It is should we disadvantage 
everybody who is not in this program, should we decide that everybody 
not in this program is not worthy of getting housing or not worthy of a 
preference because, as the gentleman from Massachusetts pointed out 
saying, ``No, you get pushed down the list,'' meaning they do not get 
housing at all. I do not understand why we would say, without the 
ability to make comparisons, that we are going to single out one group 
to the inevitable disadvantage of every other.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio].
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the where we are about to be introduced to the 
law of unintended consequences. I think that the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Moran] has the most noble of intentions, and I share his 
concern in regard to the general preferences, but I want to outline two 
things.
  First of all, the area of preferences in, tenant preferences in 
particular, in housing will be addressed by the committee when we do 
the rewrite. It will be done in a very fundamental way, and it will be 
affecting many different people, many different groups, not just those 
people who are, say, victims of AIDS and the elderly, those people who 
have been dislocated as a result of Federal action. That will all be 
addressed in a more fundamental, more comprehensive, hopefully more 
thoughtful approach during the housing rewrite.
  I also would like to say that we are going to be involved in placing 
seniors and disabled people who do not have the ability to go out to 
work who are disproportionately on the waiting lists. They are going to 
be bumped as a result of this amendment if it is offered.
  So I would ask the gentleman if he would consider speaking with me 
and working with the committee to ensure that we target the area that 
he wants to target. I understand what he is trying to do, I think, and 
we would like to work with the gentleman in terms of addressing it in 
the housing bill. We think maybe he is dealing with some unintended 
consequences here in particular when it comes to single bedroom units 
and say that there are families interested in that. As a matter of 
fact, right now we are having families put in place in one bedroom 
units. Those are the same one bedroom units that the disabled, who 
cannot go out and work, or seniors who cannot go out and work, are 
seeking and are going to be bumped off the waiting lists, so I just 
simply ask the gentleman if he would consider possibly withdrawing it 
and working with me to ensure that we target the population that he is 
concerned with.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Lazio] for his statement, and I think the same questions that he is 
raising are questions that are raised previously with the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Moran], and the good intentions of the amendment has 
to be looked at. As my colleagues know, content without context is 
pretext, and we got a problem here in terms of how this all fits 
together in terms of what we are trying to accomplish, and I would hope 
that I think the suggestion of trying to either withdraw this or at 
least address the concerns raised with the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Lazio], myself, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] and 
others, would be possible, and I hope the author would consider that.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield 
just briefly?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I just also want to make the point that 
one of the difficulties with this issue is the whole notion of a 5-year 
sunset on all housing. I think the sunset that the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Moran] has written into this is a very different housing 
policy than we have ever had in this country, and I think to do this 
without having debate--as my colleagues know, I just found out about 
this amendment earlier today. I think this a very substantive change in 
our Nation's housing policy. It might make some sense under some 
circumstances, but let us have an opportunity to talk about it, to 
discuss it and to try to determine what the consequences are going to 
be. I want to just make sure that the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Moran] understands that there are going to be tens of thousands of 
people that are getting section 8 vouchers today that will have to get 
over $11 an hour in order to pay for 30 percent of their income that 
would qualify them 
[[Page H3599]] for housing in the private marketplaces.
  So I say to my colleague, you're making a very big leap that somehow 
you're going to get from welfare to an $11 an hour job within 5 years. 
I don't know that we're going to be able to do that for the tens of 
thousands of people that could ultimately be affected as a result of 
this amendment. I think that it's well-intended, but I think it's 
shortsighted in terms of some of the perverse consequences that could 
result because of the way the amendment has been written.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I just want to expound on that 
again, what the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] is saying 
again and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] I think again with 
the most noble of intentions, but we are talking about time limitations 
and upon the broad population, and I know this is not the intention, to 
possibly raise it in this context possibly some other time. We are 
dealing with people that do not have the ability to go out and go to 
work. The behavioral changes that we are seeking to adjust through 
welfare reform are not applicable when we talk about the disabled, the 
seniors.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I would join in asking the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Moran] to withdraw the amendment and let the committee 
work on it. I do not know what its impact on senior housing is, plus in 
our community we have a very unique project with Indian preference, and 
I think this amendment would override what has been very difficult 
negotiations.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Cleveland, OH [Mr. Stokes].
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I, too, would hope that the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Moran] would consider withdrawing this amendment. I know 
he is well intentioned in this amendment, but it is really a bad 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would impact every individual in public 
housing. Public housing recipients include the most vulnerable persons 
in this Nation, our elderly and children. There are nearly half a 
million elderly--predominantly single and disabled women--and almost a 
million and a half children living in public housing. The effects of 
the Moran amendment on their lives would most certainly be severe. 
Under this measure, participants in welfare-to-work programs have 
preference over all other eligible households. Thus, many of the 
elderly and children in families with nonable-bodied adults would be in 
jeopardy of having their assistance terminated.
  In addition, setting an arbitrary time limit on housing assistance is 
misguided and, while families receiving housing assistance should be 
encouraged, this amendment really discourages them from doing so.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope the gentleman would withdraw his 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] is recognized 
for the remaining 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, let me respond to my friends with whom I 
share many public policy objectives, but I would strongly disagree with 
the suggestion that we ought to stick with the status quo. Let me tell 
my colleagues about a family in Alexandria right across the bridge.
  Mr. Chairman, the mother whose husband left her 4 years ago is 
sleeping in an automobile. Her 6-year-old is with her in the back seat. 
The 4-year-old is in the front seat. They have been on the waiting list 
for 4 years. She has no hope of ever getting subsidized housing, and 
she is not unique.
                              {time}  1300

  Because subsidized housing goes to people who have contacts, and in 
many urban areas, as it is in the District of Columbia, it went to 
people who were willing to bribe housing officials. In most suburban 
jurisdictions, subsidized housing goes to the elderly and the disabled, 
because that is where the profit margin is for building high-rise 
apartment buildings, and they are no threat to the community.
  Families with children are in great need of subsidized housing today, 
and those families who are willing to participate in a work 
participation program ought to get some incentive and ought to get some 
support. There are 13 million families today who qualify for housing 
and people in housing have no incentive to leave it, and we have no 
regulation that requires them to leave it. They are in there for life.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this 
amendment that would grant preference for obtaining Federal housing 
assistance to families that participate in required State welfare work 
programs.
  While I share the goal of my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia--
to assure that working people are rewarded for playing by the rules, I 
have concerns about the unintended consequences of this amendment as 
drafted.
  By providing a housing preference for people participating in the 
State welfare work programs, this amendment will create a bias against 
women with young children. It should come as no surprise that when 
young children are involved, the primary caregiver often stays at 
home--especially when safe, affordable, child care is not available. If 
this amendment were to pass, those parents who are at home with their 
children for whatever reason--would be penalized--and could be denied 
of appropriate, affordable housing.
  Furthermore, in discussing this amendment with housing officials in 
my district, I have heard serious concerns that this amendment might 
undermine preferences which have been carefully developed. For example, 
some communities have given preference for section 8 housing for 
residents of their own communities. I do not want to see this House run 
roughshod over reasonable requirements that have often been in place 
for some time.
  While I know the intention of the amendment is to reward people who 
work, the unintended effect would be to penalize a parent who stays 
home with a young child. It could also damage perfectly appropriate 
locally established preferences. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] will be 
postponed until after the vote on amendment No. 18.


                      announcement by the chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, proceedings will now resume on 
those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed, in the 
following order: Amendment No. 18 offered by the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen] and amendment No. 20, offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].


                 amendment offered by ms. ros-lehtinen

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on amendment No. 18 printed in House Report 104-85 offered by the 
gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen] on which further 
proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice 
vote.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my demand for a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment stands as agreed to.
  So the amendment was agreed to.


                     amendment offered by mr. moran

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on amendment No. 20 printed in House Report 104-85 offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] on which further proceedings were 
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 35, 
noes 395, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 262]

                                AYES--35

     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Beilenson
     Brownback
     Bryant (TX)
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cramer
     Davis
     Deal
     Emerson
     Geren
     Gilman
     Green
     Hall (TX)
     [[Page H3600]] Hansen
     Hayes
     Klink
     Lincoln
     McCrery
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Myers
     Myrick
     Norwood
     Orton
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Roth
     Souder
     Stenholm
     Tanner
     Thornton

                               NOES--395

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Clay
     Roukema
     Salmon
     Smith (WA)

                              {time}  1321

  Messrs. ROBERTS, GOSS, and SMITH of Michigan, Mrs. FOWLER, and 
Messrs. FOLEY, MILLER of California, WICKER, and TIAHRT changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. HANSEN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                          personal explanation

  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say that I did miss 
rollcall No. 262. If I had been here, I would have voted ``no.''
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 21 printed 
in House Report 104-85.


                   amendment offered by mr. traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant: In section 7(i)(1)(B) 
     of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2016(i)), as added by 
     section 556 of the bill, insert ``, except that each 
     electronic benefit transfer card shall bear a photograph of 
     the members of the household to which such card is issued'' 
     before the period.

  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] 
will be recognized for 10 minutes, and a Member opposed will be 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  Is there a Member in opposition to the amendment?
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] will be 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a system right now with food stamps that has 
become street currency. Hard-earned taxpayers' dollars going to provide 
food and nutrition for programs will end up being trafficked on the 
streets of our cities in many cases.
  But as Members know, there are abuses not only on the street. 
Citibank has just moved to incorporate a photograph in their credit 
card. If you go to Sam's Club now, Sam's Club requires a photograph on 
that transaction card. All the States in the union now require a 
photograph on their driver's license.
  There was a time when individuals would take a driver's license and 
use a fraudulent driver's license in the wrong capacity. As a result, 
the States were moved to put that photograph on there.
  The Traficant amendment requires that if a State opts for the 
electronic benefit transfer system, they can use that money, but the 
Congress of the United States says, That card shall have a photograph 
of the head of the household.
  There has been some question if, in fact, my amendment would require 
everybody in the household to have a photograph. No, it would not. That 
would be up to the States and legislative history to date shall 
determine that.
  But the point is, many times you will see a police car at an 
intersection and the police officer does not have a radar gun on 
anybody. Maybe he or she may be doing their paperwork. People approach 
that intersection, see that police car, they take added caution.
  Everybody in this House is concerned about the limited dollars we 
have to apply to the needy people of our country. Let me say this, 
every dollar that can be saved by preventing abuse and fraud and the 
unintended purpose of the expenditures of these moneys is that much 
more for the people of our country who depend upon their food and 
nutrition from programs such as this.
  I am not going to use up all my time in the beginning on this. I am 
saddened to see there are some in the Department of Agriculture, 
bureaucrats that oppose it. Well, those bureaucrats could not commit 
Sam's Club not to do it. They could not commit Citibank not to do it. 
The private sector is starting to put those photographs in because in 
the final analysis, they are cost effective. They save money. They stop 
abuse.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself much time as I may consume.
  [[Page H3601]] Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], as 
every Member knows, is the Buy American amendment champion of the House 
of Representatives and does yeoman work in that regard.
  I agree with the gentleman's intent of the amendment. And the 
gentleman does describe a real problem we have in the Food Stamp 
Program where approximately $3 billion in expenditures, as itemized by 
the inspector general of the Department of Agriculture, is going to 
fraud, abuse, and organized crime.

                              {time}  1330

  We have stores in big cities that are not stores, they are just 
clearing houses in regard to using the Food Stamp Programs and the 
coupons as a second currency to bankroll organized crime.
  We have a strong antifraud provision in this bill. It is bipartisan. 
The distinguished ranking minority member, the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. de la Garza], chairman emeritus of the House Committee on 
Agriculture, has contributed to that effort, and the administration has 
contributed to that effort.
  We asked the inspector general of the Department of Agriculture 
whether or not the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Traficant], from a practical standpoint, would be of help. I think from 
a perception standpoint there is no question that gentleman's amendment 
in terms of intent is very positive, but the amendment requires that 
the EBT cards contain a photograph of the family receiving food stamps.
  In the first place, we have a problem here with an unfunded mandate, 
since the States pay half the cost of the EBT, or that card. By this 
amendment, they would be required to pay additional amounts for a 
system that includes the photographs.
  In addition, in contacting the Inspector General, there is very 
little if any evidence, there is no evidence that having a photograph 
of the entire family of the EBT card will stop any kind of trafficking.
  In order to traffic in Food Stamp Programs with an EBT card, there 
must be a willing participant and a willing person in the grocery 
store. Having a photograph on that card will not deter the trafficking, 
because the grocery store person is a willing participant. That 
certainly would not stop the case. Without a willing partner in the 
grocery store, there would be no trafficking with the EBT cards.
  I want to make it clear that the EBT cards are instrumental in 
reducing the incidences of street trafficking of food stamps, but it 
does not eliminate the trafficking. However, EBT does provide a trail, 
so that law enforcement personnel can trace these violations, and then 
really prosecute all who violate the act.
  I would say to my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, that while I admire the 
gentleman's intent, and I admire the gentleman, the cost of placing a 
photograph of a family on the EBT card, while unknown, is unlikely to 
pay off. I think it is going to slow down our efforts to have States 
adopt a criteria to put in place the entire system is regard to EBT.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Missouri [Mr. Emerson], the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee in charge of food stamp reform.
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I, too rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment of 
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant]. I wonder if he might consider 
withdrawing it, and for this reason. We do create here an unfunded 
mandate.
  The subsequent amendment is going to allow the States, if they wish, 
in pursuit of an EBT system to do what the gentleman wishes. I 
personally consider, I have been interested in the EBT approach to the 
management of our welfare system for a long time. I think it has very 
unique potential.
  I intend, as the chairman of the relevant subcommittee on the 
Committee on Agriculture, to hold early oversight hearings into this 
subject, and I would like to work with the gentleman from Ohio and 
cooperate with him in seeing that his concerns are addressed. I would 
simply like to explore the issue that the gentleman raises here before 
we lock ourselves into doing it, and I am willing to pledge to him my 
cooperation in pursuing this idea.
  There are a lot of aspects to EBT that in an oversight sense are 
going to need to be addressed. We will be back at the subject again in 
the farm bill, when that is before us in the committee in May. There 
are going to be opportunities this year to address the concerns of the 
gentleman from Ohio. I appreciate his interest and look forward to 
working with him as an ally in pursing the goals that he has in mind 
here.
  Mr. Chairman, I just think there is a better way to do it down the 
road.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his 
contribution, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me see if I understand this. The inspector general who has been 
responsible for a food stamp program that is the laughingstock of the 
free world is now going to advise us as to what is evidence and what 
may prove to be a system that would provide some preventive mechanisms 
from fraud and abuse?
  If the Congress of the United States, after the track record of food 
stamp programs, is going to accept advice of counsel, some bureaucrat 
in some office downtown who never had to cash a food stamp and does not 
know how important they are to the family, if we are going to follow 
their advice and counsel, we have made a great mistake.
  Second of all, let me say this. There is a lot of technology coming 
into play. The Coburn amendment adds to that. The Traficant amendment 
deals with the streets. People on the streets do not have computers, 
they do have fingerprint scans, but one thing they know: If there is a 
photograph on that card, and they do not have permission to have that 
card, and they are at any time apprehended with that card, they are 
subject to problems.
  I do not need evidence from the inspector general, who screwed up the 
food stamp program. If the food stamp program was OK, we would not have 
the EBT here being discussed on the floor.
  Citibank, Sam's Club, driver's license; when you go to vote on the 
Traficant amendment, look at your voting card. My God, are we worried 
about trafficking in voting cards? The truth of the matter is, the 
Congress of the United States is saying ``Look, you do not have to 
adopt an EBT system. If you do, there are block grants. Go ahead and 
implement it.'' However, the Congress of the United States is saying as 
an added safeguard, to make sure that money that we are putting into 
food and nutrition goes to the people who need it, the Congress is 
saying we want a picture on it.
  At Sam's Club they have a computerized system. You go in, they take 
your picture, and you get a computer printout card with a photograph on 
it. We are not reinventing the wheel here.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado 
[Mr. McInnis].
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for an opportunity 
to address this.
  I think the gentleman is absolutely right, Mr. Chairman. He used to 
be a sheriff. I used to be a police officer. Let me tell the Members, 
it makes a difference on the streets. I think the gentleman from Ohio 
brings up a good point, that hey, it may not thrill the inspector 
general, but when is the last time the inspector general rode out there 
in a squad unit or was out on the streets? It is going to make a 
difference.
  We have huge amounts of fraud going out there with food stamps. The 
food stamp program has lost its credibility across this country because 
of the fraud, and frankly, not only because of the fraud, but the 
failure of somebody to do something about the fraud.
  This is a very simple maneuver. It is not going to require a lot. It 
is not going to require big cost. It did not require us much to put 
that picture on our voting card. That is our picture. I can bet the 
Members money none of them are going to take this. This is a small 
crowd.
  [[Page H3602]] We know that out on the streets you get that picture, 
and it is like the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] says, it is like 
an empty squad car. When we would go out for our coffee breaks we never 
parked our squad cars behind the building. We parked them right out on 
the street, because everybody coming up thought they were getting 
radared. It is the perception that counts.
  The perception will count in cutting down on food stamp program 
fraud. I stand in strong support of the amendment of the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Traficant]. I think we have to move this argument to the 
street. What is the streets' perception?
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, it is always interesting to note in a debate when 
somebody starts to pillory another individual, when they do not know 
anything about the other individual.
  The new inspector general of the Department of Agriculture is Roger 
Viadero. He has been on board for 4 months. He is the gentleman who 
took the tape and provided the House Committee on Agriculture the first 
hearing on fraud and abuse in years and years and years. It was the 1st 
of February.
  Prior to 4 months ago, he spent a career in the FBI and as a street 
cop; street, street, I would tell the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. 
McInnis] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], he was a street 
cop. He knows full well what will happen in regard to this particular 
effort.
  Let me remind the gentleman that an EBT card is not an ID card. I 
hope nobody around here is voting with an EBT card. It is not a 
driver's license. It is not a bank card. In addition to that, Mr. 
Chairman, in terms of the inspector general's advice, and he is in 
charge of it, he has indicated that it
 will not stop the trafficking that my colleagues hope would take 
place.

  If you have an EBT card and you cheat, you have to have a willing 
participant on the other side. It will take more time for States to 
meet the criteria of an EBT system to provide an audit trail to stop 
fraud if we put a picture on the EBT card.
  If we require it, it is an unfunded mandate. States will have to pay 
half of the cost. In addition, the gentleman's amendment is structured, 
and he cannot amend it, according to the rule, that the entire family 
has to be on the card. What do we do with a 10-member family, or 9 or 8 
or 7 or 6? The picture would have to be larger than the card.
  This does not serve any practical, useful purpose. It may send a 
message in terms of perception, but in terms of food stamp program 
reform and stopping crime and fraud, we should not use perception, we 
should use the best advice of a street cop, an FBI expert, and a 
gentleman who has come to the inspector general's office after it has 
been absent. The administration did not fill that position for the 
better part of 2 years.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, if the Members will read the amendment, it stays ``The 
transfer card shall bear a photograph of the members of the household 
to which such card is issued.'' The States who enact that will make 
that determination. It does not necessarily mean they will have to have 
a photograph of everybody in that family. That is a misrepresentation.
  I commend the fine background of this new inspector general, but let 
me say this, anybody who says this photograph will not be a deterrent 
is either smoking dope or never did work on the street, because the 
gentleman himself has said in his comments that it would take a willing 
participant, a willing second party, and a willing second party knows 
that they are holding, now, a transfer card with someone else's picture 
on it.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman, and I agree 
with the inspector general, whoever perpetrates the fraud walks into 
the store and has a willing participant on the other side of the 
counter. What we are talking about is before they walk into the store, 
there are people who will take that card with fraud intended, and with 
the photos on there, they are not going to go into the store.
  Of course it is going to have savings. Of course it will cut down on 
fraud.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, might I inquire of the Chair how much time 
we have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] has 1\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] has 1\1/
2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] has the 
privilege of closing.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the former 
sheriff, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Holden].
  Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  First, I want to commend the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson] 
and the chairman, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], for the work 
they did on this. I, too, have 14 spent years in law enforcement, 7 as 
a sheriff, and I support the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio.
  We have pictures on drivers licenses, we have pictures on ID's, to 
identify people for alcohol. It works as a deterrent. The first EBT 
project program in the whole country was in Reading, PA, in my 
district.
  I just hung up with the director of public welfare in Berks County, 
PA. They tell me this will work as an added deterrent to people trying 
to defraud the welfare system through EBT. I urge everyone to support 
this.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson].
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I simply want to point out we are a little into an apples and oranges 
argument here. The point of opposition that I have to the amendment of 
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] is that it is an unfunded 
mandate.
  A few weeks ago we passed an unfunded mandate bill and said States, 
we are not going to do this to you anymore. We are going to give you 
broad flexibility to figure things out. Here are the broad parameters 
of the program. Now, you devise it as best you can.
  The next amendment to be offered is one that allows States to pursue 
the gentleman's idea, but does not mandate it.
                              {time}  1345

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Largent].
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment as 
well.
  My opposition is simply based upon the fact that the subsequent 
amendment that we are going to be addressing introduced by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn], who has done extensive work on 
this, really yields the opportunity, as my colleague the gentleman from 
Missouri just said, to the States.
  If we are about anything in H.R. 4, it is about granting the 
authority and the power to make decisions like this back to the States 
where people really are on the street dealing with this issue.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment on the basis that it will be 
addressed later.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 30 seconds.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I am going to support the Coburn amendment, but 
remember this: The Coburn amendment does not say there has to be a 
photograph.
  The Traficant amendment says the Congress of the United States gives 
you the option of having this new system.
  But the Congress of the United States says you can opt to use that 
block grant money for it. But the Congress of the United States wants a 
photograph on that card, because the Congress of the United States 
wants to ensure that the limited dollars that we have go to the hungry 
children in the families that we are here trying to help with the 
limited moneys that we have. I appreciate your support.
  [[Page H3603]] Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kansas is recognized for 30 seconds.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Well, if we could lower our voice a little bit and 
indicate that Members who oppose the amendment are not smoking dope, it 
would be helpful. Maybe corn silk at one time but certainly not dope.
  I would hope the gentleman would withdraw the amendment, that we 
could deal with this in regards to the farm bill when we reauthorize 
the Food Stamp Program. That is the appropriate time. It is an unfunded 
mandate.
  The Inspector General of the Department of Agriculture who has done 
more to sift out fraud and point out the problem says from a perception 
standpoint maybe, from a practical effect no.
  Consequently, I would hope that Members would oppose the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] will be 
postponed until after the debate on the amendment numbered 25.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 22 printed in House 
Report 104-85.


                    amendment offered by mr. coburn

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. COBURN:
       In section 556(a) of the bill, strike paragraph (2) and 
     insert the following:
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by striking ``effective no later than April 1, 1992,'';
       (B) by striking ``the approval of'';
       (C) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``, in any 1 year,''; 
     and
       (D) by amending subparagraph (D) to read as follows:
       ``(D)(i) measures to maximize the security of such system 
     using the most recent technology available that the State 
     considers appropriate and cost-effective and which may 
     include (but is not limited to) personal identification 
     number (PIN), photographic identification on electronic 
     benefit transfer cards, and other measures to protect against 
     fraud and abuse; and
       ``(ii) effective not later than 2 years after the date of 
     the enactment of the Food Stamp Simplification and Reform Act 
     of 1995, measures that permit such system to differentiate 
     items of food that may be acquired with an allotment from 
     items of food that may not be acquired with an allotment.''; 
     and

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. 
Coburn] and a Member opposed will each control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  After listening to the discussion that we just had, I think it is 
important that we bear in mind that the objectives of the gentleman 
from Ohio and my objectives are the same. That is, to try to return 
integrity to the Food Stamp Program at the point at which food stamps 
are used.
  Several gentlemen have shown their congressional voting card here 
today that does have a photo ID on it. This amendment will allow that 
if a State so chooses to have a photo ID.
  The Food Stamp Program was established to provide a level of 
nutritional sustenance for people who cannot afford to feed themselves. 
Oftentimes this does not seem to be the case when we observe how food 
stamps are used.
  Everyone knows that the current system has loopholes that have 
allowed fraud, waste, and abuse to become rampant. Many States, 
including my home State of Oklahoma, are looking at electronic benefit 
transfer systems as an alternative way which have proven to be 
effective at saving administrative costs and cutting down on waste, 
fraud, and abuse.
  H.R. 4 encourages States to establish EBT systems for distributing 
food stamp benefits. For this reason I wholeheartedly agree.
  My amendment is intended to further help States make the transition 
to an EBT system while strengthening the ability of States to cut out 
the waste in the system.
  The first part of the amendment addresses a concern that many States 
have voiced in setting up an EBT system. Current law states that an EBT 
system must demonstrate lower administrative cost than paper coupons in 
any one year.
  Although costs have been shown to be considerably lower with EBT 
systems over time, the first-year cost may be higher in order to set up 
this new system.
  The amendment drops the ``any one year'' phrase to give States the 
flexibility to set up a system that works properly while still keeping 
administrative costs far lower than the current system.
  The second part of the amendment addresses one of the most common 
forms of food stamp abuse, their use by unauthorized persons.
  With paper coupons or even EBT cards, there is danger that someone 
could steal the benefits we have provided.
  There is also nothing to prevent a recipient from giving his coupons 
or EBT card to a noneligible person. We should ensure that the person 
to whom we have given the food stamp benefits is the only person who 
can use those benefits.
  The Traficant amendment addresses this in one fashion, although the 
State should be allowed to determine how best to achieve security in 
their system, whether it is a photo ID, a PIN number, a fingerprint or 
a retinal scan, all of which companies are readily available to 
provide. The State can determine how to do it. But the system must be 
secure.
  The most important part of the amendment, however, addresses the most 
visible problem people have with the current Food Stamp Program--people 
using food stamps for things other than food.
  I cannot tell you how many times I have had people in my district 
talk to me about the abuse of food stamps. The whole purpose of this 
program is to make sure food stamps are used for their intended 
purpose, for nutrition and support, and not for items other than that.
  Current law provides certain guidelines as to what can and cannot be 
provided. This system is intended to electronically and through 
computer technology force that into happening. It has a wide range of 
time on it, up to 2 years, and we will have a discussion about the 
benefits associated with this.
  I would urge all of my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding. I 
thank him for his amendment. I would like to engage him in a colloquy 
if I might.
  There could be a situation here when States are able to define the 
food items that are eligible, that conceivably that could slow down the 
conversion by States to the EBT system.
  I know that that is not the outcome that the gentleman anticipates or 
wants and the body should understand that if it looks like this could 
occur, that the 2-year time frame can be extended to 5 years. I think 
the gentleman has stated this, but I wanted to make sure that that was 
the gentleman's intent.
  Mr. COBURN. That is my intent, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the gentleman for his contribution, and I 
support the amendment.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. FORD. To the author of the amendment, I want to support the 
amendment, but would the gentleman respond to a couple of questions if 
you do not mind?
  The electronic transfer benefit, would this apply to food stamps as 
well as the block grant cash benefits of the AFDC recipients as well?
  Mr. COBURN. This amendment does not address that, but it could be 
used in that fashion if a State wanted to use it. But it would be under 
a completely different set of circumstances. But this 
[[Page H3604]] amendment addresses only food stamp benefits.
  Mr. FORD. But this electronic transfer would be through some sort of 
card; is that correct?
  Mr. COBURN. That is correct.
  Mr. FORD. States are going on-line now with the electronic benefit 
transfer; is that correct?
  Mr. COBURN. That is correct.
  Mr. FORD. With the Personal Responsibility Act, we are talking about 
block-granting the cash benefit to AFDC recipients and then in most 
cases they are recipients of food stamps as well.
  With that, should we authorize or say to those States that the cash 
benefit should also be a part of this electronic card?
  Mr. COBURN. We have not tried to make that a focus of this amendment 
and that has not been addressed. We were specifically addressing food 
stamps because of the significant amount of fraud that is seen and used 
with food stamps, both on the black market, the use of purchasing even 
cars or drugs.
  The whole goal of the amendment is to eliminate the fraud in the Food 
Stamp Program and not address the other issues, although it is entirely 
possible that it could be used in that manner.
  Mr. FORD. We just want to make sure that we can also look at this 
information superhighway, that we make sure that the cost savings that 
might be involved with the cash benefits. Now that we are only 
allocating the 1994 level under the formula of $15.4 billion, we want 
to make sure that States can also have savings here, that they will not 
have to mail out a check monthly to the AFDC recipients.
  Mr. COBURN. Reclaiming my time, that is entirely possible with this 
system and States could do that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona 
[Mr. Shadegg].
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
offered by my colleague the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  The Coburn amendment makes very modest changes to this legislation 
which will do a tremendous amount to solve the real threat to the 
credibility of the Food Stamp Program which is posed by fraud, waste, 
and abuse. Beyond that, it will save taxpayers dollars. We have to all 
be about that task.
  The electronic benefit transfer cards save money over the current 
paper food stamps. Distributing food stamps by this method will also 
enable us to eliminate a great deal of the fraud.
  There is indeed, today, a regrettable amount of black market in food 
stamps. Hundreds of millions of dollars of our taxpayers' money are 
going to be used right now not for food for the hungry but to buy drugs 
from black-marketed stamps and to buy beer and drugs that do not help 
the families who are supposed to be benefited. This program will give 
us an opportunity to stop that kind of fraud and abuse. But more 
importantly, it will let the States decide.
  In the debate we just heard on the Traficant amendment, we saw the 
mentality of Washington, DC, that for too long, we, in the Congress, 
know the answer. Certainly a photograph is a right step in the 
direction of stopping fraud. But there are other mechanisms. There are 
retina testers, there are thumb-print screeners. There are lots of 
different devices. Technology moves faster than the U.S. Congress.
  What the Coburn amendment does is it said, we don't have all that 
wisdom here. We should let the States, charged with the responsibility 
of administering this program, make those decisions.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Coburn amendment.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Foley].
  Mr. FOLEY. I want to commend my colleague on this very good 
amendment.
  We have talked about it a lot in Florida and we have talked about it 
in other States. In fact, Maryland is going quickly to the EBT system. 
This amendment gives the States the flexibility to implement what I 
think is the most important aspect of reform in the Food Stamp Program; 
$1.8 billion has been shown to be wasted at least in the Food Stamp 
Program. This very good amendment will now strike some of that and 
bring the dollars to truly benefit the needy of our communities.
  The Republican Party is about feeding the poor. We want to make 
certain they get basic nutrition.
  This bill also provides that we can exclude cigarettes, alcohol, and 
hopefully ice cream, hopefully popcorn, hopefully junk foods that are 
taking our precious tax dollars and giving people food that is not 
nutritious in value.
  I strongly support the Coburn amendment. I urge my colleagues to do 
the same.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] is recognized 
for 1 minute.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment.
  If there is an emotional issue, it is that the money that we spend to 
help those who need it should go for what we intend it to do. This 
amendment goes very far in that regard.
  I would urge all to support this amendment.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, to extend the debate, I move to strike the 
last word, and I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Ford].
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, let me try a couple of questions to the 
author of the amendment.
  The way I read your amendment is that you require the States which 
would mean that this would be a mandate on the States to put in place. 
I am not opposed to your amendment at all. I am just trying to make 
sure that we clearly understand that we would require the States to do 
this which would mean that this would be a mandate; is that correct?
  Mr. COBURN. If the gentleman will yield, what we are requiring is the 
States to be responsible for how they spend the money in terms of using 
the available technology that is available to them at any one period of 
time. It is our intention, and if you will see in the rest of the bill, 
that there is no mandate on States other than having the call. They can 
use any one they want, the cheapest one or the most expensive.
  The most expensive happens to be retinal images presently. If they 
want to use that, they can. They are just required if they want to have 
block-granted food stamps that within a 2-year period, if the 
technology is available, which we think it will be, that they are going 
to use a system that secures it for the very purpose that the food 
stamp was intended for, that supplement.
  Mr. FORD. I think it is a good amendment. I guess an amendment to 
your amendment would not be in order under the rule of the House today, 
but if this bill does go to the Senate in conference, hopefully the 
provision with the electronic transfer would be part of the cash 
benefit for the AFDC recipients as well that would be included at some 
point.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. COBURN. I would very much agree with the gentleman on that. I 
think that is a good way to make sure those benefits are intended and 
spent, and intended in a direction. They cannot be spent on things we 
would not want, our support dollars going to support.
  That is not part of this amendment and I think it is a wonderful 
suggestion. If the gentleman would bring that up when we do go to 
conference, we could do that.
  Mr. FORD. Before I yield to my other colleagues, let me say that it 
is very clear that this is an area that we need to look at, the 
electronic on-line system with food stamps as well as AFDC.
  Fraud, waste, and abuse is something we all are in opposition to and 
we want to do everything possible to cut it out, but we certainly do 
not want to confuse it with the vast majority of these recipients and 
try to suggest for one minute that people who are trying to make ends 
meet and to feed their children every day, and it is difficult for food 
stamps and other benefits to carry them through the month, that we want 
to lump everybody into some type of waste, fraud, and abuse situation. 
That is not the case. Those who are doing it, we want to stop it 
certainly, but we want to stop it immediately.
  [[Page H3605]] Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FORD. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
agree with the gentleman's amendment. But make no mistake about it, 
this is not going to get to the problem of the people that do the 
massive abuses in automobiles and traffic in this. I say to the 
gentleman from Kansas City, you have to have a willing counterpart to 
engage in this, and I think what you have to do is go even further than 
this and get some real strong restrictions from the inspector general 
to get to the root because of the people that are ripping off the food 
stamp program. It is not the little old lady trying to get by and feed 
her children that is ripping off the food stamp program. And as noble 
as this is, you are not going to solve the big problems of ripping off 
the hundreds of millions of dollars until you get to some real strict 
enforcement like the gentleman from Kansas is talking about.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I would just 
remind the gentleman 10 days ago using the system in Houston, several 
gentleman were found through the use of the EBT securities system and 
will be making restitution of some $300,000 to $500,000 because we can 
now with the EBT system track for fraud and individual abusers. And the 
technology is there. There is technology to eliminate this fraud and 
abuse, even to eliminate willing providers because the computer chip 
will be hard to beat.
  Mr. HEFNER. Good for them.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of the time to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza], who serves on the Committee on 
Agriculture.
  Mr. de la Garza. I thank the gentleman for yielding the time, and 
thank our colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons].
  Let me say everyone is in favor of cutting fraud and waste and abuse, 
and saving money. There is not problem in that. How we address it is 
part of the problem.
  And I basically am in accord with what the gentleman is attempting to 
do.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 24 printed 
in House Report 104-85.


                     amendment offered by mr. upton

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 24 offered by Mr. Upton: At the end of 
     subtitle B of title V, insert the following (and make such 
     technical and conforming changes as may be appropriate):

     SEC. 581. DISQUALIFICATION RELATING OF CHILD SUPPORT ARREARS.

       Section 6 of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2015) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) No individual is eligible to participate in the food 
     stamp program as a member of any household during any period 
     such individual has any unpaid liability under a court order 
     for the support of a child of such individual.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Upton] will be recognized for 10 minutes, and a Member opposed will be 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  Does any Member seek control of the time in opposition?
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton].


              amendment, as modified, offered by mr. upton

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for a very small 
modification in the amendment which, as I understand, the ranking 
member of the committee has agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment, as modified.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment No. 24, as modified, offered by Mr. Upton: At the 
     end of subtitle B of title V, insert the following (and make 
     such technical and conforming changes as may be appropriate):

     SEC. 581. DISQUALIFICATION RELATING OF CHILD SUPPORT ARREARS.

       Section 6 of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2015) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) No individual is eligible to participate in the food 
     stamp program as a member of any household during any period 
     such individual has any unpaid liability that is both--
       ``(1) under a court order for the support of a child of 
     such individual; and
       ``(2) for which the court is not allowing such individual 
     to delay payment.''.

  Mr. UPTON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment, as modified, be considered as read and printed in 
the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the modification?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton] is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very encouraged by the child support enforcement 
provisions that are part of this welfare reform bill. But we need to do 
more.
  I have spent considerable time with a number of 14- and 15-year-old 
mothers who face a very hard life juggling school work, work and the 
demands of parenthood as well. Many of us take that responsibility very 
seriously, as we live for our kids and we want them to have a better 
life, and we are taken aback by parents who shirk this responsibility 
and refuse to make even a modest payment to help support their child. 
The result is that both the child and the attending parent suffer and 
are penalized.
  This amendment will no longer reward parents who fail to fulfill 
their obligations to pay child support but continue to receive 
Government assistance through the Food Stamp Program.
  Today there is $34 billion in unpaid child support due to more than 
23 million children. More specifically, more than 30 percent of women 
with kids in poverty receive no child support whatsoever.
  A survey of income and program participation found that of the 
525,000 noncustodial parents receiving food stamps, 79 percent or 
415,000 were not paying child support.
  It is time to stop the free lunch. We are asking custodial single 
parents, who happen to be primarily mothers, to cover a lot of bases 
and carry the load, but what about the other parent? Where is the 
equity? We cannot forget that parenting is the responsibility of two 
people, and we certainly cannot forget the children who are in 
desperate need of assistance.
  If this amendment passes, I fully intend to work to ensure that this 
amendment targets those who are dodging their parental 
responsibilities, not those who are making an honest effort to care for 
their child.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot continue to support deadbeat parents, and I 
urge Members to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Martini].
  Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the 
time, and I congratulate him for the fine effort on this amendment.
  To me, this amendment is a clear statement of right and wrong.
  If there is one overriding message in our overhaul of the welfare 
system, it is that we as a government and as members of a compassionate 
society demand that all of us act as responsible citizens.
  Well, as most of my colleagues know, parenthood demands 
responsibility.
  Any person who brings a child into this world and then refuses to do 
everything in his or her power to ensure that child's well-being 
deserves punishment, not the taxpayers' generosity.
  In Maine, it has been the case that the very threat of such sanctions 
as license forfeiture has produced a huge increase in the amount of 
child support that state has collected.
  I would expect that the very threat of withholding food stamps from 
deadbeat parents would do the same.
  I once again commend the gentleman from Michigan for his excellent 
idea, and urge my colleagues to support this measure.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from 
 [[Page H3606]] Texas [Mr. de la Garza], former chairman and now 
ranking member of the committee.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the 
time, and I appreciate his interest and his effort. All of us are of 
course in favor of reducing fraud, waste and abuse, and certainly this 
is an area of very strong interest to us.
  What I would like to ask of the gentleman is that there is concern 
that there needs to be further refinement of his amendment. Am I 
correct in that?
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. de la GARZA. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding back. I 
would like to say I want to work very closely with the chairman and 
others on his side, as well as our side, to make sure that the intent 
of this legislation, or that the actual language follows the intent.
  In some cases, of course, an individual not making child support 
payments may be doing so in conjunction with the court, and those we do 
not want to penalize. We want to make sure those individuals who are in 
fact in arrears at the subjugation, I guess, of the courts, are in fact 
those who are penalized. This language does not permit that.
  I would like to work with the gentleman and others as the bill moves 
forward to make sure we get the best language available.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate that. We support the 
gentleman's intent and motive, and hopefully we will be able to craft 
it in an appropriate manner so it can address effectively the intent. 
And I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Roberts].
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me. I will not take the 2 minutes.
  As indicated, the gentleman's amendment does require that no person 
can receive food stamps if that person is required by a court order to 
pay child support, and then dealt with the unpaid liability issue. The 
gentleman has amended his amendment so that becomes more flexible and 
certainly more practical.
  Let me seek the gentleman's assurance that the effective date of this 
amendment will coincide with the implementation of the new child 
support enforcement system as described in H.R. 4.
  Mr. UPTON. I accept that.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I support the gentleman's amendment and I thank him for 
his contribution.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, in order to extend the time of debate, I 
move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman wish to control the 5 minutes?
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent, if the occasion 
arises, that I be allowed to allocate blocks of time to Members.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is about the most tepid debate I have seen around 
here in years, and I think it is really by design.
  Yesterday it was obvious that the Republicans wanted to move this 
bill quickly through the House without anybody really seeing what was 
in it and what it really did. But they have succeeded in cutting off 
all of the really spirited debate by what they have done here.
  I wish the cameras would please pan the floor. I think there are 12 
Members, maybe 13. Two just came in. Fourteen Members here on this 
debate, 14 Members out of 435 Members on this debate on the most 
important piece of legislation that will come before this body, a piece 
of legislation that takes about $70 billion from poor children to use 
in the crown jewel of the contract to give tax cuts that are not needed 
to people who do not deserve them.
  There are 12 or 14 of us here. And the Committee on Rules I think did 
this deliberately. The amendments we have had have been nothing 
amendments. I do not impugn anybody's integrity about them, but they 
have just been nothing amendments. We have not even called for 
rollcalls on any of them. They do nothing. They could have been done by 
unanimous consent.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GIBBONS. No, I am not going to yield. But why did the Committee 
on Rules do that?
  I have the floor and I would like to continue using it. If I have any 
time left over, I may yield it to you, sir.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida has the time.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Rules had 164 requests 
for amendments up there. They granted 31 amendments, 5 of which came 
from the Democrats, and 2 of our amendments they stole from us and gave 
to the Republicans because they sounded so good that they could not 
resist that. I have a list of 13 really important amendments here that 
they turned down and would not even let be debated here, and yet there 
are 12 or 14 of us here on the floor to carry on this nothing debate 
today.
  The Committee on Rules did not allow the Stenholm amendment to 
restrict the 70 billion dollars' worth of savings here to budget 
deficit reduction and not to spend it on tax cuts. They did not allow 
another 12 amendments, all sponsored by Democrats, that were good, 
substantive amendments, that were controversial. They put in all of 
these nothing amendments that we have had here all day.
  You know, I do not blame the Republicans for wanting to duck this 
bill. I know they are embarrassed that they had to bring this dog to 
the floor. But that is the only way they could raise a part of the 
money so they can give it back to tax cuts that the Nation itself does 
not need, tax cuts that come at the wrong time in the American economic 
history.

                              {time}  1415

  America is at full employment right now. America is at maximum 
factory capacity utilization right now. The American dollar is unstable 
because the world currency traders are betting we do not have the guts 
to balance or reduce our budget deficit.
  And so we come into this debate today on these nothing amendments so 
that people will be bored to death and so that 10 or 12 of us here will 
be here to take part in it. It is a travesty. It is a travesty that the 
time of Congress is wasted on what we have here before us today. It was 
deliberately done to bore the audience to death and the Members to 
death so that they would have no opportunity to make any important 
decisions.
  The Committee on Rules did not allow the Matsui-Kennedy amendment.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman 
yielding.
  And I want to say good job to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Upton], good amendment.
  You know, the breakdown of the family is a national tragedy, and when 
we do have time to discuss the amendments, let us discuss what is 
happening.
  This is another notch. This is another foot forward in trying to 
control irresponsibility of parents that forsake their kids.
  I just want to, in the U.S. News, read a couple of quotes out of it. 
It says:

       More than virtually any other factor, a biological father's 
     presence in the family will determine the child's success and 
     happiness.
       Rich or poor, white or black, the children of divorce and 
     those born outside of marriage struggle through life at a 
     measurable disadvantage. The absence of fathers is linked to 
     the most social nightmares from boys with guns to girls with 
     babies.

  This is a step forward. We have the ability within H.R. 4 to identify 
these individuals. It is reasonable that we do not reward the 
individuals that have forsaken their responsibilities for their kids by 
giving them additional Federal handouts.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the 
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts].
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Ah, memories are made of this. It was just the other day when the 
gentleman from Florida was requesting of 
 [[Page H3607]] the House in decibels a little higher than the ones he 
just used everybody to sit down and cease and desist, let us have a 
rational debate.
  I would suggest that the amendments that we are considering are not 
nothing amendments. I would suggest the policy debate we had in the 
House Agriculture Committee that went 15 hours did not involve nothing. 
It involved tremendous policy decision in regards to food stamp reform.
  Might I remind the gentleman from Florida that in October 1987 the 
Democrats first attempted to self-execute the adoption of their welfare 
reform bill into the reconciliation bill without a separate vote. The 
adoption of the rule was considered to be the adoption of the welfare 
reform amendment. That rule was rejected by the House. A second 
legislative day was created that same day by Speaker Wright. Memories 
are made of this.
  And we brought forward a new rule for reconciliation minus the 
welfare reform component. The Committee on Rules subsequently reported 
a separate rule for the welfare reform bill making in order just one 
amendment, one amendment, not a series of amendments or nothing 
amendments that we are talking about here, in the nature of a 
substitute by the minority leader, but that rule was withdrawn from 
lack of support by the Democrats.
  Finally we had a third rule.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Kansas has expired.
                         Parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. At what point can I be recognized to offer 
an amendment so that whatever savings come from this bill, possibly $70 
billion, would be dedicated for deficit reduction?
  Mr. ROBERTS. Regular order, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I am making a parliamentary inquiry, sir.
  The CHAIRMAN. The rule does not allow amendments to these amendments.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. How did that happen, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is in the rule.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. And a majority of Members voted to keep a 
Member from offering an amendment so that the savings from this bill 
could be placed towards deficit reduction?
  Mr. ROBERTS. Regular order.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the House adopted House Resolution 119, the rule 
governing this debate, the rule declared there were no amendments to be 
offered to these amendments being offered today.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the chairman of the 
Committee on Ways and Means, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has that right.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] for 5 
minutes.
  Without objection, the gentleman may control the time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, so finally, a third rule, Mr. Chairman, as I continue 
with memories are made of this, and would call for the attention of the 
gentleman from Florida if he might, was reported which provided for 4 
hours of general debate, only minority substitute, and a set of en bloc 
amendments by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Andrews]. Both the Michel 
and Andrews amendments were subject to 1 hour of debate each. The rule 
made in order a compromise and reported bill put together by the four 
committees of jurisdiction, 1 hour, four committees, not what we are 
having here today, as the base text for the amendment purposes.
  The rule was adopted 213 to 206, so there was just a tad bit of 
controversy in regards to that rule back in 1987 on the very same 
subject.
  The manager of the rule, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], said 
that was a modified closed rule, and so here we are today after hours 
of debate, many hours of debate.
  I would remind the gentleman from Florida that Members are in their 
offices. Members have heard this debate on and on and on, 15 hours in 
the Ag Committee, many, many hearings. I think the commentary is 
specious. I think it ill serves the House. I think it ill serves the 
intent of Members who brought to this title of the bill important 
amendments that they thought were important.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Upton] if he chooses to comment.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield, to close the debate on this 
amendment, to my friend, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton] has 30 seconds 
remaining. The gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] has 3 minutes 
remaining. That is all the time remaining.
                         PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Has someone claimed time in opposition to the amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. No one has.
  Mr. VOLKMER. I do so.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has that right. The gentleman controls 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume, but 
no longer than 5 minutes, to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. 
Thurman].
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  I know that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza] has spoken 
with the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton] about this amendment, and 
I understand that he was given an opportunity to try to perfect the 
amendment without any opposition from the minority side, because we 
recognize how important it is to make this correct.
  But I do want to make some points, because I think it is very 
important that we understand what we are trying to do and get this on 
the record.
  When the amendment was drafted, it failed to distinguish between a 
parent who fell behind in payments but was making a good-faith effort 
to make payments, and a deadbeat dad who refuses to pay support even 
though he had the money. And if you denied food stamps to these 
individuals who were trying to make their payments, recipients would 
have likely spent their money on food than on child support payments, 
which is why we have tried to correct that, and I suggest the gentleman 
was correct in doing that, and I appreciate it, and I hope that if this 
language is not correct, that we continue to work on this.
  However, let me just say to you all that I want to point out here on 
the table about the Deal substitute again.
  Because I think it is important that we understand we even have a 
stronger child support enforcement where we are demanding an 
uncompromising, punitive measure for deadbeat dads. It is basically a 
stronger version of legislation than was even introduced by 
Representatives Johnson, Kennelly, and others, and that the Deal 
substitute will strongly enforce income withholding and allow States to 
revoke licenses, and the substitute also enhances the paternity 
establishment by simplifying procedures in hospitals.
  What I would like to just suggest is that while we all agree that 
this is a very, very, very important part of this debate, that if you 
have questions and you are not pleased with what is happening on the 
other side right now with strong enforcement, I would hope that you 
would all, please, support the Deal amendment.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Florida earlier had pointed out, 
this amendment, even though it may be somewhat meritorious on its face, 
but actually has very little to do with food stamp fraud. Very few 
people fit the category that the gentleman from Michigan is attempting 
to address to say to deny them food stamps, every benefit from food 
stamps, and yet we have within the proposal by the majority on that 
side provisions to reduce food stamps for needy families, people 
 [[Page H3608]] out there that need it, by USDA, says by $24 billion. 
Even CBO says $21 billion we are cutting back.
  And this little amendment is supposed to help it? This little 
amendment does not help those people who are going to be denied.
  How are they going to be denied? Well, they are going to be denied 
because their proposal under the thrifty food plan does not give you 
103 percent of the thrifty food plan. Oh, no, it says 2-percent 
increase a year, and as had been pointed out by USDA, that means by 
1999 people are going to be getting less than they are getting today. 
Everybody, the working poor, are going to get less. Children at home 
are going to get less than under the lunch program. They cannot eat at 
school. They cannot get their breakfast food for breakfast. They cannot 
get food stamps at home.
  Now, we were told in the Committee on Agriculture when we marked up 
this bill on this part of the welfare bill that it was only going to 
cost $16.5 billion. That is all they were going to take away. It is not 
through reform that money is taken away from people. It is through the 
thrifty food plan and the cap that they put on. They put a cap on there 
so that you cannot in times of recession, you are not going to have any 
increase. People are going to do away with food.
  Here we are talking about an amendment that does very little to 
correct the situation. There were amendments that this gentleman and 
others on this side tried to offer to this bill so that hungry kids 
could eat. We were denied the opportunity to offer that amendment.
  What is more important, to say that someone cannot get good stamps 
because he is not supporting the children? Yes, I agree, that is a good 
idea. But, gentlemen, that does not help the kids that are going
 to go hungry because of the cuts in this bill. That does not give them 
any more. You are not helping them a bit.

  Our amendments that we wanted to do to help, we did not get to offer. 
We were denied those, to take the cap off. We were denied to put the 
thrifty food plan back in in whole. We were denied. Why? Because they 
need that $21 or $24 billion to give to millionaires, to give to the 
big corporations. That is where the money is going to go, out of the 
mouths of babes. That is where it is going to go, gentleman from 
Michigan.
  This is where you are going to vote to put the money. Between now and 
2 weeks from now you will have voted to say take away from them and 
give it over here.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VOLKMER. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, my amendment, the gentleman talked a little 
bit about fraud and how my amendment does not go after fraud. The 
gentleman is right. What my amendment does is this, it indicates that 
if there is a deadbeat parent that is out there that is not paying 
child support by order of the court and receiving food stamps, that is 
what it does.
  Mr. VOLKMER. He should not get the food stamps.
  Mr. UPTON. It does not go after fraud. It does not address a whole 
number of things you talked about. I was not able to add 100 amendments 
as someone would have perhaps liked on this bill.
  Mine is a very small amendment that goes after folks who abuse the 
system who are trying to get a free lunch at the expense of the 
taxpayers, and I say enough is enough.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Reclaiming my time, you are addressing more than one-
tenth of 1 percent of the problem. You were given 20 minutes of the 
time of the House to do it. I cannot get 1 minute to address problems.

                              {time}  1430

  I would like to address one other problem here, that I took to the 
Committee on Rules an amendment which I was not given the opportunity 
to offer, and that is, under the language of the working requirements 
in this bill that you have before you today you could have people that 
are on welfare today that are not working, that should be working but 
they are not working, maybe they could not find a job, and if they have 
been on welfare for 90 days they do not meet the criteria in order to 
continue on welfare. They are off because they are not working 20 hours 
a week. They are given some time to find a job after this bill becomes 
law.
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VOLKMER. No, I will not yield. I tried to talk to the gentleman 
about this. We tried to talk to his staff and discussed the amendment 
with him. We were not even allowed a colloquy on those who were sick 
and ill and because they got laid off by the employer involuntarily and 
could not work 20 hours a week. We tried to discuss this. We could not 
even get a colloquy on that. We could not get a colloquy worked out 
with the gentleman's staff.
  So I will not yield. They will not even address the problem. What 
happens to the working poor, the man between 18 and 50 who is out there 
working trying to make it but for some reason or other he gets laid off 
by the employer, not because of his own fault, he could not work 20 
hours a week. They say you do not get it anymore. Now, is that more 
important than this amendment we have here today? I think so, I think 
so. At least as important. But they say ``no.''
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee of the Ways and Means, 
the man who is most responsible for this welfare reform proposal, Mr. 
Shaw.
  Mr. SHAW. I thank the chairman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say to my friend from Missouri, who has just 
consumed a great deal of time, do not trivialize the amendment that is 
presently on the floor. This is a very important amendment. There is 
nothing more frightening today than what is going on of the trend 
toward fathers not taking care of their children; fathers would have 
kids with unwed mothers and then disappear. In fact, we find they are 
having kids with a number of women and then disappearing and leaving 
the poor mothers to fend for themselves, to depend upon the life of 
dependence on welfare.
  This is an important amendment, and this deserves the time of this 
committee, and I am proud to support it.
  I say to my friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] that 
this amendment process, these are not unimportant amendments. We just 
passed an amendment a few hours ago on a voice vote, I might say, that 
was very important, in which we put $750 million more in child care. If 
you need child care, that is an important amendment. It is an important 
amendment, and that is why we supported it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] has 2 minutes 
remaining, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton] 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] has the right to close.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 35.2 seconds to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Upton].
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I will add my 30 seconds to that which the 
gentleman just yielded to me, and I yield the balance of my time to my 
good friend, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe], to close in 
support of the amendment.
  Mr. KOLBE. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, a lot of things have been said here on the floor today. 
It reminds me of a bloodhound who is sent out after a convict out there 
but somebody gave him the wrong piece of clothing. So we are chasing up 
the wrong tree, we are going after the wrong thing here.
  What we have heard is not what this amendment is about. It is very 
simple, as the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton] explained just a few 
minutes ago.
  It is a good amendment. It says if an individual is getting food 
stamps now and under a court order to pay child support and he has not 
gone to court to get a delay because he cannot afford to make the 
payments under the court order, not having done that, no delay from the 
court, if he is not making payments, he should not be getting food 
stamps. The taxpayers should not 
 [[Page H3609]] be subsidizing him. They are trying, but they cannot 
afford to. They have not done that. They are under an order from the 
court, they are supposed to be making payments, they should not be 
getting food stamps. The rest of the taxpayers should not be 
subsidizing them. They are supposed to be making child support payments 
to support their kids. That is what this says. They do not get the food 
stamps if they are not current in their child support payments.
  It is as simple as that. It clearly fills a loophole, fills a gap in 
the bill. Something should be done. I do not know why all the 
discussion about other things.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Emerson].
  Mr. EMERSON. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat puzzled here because the distinguished 
ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, who controls the 
debate on the other side, was up making the speech complaining about 
the quality of debate. Surely having made such a complaint, he should 
insure that at least his side follows his admonition. The gentleman 
from Missouri made a lot of very baseless allegations, rhetorical 
statements that have absolutely nothing to do with the point of debate 
here.
  The gentleman says our staff denied him the right to find out some 
matters involved here. The gentleman's staff, so the record will be 
straight, the gentleman's staff discussed with our staff some questions 
relating to work requirements. The majority staff answered them. They 
added some language to a report which the gentleman was concerned 
about, in cooperation with the staff of the gentleman from Missouri, 
relating to retroactive work requirements.
  So let us be clear between substantive debate and rhetorical 
flourishes here. I wish the gentleman from Florida, having admonished 
us to stick to quality, would get his own troops in line.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, In order to have the outstanding quality 
in this debate, I yield the time remaining to the outstanding member of 
the Committee on Agriculture, the former chairman, now the ranking 
member of the full committee, the great gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la 
Garza].
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, yes, perhaps we have gone a little 
astray of the debate on the amendment. But--and not in defense, but 
feeling the same way as the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons]--the 
issue is the way that the rule is crafted, the inability for a ranking 
member to have sufficient time to discuss an issue.
  But the underlying theme here is the motive and the reason. We are 
going about with little amendments that cut a little bit here, save a 
little bit there. What for? So that we can pay for tax breaks for the 
rich. That is what this is all about.
  It is not what the chairman of the committee is intending to do. We 
have a good chairman. We have good members on this committee. But the 
underlying motive of the leadership is money to pay for tax breaks for 
the rich and take it from the children and take it from the elderly and 
take it from those that cannot defend themselves.
  So, getting back to the amendment, I commend the gentleman for his 
amendment. I think it is a good amendment. But I disagree with what we 
are going to do with the funds: Give it to the rich.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton].
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 25, 
printed in House Report 104-85.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Hostettler

  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 25, printed in 
House Report 104-85.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hostettler:
       In title V of the bill, strike subtitle B and insert the 
     following:
           Subtitle B--Consolidating Food Assistance Programs

     SEC. 531. FOOD STAMP BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM.

       (a) Authority To Make Block Grants.--The Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall make grants in accordance with this section 
     to States to provide food assistance to individuals who are 
     economically disadvantaged and to individuals who are members 
     of economically disadvantaged families.
       (b) Distribution of Funds.--The funds appropriated to carry 
     out this section for any fiscal year shall be allotted among 
     the States as follows:
       (1) Of the aggregate amount to be distributed under this 
     section, .21 percent shall be reserved for grants to Guam, 
     the Virgin Islands of the United States, American Samoa, the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic of 
     the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and 
     Palau.
       (2) Of the aggregate amount to be distributed under this 
     section, .24 percent shall be reserved for grants to tribal 
     organizations that have governmental jurisdiction over 
     geographically defined areas and shall be allocated equitably 
     by the Secretary among such organizations.
       (3) The remainder of such aggregate amount shall be 
     allocated among the remaining States. The amount allocated to 
     each of the remaining States shall bear the same proportion 
     to such remainder as the number of resident individuals in 
     such State who are economically disadvantaged separately or 
     as members of economically disadvantaged families bears to 
     the aggregate number of resident individuals in all such 
     remaining States who are economically disadvantaged 
     separately or as members of economically disadvantaged 
     families.
       (c) Eligibility To Receive Grants.--To be eligible to 
     receive a grant in the amount allotted to a State for a 
     fiscal year, such State shall submit to the Secretary an 
     application in such form, and containing such information and 
     assurances, as the Secretary may require by rule, including--
       (1) an assurance that such grant will be expended by the 
     State to provide food assistance to resident individuals in 
     such State who are economically disadvantaged separately or 
     as members of economically disadvantaged families,
       (2) an assurance that not more than 5 percent of such grant 
     will be expended by the State for administrative costs 
     incurred to provide assistance under this section, and
       (3) an assurance that an individual who has not worked 32 
     hours in a calendar month shall be ineligible to received 
     food assistance under this subtitle during the succeeding 
     month unless such individual is--
       (A) disabled,
       (B) has attained 60 years of age, or
       (C) residing with one or more of such individual's children 
     who have not attained 18 years of age, but is not residing 
     with any other parent of any of such children, unless that 
     other parent is disabled.
       (d) Annual Report.--Each State that receives funds 
     appropriated to carry out this section for a fiscal year 
     shall submit the Secretary, not later than May 1 following 
     such fiscal year, a report--
       (1) specifying the number of families who received food 
     assistance under this section provided by such State in such 
     fiscal year;
       (2) specifying the number of individuals who received food 
     assistance under this section provided by such State in such 
     fiscal year;
       (3) the amount of such funds expended in such fiscal year 
     by such State to provide food assistance; and
       (4) the administrative costs incurred in such fiscal year 
     by such State to provide food assistance.
       (e) Limitation.--No State or political subdivision of a 
     State that receives funds provided under this title shall 
     replace any employed worker with an individual who is 
     participating in a work program for the purpose of complying 
     with subsection (c)(3). Such an individual may be placed in 
     any position offered by the State or political subdivision 
     that--
       (A) is a new position,
       (B) is a position that became available in the normal 
     course of conducting the business of the State or political 
     subdivision,
       (C) involves performing work that would otherwise be 
     performed on an overtime basis by a worker who is not an 
     individual participating in such program, or
       (D) that is a position which became available by shifting a 
     current employee to an alternate position.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--(1) There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
     $26,245,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1996, 1997, 
     1998, 1999, and 2000.
       (2) For the purpose of affording adequate notice of funding 
     available under this section, an appropriation to carry out 
     this section is authorized to be included in an appropriation 
     Act for the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year for which 
     such appropriation is available for obligation.

     SEC. 532. AVAILABILITY OF FEDERAL COUPON SYSTEM TO STATES.

       (a) Issuance, Purchase, and Use of Coupons.--The Secretary 
     shall issue, and make available for purchase by States, 
     coupons for the retail purchase of food from retail food 
     stores that are approved in accordance with subsection (b). 
     Coupons issued, purchased, and used as provided in this 
     section shall be 
      [[Page H3610]] redeemable at face value by the Secretary 
     through the facilities of the Treasury of the United States. 
     The purchase price of each coupon issued under this 
     subsection shall be the face value of such coupon.
       (b) Approval of Retail Food Stores and Wholesale Food 
     Concerns.--(1) Regulations issued pursuant to this section 
     shall provide for the submission of applications for approval 
     by retail food stores and wholesale food concerns which 
     desire to be authorized to accept and redeem coupons under 
     this section. In determining the qualifications of 
     applicants, there shall be considered among such other 
     factors as may be appropriate, the following:
       (A) The nature and extent of the food business conducted by 
     the applicant.
       (B) The volume of coupon business which may reasonably be 
     expected to be conducted by the applicant food store or 
     wholesale food concern.
       (C) The business integrity and reputation of the applicant.

     Approval of an applicant shall be evidenced by the issuance 
     to such applicant of a nontransferable certificate of 
     approval. The Secretary is authorized to issue regulations 
     providing for a periodic reauthorization of retail food 
     stores and wholesale food concerns.
       (2) A buyer or transferee (other than a bona fide buyer or 
     transferee) of a retail food store or wholesale food concern 
     that has been disqualified under subsection (d) may not 
     accept or redeem coupons until the Secretary receives full 
     payment of any penalty imposed on such store or concern.
       (3) Regulations issued pursuant to this section shall 
     require an applicant retail food store or wholesale food 
     concern to submit information which will permit a 
     determination to be made as to whether such applicant 
     qualifies, or continues to qualify, for approval under this 
     section or the regulations issued pursuant to this section. 
     Regulations issued pursuant to this section shall provide for 
     safeguards which limit the use or disclosure of information 
     obtained under the authority granted by this subsection to 
     purposes directly connected with administration and 
     enforcement of this section or the regulations issued 
     pursuant to this section, except that such information may be 
     disclosed to and used by States that purchase such coupons.
       (4) Any retail food store or wholesale food concern which 
     has failed upon application to receive approval to 
     participate in the program under this sectionmay obtain a 
     hearing on such refusal as provided in subsection (f).
       (c) Redemption of Coupons.--Regulations issued under this 
     section shall provide for the redemption of coupons accepted 
     by retail food stores through approved wholesale food 
     concerns or through financial institutions which are insured 
     by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or which are 
     insured under the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1751 et 
     seq.) and have retail food stores or wholesale food concerns 
     in their field of membership, with the cooperation of the 
     Treasury Department, except that retail food stores defined 
     in section 533(9)(D) shall be authorized to redeem their 
     members' food coupons prior to receipt by the members of the 
     food so purchased, and publicly operated community mental 
     health centers or private nonprofit organizations or 
     institutions which serve meals to narcotics addicts or 
     alcoholics in drug addiction or alcoholic treatment and 
     rehabilitation programs, public and private nonprofit 
     shelters that prepare and serve meals for battered women and 
     children, public or private nonprofit group living 
     arrangements that serve meals to disabled or blind residents, 
     and public or private nonprofit establishments, or public or 
     private nonprofit shelters that feed individuals who do not 
     reside in permanent dwellings and individuals who have no 
     fixed mailing addresses shall not be authorized to redeem 
     coupons through financial institutions which are insured by 
     the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal 
     Credit Union Act. No financial institution may impose on or 
     collect from a retail food store a fee or other charge for 
     the redemption of coupons that are submitted to the financial 
     institution in a manner consistent with the requirements, 
     other than any requirements relating to cancellation of 
     coupons, for the presentation of coupons by financial 
     institutions to the Federal Reserve banks.
       (d) Civil Money Penalties and Disqualification of Retail 
     Food Stores and Wholesale Food Concerns.--(1) Any approved 
     retail food store or wholesale food concern may be 
     disqualified for a specified period of time from further 
     participation in the coupon program under this section, or 
     subjected to a civil money penalty of up to $10,000 for each 
     violation if the Secretary determines that its 
     disqualification would cause hardship to individuals who 
     receive coupons, on a finding, made as specified in the 
     regulations, that such store or concern has violated this 
     section or the regulations issued pursuant to this section.
       (2) Disqualification under paragraph (1) shall be--
       (A) for a reasonable period of time, of no less than 6 
     months nor more than 5 years, upon the first occasion of 
     disqualification,
       (B) for a reasonable period of time, of no less than 12 
     months nor more than 10 years, upon the second occasion of 
     disqualification, and
       (C) permanent upon--
       (i) the third occasion of disqualification,
       (ii) the first occasion or any subsequent occasion of a 
     disqualification based on the purchase of coupons or 
     trafficking in coupons by a retail food store or wholesale 
     food concern, except that the Secretary shall have the 
     discretion to impose a civil money penalty of up to $20,000 
     for each violation (except that the amount of civil money 
     penalties imposed for violations occurring during a single 
     investigation may not exceed $40,000) in lieu of 
     disqualification under this subparagraph, for such purchase 
     of coupons or trafficking in coupons that constitutes a 
     violation of this section or the regulations issued pursuant 
     to this section, if the Secretary determines that there is 
     substantial evidence (including evidence that neither the 
     ownership nor management of the store or food concern was 
     aware of, approved, benefited from, or was involved in the 
     conduct or approval of the violation) that such store or food 
     concern had an effective policy and program in effect to 
     prevent violations of this section and such regulations, or
       (iii) a finding of the sale of firearms, ammunition, 
     explosives, or controlled substance (as defined in section 
     802 of title 21, United States Code) for coupons, except that 
     the Secretary shall have the discretion to impose a civil 
     money penalty of up to $20,000 for each violation (except 
     that the amount of civil money penalties imposed for 
     violations occurring during a single investigation may not 
     exceed $40,000) in lieu of disqualification under this 
     subparagraph if the Secretary determines that there is 
     substantial evidence (including evidence that neither the 
     ownership nor management of the store or food concern was 
     aware of, approved, benefited from, or was involved in the 
     conduct or approval of the violation) that the store or food 
     concern had an effective policy and program in effect to 
     prevent violations of this section.
       (3) The action of disqualification or the imposition of a 
     civil money penalty shall be subject to review as provided in 
     subsection (f).
       (4) As a condition of authorization to accept and redeem 
     coupons issued under subsection (a), the Secretary may 
     require a retail food store or wholesale food concern which 
     has been disqualified or subjected to a civil penalty 
     pursuant to paragraph (1) to furnish a bond to cover the 
     value of coupons which such store or concern may in the 
     future accept and redeem in violation of this section. The 
     Secretary shall, by regulation, prescribe the amount, terms, 
     and conditions of such bond. If the Secretary finds that such 
     store or concern has accepted and redeemed coupons in 
     violation of this section after furnishing such bond, such 
     store or concern shall forfeit to the Secretary an amount of 
     such bond which is equal to the value of coupons accepted and 
     redeemed by such store or concern in violation of this 
     section. Such store or concern may obtain a hearing on such 
     forfeiture pursuant to subsection (f).
       (5)(A) In the event any retail food store or wholesale food 
     concern that has been disqualified under paragraph (1) is 
     sold or the ownership thereof is otherwise transferred to a 
     purchaser or transferee, the person or persons who sell or 
     otherwise transfer ownership of the retail food store or 
     wholesale food concern shall be subjected to a civil money 
     penalty in an amount established by the Secretary through 
     regulations to reflect that portion of the disqualification 
     period that has not yet expired. If the retail food store or 
     wholesale food concern has been disqualified permanently, the 
     civil money penalty shall be double the penalty for a 10-year 
     disqualification period, as calculated under regulations 
     issued by the Secretary. The disqualification period imposed 
     under paragraph (2) shall continue in effect as to the person 
     or persons who sell or otherwise transfer ownership of the 
     retail food store or wholesale food concern notwithstanding 
     the imposition of a civil money penalty under this paragraph.
       (B) At any time after a civil money penalty imposed under 
     subparagraph (A) has become final under subsection (f)(1), 
     the Secretary may request the Attorney General of the United 
     States to institute a civil action against the person or 
     persons subject to the penalty in a district court of the 
     United States for any district in which such person or 
     persons are found, reside, or transact business to collect 
     the penalty and such court shall have jurisdiction to hear 
     and decide such action. In such action, the validity and 
     amount of such penalty shall not be subject to review.
       (C) The Secretary may impose a fine against any retail food 
     store or wholesale food concern that accepts coupons that are 
     not accompanied by the corresponding book cover, other than 
     the denomination of coupons used for making change as 
     specified in regulations issued under this section. The 
     amount of any such fine shall be established by the Secretary 
     and may be assessed and collected separately in accordance 
     with regulations issued under this section or in combination 
     with any fiscal claim established by the Secretary. The 
     Attorney General of the United States may institute judicial 
     action in any court of competent jurisdiction against the 
     store or concern to collect the fine.
       (6) The Secretary may impose a fine against any person not 
     approved by the Secretary to accept and redeem coupons who 
     violates this section or a regulation issued under this 
     section, including violations concerning the acceptance of 
     coupons. The amount of any such fine shall be established by 
     the Secretary and may be assessed and 
      [[Page H3611]] collected in accordance with regulations 
     issued under this section separately or in combination with 
     any fiscal claim established by the Secretary. The Attorney 
     General of the United States may institute judicial action in 
     any court of competent jurisdiction against the person to 
     collect the fine.
       (e) Collection and Disposition of Claims.--The Secretary 
     shall have the power to determine the amount of and settle 
     and adjust any claim and to compromise or deny all or part of 
     any such claim or claims arising under this section or the 
     regulations issued pursuant to this section, including, but 
     not limited to, claims arising from fraudulent and 
     nonfraudulent overissuances to recipients, including the 
     power to waive claims if the Secretary determines that to do 
     so would serve the purposes of this section. Such powers with 
     respect to claims against recipients may be delegated by the 
     Secretary to State agencies.
       (f) Administrative and Judicial Review.--(1) Whenever--
       (A) an application of a retail food store or wholesale food 
     concern for approval to accept and redeem coupons issued 
     under subsection (a) is denied pursuant to this section,
       (B) a retail food store or wholesale food concern is 
     disqualified or subjected to a civil money penalty under 
     subsection (d),
       (C) all or part of any claim of a retail food store or 
     wholesale food concern is denied under subsection (e), or
       (D) a claim against a State is stated pursuant to 
     subsection (e),

     notice of such administrative action shall be issued to the 
     retail food store, wholesale food concern, or State involved. 
     Such notice shall be delivered by certified mail or personal 
     service. If such store, concern, or State is aggrieved by 
     such action, it may, in accordance with regulations 
     promulgated under this section, within 10 days of the date of 
     delivery of such notice, file a written request for an 
     opportunity to submit information in support of its position 
     to such person or persons as the regulations may designate. 
     If such a request is not made or if such store, concern, or 
     State fails to submit information in support of its position 
     after filing a request, the administrative determination 
     shall be final. If such request is made by such store, 
     concern, or State such information as may be submitted by 
     such store, concern, or State as well as such other 
     information as may be available, shall be reviewed by the 
     person or persons designated by the Secretary, who shall, 
     subject to the right of judicial review hereinafter provided, 
     make a determination which shall be final and which shall 
     take effect 30 days after the date of the delivery or service 
     of such final notice of determination. If such store, 
     concern, or State feels aggrieved by such final 
     determination, it may obtain judicial review thereof by 
     filing a complaint against the United States in the United 
     States court for the district in which it resides or is 
     engaged in business, or, in the case of a retail food store 
     or wholesale food concern, in any court of record of the 
     State having competent jurisdiction, within 30 days after the 
     date of delivery or service of the final notice of 
     determination upon it, requesting the court to set aside such 
     determination. The copy of the summons and complaint required 
     to be delivered to the official or agency whose order is 
     being attacked shall be sent to the Secretary or such person 
     or persons as the Secretary may designate to receive service 
     of process. The suit in the United States district court or 
     State court shall be a trial de novo by the court in which 
     the court shall determine the validity of the questioned 
     administrative action in issue. If the court determines that 
     such administrative action is invalid, it shall enter such 
     judgment or order as it determines is in accordance with the 
     law and the evidence. During the pendency of such judicial 
     review, or any appeal therefrom, the administrative action 
     under review shall be and remain in full force and effect, 
     unless on application to the court on not less than ten days' 
     notice, and after hearing thereon and a consideration by the 
     court of the applicant's likelihood of prevailing on the 
     merits and of irreparable injury, the court temporarily stays 
     such administrative action pending disposition of such trial 
     or appeal.
       (g) Violations and Enforcement.--(1) Subject to paragraph 
     (2), whoever knowingly uses, transfers, acquires, alters, or 
     possesses coupons in any manner contrary to this section or 
     the regulations issued pursuant to this section shall, if 
     such coupons are of a value of $5,000 or more, be guilty of a 
     felony and shall be fined not more than $250,000 or 
     imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both, and shall, if 
     such coupons are of a value of $100 or more, but less than 
     $5,000, be guilty of a felony and shall, upon the first 
     conviction thereof, be fined not more than $10,000 or 
     imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both, and, upon the 
     second and any subsequent conviction thereof, shall be 
     imprisoned for not less than 6 months nor more than 5 years 
     and may also be fined not more than $10,000 or, if such 
     coupons are of a value of less than $100, shall be guilty of 
     a misdemeanor, and, upon the first conviction thereof, shall 
     be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than 
     one year, or both, and upon the second and any subsequent 
     conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned for not more than one 
     year and may also be fined not more than $1,000.
       (2) In the case of any individual convicted of an offense 
     under paragraph (1), the court may permit such individual to 
     perform work approved by the court for the purpose of 
     providing restitution for losses incurred by the United 
     States and the State as a result of the offense for which 
     such individual was convicted. If the court permits such 
     individual to perform such work and such individual agrees 
     thereto, the court shall withhold the imposition of the 
     sentence on the condition that such individual perform the 
     assigned work. Upon the successful completion of the assigned 
     work the court may suspend such sentence.
       (3) Whoever presents, or causes to be presented, coupons 
     for payment or redemption of the value of $100 or more, 
     knowing the same to have been received, transferred, or used 
     in any manner in violation of this section or the regulations 
     issued under this section, shall be guilty of a felony and, 
     upon the first conviction thereof, shall be fined not more 
     than $20,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or 
     both, and, upon the second and any subsequent conviction 
     thereof, shall be imprisoned for not less than one year nor 
     more than 5 years and may also be fined not more than 
     $20,000, or, if such coupons are of a value of less than 
     $100, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon the first 
     conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or 
     imprisoned for not more than one year, or both, and, upon the 
     second and any subsequent conviction thereof, shall be 
     imprisoned for not more than one year and may also be fined 
     not more than $1,000.

     SEC. 533. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this subtitle--
       (1) the term ``coupon'' means any coupon, stamp, or type of 
     certificate, but does not include currency,
       (2) the term ``economically disadvantaged'' means an 
     individual or a family, as the case may be, whose income does 
     not exceed the most recent lower living standard income level 
     published by the Department of Labor,
       (3) the term ``elderly or disabled individual'' means an 
     individual who--
       (A) is 60 years of age or older,
       (B)(i) receives supplemental security income benefits under 
     title XVI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1381 et 
     seq.), or Federally or State administered supplemental 
     benefits of the type described in section 212(a) of Public 
     Law 93-66 (42 U.S.C. 1382 note), or
       (ii) receives Federally or State administered supplemental 
     assistance of the type described in section 1616(a) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1382e(a)), interim assistance 
     pending receipt of supplemental security income, disability-
     related medical assistance under title XIX of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.), or disability-based 
     State general assistance benefits, if the Secretary 
     determines that such benefits are conditioned on meeting 
     disability or blindness criteria at least as stringent as 
     those used under title XVI of the Social Security Act,
       (C) receives disability or blindness payments under title 
     I, II, X, XIV, or XVI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     301 et seq.) or receives disability retirement benefits from 
     a governmental agency because of a disability considered 
     permanent under section 221(i) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 421(i)),
       (D) is a veteran who--
       (i) has a service-connected or non-service-connected 
     disability which is rated as total under title 38, United 
     States Code, or
       (ii) is considered in need of regular aid and attendance or 
     permanently housebound under such title,
       (E) is a surviving spouse of a veteran and--
       (i) is considered in need of regular aid and attendance or 
     permanently housebound under title 38, United States Code, or
       (ii) is entitled to compensation for a service-connected 
     death or pension benefits for a non-service-connected death 
     under title 38, United States Code, and has a disability 
     considered permanent under section 221(i) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 421(i)),
       (F) is a child of a veteran and--
       (i) is considered permanently incapable of self-support 
     under section 414 of title 38, United States Code, or
       (ii) is entitled to compensation for a service-connected 
     death or pension benefits for a non-service-connected death 
     under title 38, United States Code, and has a disability 
     considered permanent under section 221(i) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 421(i)), or
       (G) is an individual receiving an annuity under section 
     2(a)(1)(iv) or 2(a)(1)(v) of the Railroad Retirement Act of 
     1974 (45 U.S.C. 231a(a)(1)(iv) or 231a(a)(1)(v)), if the 
     individual's service as an employee under the Railroad 
     Retirement Act of 1974, after December 31, 1936, had been 
     included in the term ``employment'' as defined in the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 301 et seq.), and if an application 
     for disability benefits had been filed,
       (4) the term ``food'' means, for purposes of section 532(a) 
     only--
       (A) any food or food product for home consumption except 
     alcoholic beverages, tobacco, and hot foods or hot food 
     products ready for immediate consumption other than those 
     authorized pursuant to subparagraphs (C), (D), (E), (G), (H), 
     and (I),
       (B) seeds and plants for use in gardens to produce food for 
     the personal consumption of the eligible individuals,
       (C) in the case of those persons who are 60 years of age or 
     over or who receive supplemental security income benefits or 
     disability or blindness payments under title I, II, X, XIV, 
     or XVI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 301 et seq.), 
     and their spouses, meals prepared by and served in senior 
     citizens' centers, apartment buildings occupied primarily by 
     such persons, public or private 
      [[Page H3612]] nonprofit establishments (eating or 
     otherwise) that feed such persons, private establishments 
     that contract with the appropriate agency of the State to 
     offer meals for such persons at concessional prices, and 
     meals prepared for and served to residents of federally 
     subsidized housing for the elderly,
       (D) in the case of persons 60 years of age or over and 
     persons who are physically or mentally handicapped or 
     otherwise so disabled that they are unable adequately to 
     prepare all of their meals, meals prepared for and delivered 
     to them (and their spouses) at their home by a public or 
     private nonprofit organization or by a private establishment 
     that contracts with the appropriate State agency to perform 
     such services at concessional prices,
       (E) in the case of narcotics addicts or alcoholics, and 
     their children, served by drug addiction or alcoholic 
     treatment and rehabilitation programs, meals prepared and 
     served under such programs,
       (F) in the case of eligible individuals living in Alaska, 
     equipment for procuring food by hunting and fishing, such as 
     nets, hooks, rods, harpoons, and knives (but not equipment 
     for purposes of transportation, clothing, or shelter, and not 
     firearms, ammunition, and explosives) if the Secretary 
     determines that such individuals are located in an area of 
     the State where it is extremely difficult to reach stores 
     selling food and that such individuals depend to a 
     substantial extent upon hunting and fishing for subsistence,
       (G) in the case of disabled or blind recipients of benefits 
     under title I, II, X, XIV, or XVI of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 301 et seq.), or are individuals described in 
     subparagraphs (B) through (G) of paragraph (4), who are 
     residents in a public or private nonprofit group living 
     arrangement that serves no more than 16 residents and is 
     certified by the appropriate State agency or agencies under 
     regulations issued under section 1616(e) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1382e(e)) or under standards 
     determined by the Secretary to be comparable to standards 
     implemented by appropriate State agencies under such section, 
     meals prepared and served under such arrangement,
       (H) in the case of women and children temporarily residing 
     in public or private nonprofit shelters for battered women 
     and children, meals prepared and served, by such shelters, 
     and
       (I) in the case of individuals that do not reside in 
     permanent dwellings and individuals that have no fixed 
     mailing addresses, meals prepared for and served by a public 
     or private nonprofit establishment (approved by an 
     appropriate State or local agency) that feeds such 
     individuals and by private establishments that contract with 
     the appropriate agency of the State to offer meals for such 
     individuals at concessional prices,
       (5) the term ``retail food store'' means--
       (A) an establishment or recognized department thereof or 
     house-to-house trade route, over 50 percent of whose food 
     sales volume, as determined by visual inspection, sales 
     records, purchase records, or other inventory or accounting 
     recordkeeping methods that are customary or reasonable in the 
     retail food industry, consists of staple food items for home 
     preparation and consumption, such as meat, poultry, fish, 
     bread, cereals, vegetables, fruits, dairy products, and the 
     like, but not including accessory food items, such as coffee, 
     tea, cocoa, carbonated and uncarbonated drinks, candy, 
     condiments, and spices,
       (B) an establishment, organization, program, or group 
     living arrangement referred to in subparagraph (C), (D), (E), 
     (G), (H), or (I) of paragraph (5),
       (C) a store purveying the hunting and fishing equipment 
     described in paragraph (5)(F), or
       (D) any private nonprofit cooperative food purchasing 
     venture, including those in which the members pay for food 
     purchased prior to the receipt of such food,
       (6) the term ``school'' means an elementary, intermediate, 
     or secondary school,
       (7) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of 
     Agriculture,
       (8) the term ``State'' means any of the several States, the 
     District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, 
     the Virgin Islands of the United States, American Samoa, the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic of 
     the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, 
     Palau, or a tribal organization that exercises governmental 
     jurisdiction over a geographically defined area, and
       (9) the term ``tribal organization'' has the meaning given 
     it in section 4(l) of the Indian Self-Determination and 
     Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b(l)).

     SEC. 534. REPEALER.

       The Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) is 
     repealed.
       
       Strike section 591 of the bill and insert the following:
     SEC. 591. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF REPEALER.

       (a) Effective Dates.--
       (1) General effective date of subtitle A.Subtitle A shall 
     take effect on October 1, 1995.
       (2) General effective date of subtitle B.--Except as 
     provided in subsection (b), subtitle B and the repeal made by 
     section 534 shall take effect on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (3) Special effective date.--The repeal made by section 534 
     shall not take effect until the first day of the first fiscal 
     year for which funds are appropriated more than 180 days in 
     advance of such fiscal year to carry out section 531.
       (b) Application of Repealer.--The repeal made by section 
     534 shall not apply with respect to--
       (1) powers, duties, functions, rights, claims, penalties, 
     or obligations applicable to financial assistance provided 
     under the Food Stamp Act of 1977 before the effective date of 
     such repeal, and
       (2) administrative actions and proceedings commenced before 
     such date, or authorized before such date to be commenced, 
     under such Act.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Hostettler] will be recognized for 10 minutes, and a Member opposed 
will be recognized for 10 minutes.
  Is there a Member in opposition?
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment and 
seek the time allotted.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza] will be 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, in order to extend debate time, I move to 
strike the last word and ask unanimous consent that I may yield that 
time to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza], the former chairman 
of the Committee on Agriculture, and that he be allowed to control the 
time and yield it in blocks.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza] will be 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler].
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, for the past 30 years in this country 
we have conducted a social experiment. More than $5 trillion has been 
spent on this experiment, aimed at exterminating poverty in the United 
States. Despite this massive outpouring of taxpayer dollars, poverty 
actually has increased. The people sitting in the coffee shops in 
Vincennes, IN, understand from this data that letting Washington, DC, 
handle it is a bad idea. The people on the job site in French Lick 
understand that taking more and more of their tax dollars is not only 
bad for them, but it does not help the people it is supposed to help. 
The people dropping off their kids at school in Chandler understand the 
local officials and other residents of communities have a far better 
perspective on dealing with the problems of the economically 
disadvantaged than do career bureaucrats in a Washington, DC, office. 
Washington, DC, does not have the answers; the people of the eighth 
District of Indiana and all the other districts in the U.S. do.
  This is why I am introducing an amendment calling for repeal of the 
Food Stamp Act of 1977 and block granting cash to be used by the States 
for food assistance to the economically disadvantaged. Funding would be 
frozen at fiscal year 1995 levels, around $26.25 billion. This would 
bring a savings of $18.6 billion over current Congressional Budget 
Office baseline levels. The savings come from ending the individual 
entitlements status of the programs. The amendment also includes a work 
provision calling for able-bodied individuals who are under the age of 
60 and who are not at home alone with a dependent child to work at 
least 32 hours each month. Only 5 percent of the grant funds can be 
used for administrative costs, meaning 95 percent of the funds go to 
food assistance.
  I signed the Contract With America, Mr. Chairman, not for political 
gain, but because I though the policies it espoused were good policies. 
This amendment returns to the original concept of H.R. 4, which 
included the block granting of food stamps. There are concerns raised 
by some about how well the States will administer the program. While I 
resist the temptation to answer this with ``They can't do any worse 
than has the federal government,'' I think the testimony from Ag 
Committee hearings, the track record of the Federal Government and the 
feeling of the public at large bear testament to the fact that it is 
time to give this program to the States--as the other committees have 
decided to do with many of the other programs.
  It seems we need to be reminded that the taxpayers providing funding 
for 
 [[Page H3613]] food stamps are residents of the States. It is the 
taxpayers' money, not money belonging to the Agriculture Committee or 
to the Congress or to the Federal Government. It belongs to the people. 
We should, therefore, take the administration of the program closer to 
the people. Governor Thompson and Governor Engler among others have 
shown just how innovative and effective welfare reform at the State 
level can be.
  I do not question the sincerity of my Republican colleagues' belief 
that they can reform the program at the Federal level, rather I 
sincerely disagree with the policy itself. Under Federal guidance, food 
stamp spending has increased nearly 300 percent since 1979. Today more 
than 28 million people in the United States receive food stamps.
  For true and comprehensive welfare reform to take place, we at the 
Federal level must let go and let the more local bodies of government--
along with the private sector responsibility. This is what has been 
done in much of this welfare reform bill, and this is what should be 
done with food stamps.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I may 
yield en bloc half of my time to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. 
Roberts], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, you know, the gentleman who is sponsoring 
the amendment is absolutely correct in his desire to cut spending. He 
just happens to be incorrect in the method which his amendment seeks to 
accomplish that end. The amendment under consideration, like the bill 
it amends, fails to take into account something pretty basic, something 
any consumer in any corner of any of our neighborhoods could tell us: 
The cost of food goes up.
  Mr. Chairman, for goodness sakes, the cost of a box of cereal now is 
in excess of $4. That is more than it was last year, quite a bit more 
than it was the year before that. That is why the cost of the Food 
Stamp Program has to track the increasing costs in groceries. Food 
costs go up for all of us, including those on food stamps.
  The amendment under consideration, like the bill it seeks to amend, 
fails to take into account another fact: If you have more people on 
food stamps, you are going to have to have more funds available for 
those people's needs. Only Jesus can feed the multitude from a single 
little boy's portion. For us mere mortals, if we are going to have more 
people, we are going to need more portions, it is as simple as that.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. Chairman, this is critically important, not for the people 
presently on assistance, presently on welfare, who have been so 
denigrated in the debate that has taken place, but working families 
hanging in there, standing on their own, but one recession away from 
losing their job, losing their pay check and needing the assistance of 
food stamps. A critical part of this Nation's safety net is the ability 
of programs to rise and shrink depending on economic cycles. We have 
had recessions before, and we will certainly have them again.
  This chart indicates the difference between the Deal substitute and 
the bill that it seeks to amend relative to the costs of food. The red 
line shows that in years to come, under the bill before us, we do not 
keep up with the cost of food.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon].
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have a prepared text here, but 
there is something else that I really want to say as part of this 
debate here.
  I began to realize there was something wrong with our food stamp 
program when I was in college. I worked my way through college, and I 
had a friend who did not work, but he went out, and he applied for and 
qualified for food stamps, and, when I was working on weekends from 11 
o'clock at night until 7 a.m. in the morning and when I was working in 
the evenings in the dormitory, he was not, and he was qualifying for 
food stamps, and that is the problem with these programs. Some of the 
people who get them really do need them, and some of the people do not.
  What we are saying here with the Hostettler amendment is we are going 
to put it out at the lowest level where the local officials can really 
seriously monitor who really needs these programs and who does not 
because we have a serious problem with fraud, and we are spending the 
people's money. We are not spending our money; we are spending the 
people's money, and most of the people work very, very hard for this, 
and my colleague here has come up with what I think is is very good 
idea, to help improve the efficiency of this program, and I 
throughoughly support the Hostettler amendment to this bill.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished 
colleague, the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mr. Clayton].
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, like this bill, will hurt 
poor families and hurt children. But, the amendment goes further. It 
will also hurt farmers, hurt large and small grocery stores and hurt 
the economy. The Food Stamp Program feeds more than poor families. It 
feeds the farmers who feed America. It fees those who retail foods, 
along the dusty country roads and in the large urban shopping centers.
  For most in the food business, up to 30 percent of their revenue 
comes from the Food Stamp Program. Cut food stamps and you cut 
commodities. Cut food stamps and you choke America's economy. Cut food 
stamps and you put people out of work and maybe into welfare. I say cut 
food stamps because a block grant is a cut. It is a cut because, unlike 
current law, there would be no automatic increases in funding to keep 
pace for inflation under a block grant program. It is a cut because, 
when populations rise, as they will over the next years, the funds do 
not rise. The demand rises, the funds are frozen. That is a cut.
  A block grant is a cut because States will be able to use one-fifth 
of the money for things other than food. If a State spends 20 percent 
less on food in 1 year than was spent in a prior year, that is a cut. 
We confronted this issue of block granting food stamps in the Committee 
on Agriculture. In fact, we spent, as the Chairman said, 15 hours, into 
the early morning, when we considered title 5 of this bill. On a bi-
partisan basis, Democrats joined with Republicans, and we soundly 
rejected the block grant proposal. That decision was wise then, and it 
is wise now. This amendment also requires work for food stamps.
  In some instances, it requires 32 hours of work per week. Yet, it 
does not mandate the minimum wage as compensation for that work. That 
is another issue we confronted in the Agriculture Committee, and, 
again, on a bi-partisan basis, Democrats and Republicans, 
overwhelmingly rejected forced labor at less than the minimum wage. 
This amendment hurts everybody, Mr. Chairman. It hurts the rich, the 
poor, it is poorly conceived, ill-advised and goes against the 
considered, bi-partisan opinion of the committee of jurisdiction. It 
deserves to be rejected.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. Hostettler] does provide that the Food Stamp Program will be block 
granted to the States. I rise in reluctant opposition.
  The committee considered several policy options as we were 
considering food stamp reform, and in contacting the Governors of the 
States and the National Governors' Conference, not to mention many 
experts in the field, the first policy option that we considered was 
that of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler]. However the 
Republican leadership, along with the committee leadership, made the 
determination that the Food Stamp Program should remain at the Federal 
level as a safety net during the transition period while States begin 
to reform the entire welfare programs, and the committee strongly 
believes that the intent of the gentleman is very good, but that the 
Food Stamp Program should be reformed. After all, it 
 [[Page H3614]] is our responsibility before it is converted into, into 
a block grant.
  Fraud and trafficking, as we have heard, are serious problems in the 
program. We do have significant reforms, and they are bipartisan, and 
States will have the responsibility to institute reforms of the AFDC 
program and other State programs. They will be harmonized, and, while 
this is going on, we think it is important that there be a food program 
for needy families.
  We have a provision allowing States that have implemented the EBT 
system that has been much discussed in this debate on a statewide basis 
to administer the Food Stamp Program in a block grant. Therefore States 
can have a block grant for food stamps, as the gentleman desires, if 
they have taken steps to reduce fraud and if they have really started 
to implement an efficient system to issue the food benefits. The EBT 
block grant in H.R. 4 says that food benefits can only be used for 
food. The Hostettler amendment will allow States to issue food benefits 
and cash. The gentleman has a very innovative amendment. It was a good 
amendment. This is a very sharp departure from our current practice. 
Food stamps should be used only for food. Under that amendment what has 
been food benefits can be used for any item.
  My opposition to this amendment does not mean there will never be any 
block grant for the food stamp program, quite the contrary, but the 
Committee on Agriculture will continue its oversight of the program, 
monitor the State's progress of AFDC and other block grants.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROBERTS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas, the distinguished 
ranking minority member.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I associate myself with the 
gentleman's remarks and endorse his remarks in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his 
comments, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Sam Johnson.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
the gentleman's amendment to block grant food stamps back to the 
States, and I understand that the chairman of the committee really says 
that he wants to do that, but he did not do it, and I believe this is a 
very important amendment because it will complete the historic 
transformation of the most disastrous, cruel, and mean-spirited and 
destructive Federal welfare system ever created. We owe it to the 
States, the counties, the local communities, and the people currently 
trapped in this system to pass this amendment. This amendment will 
ensure that the Governors and local officials have not just some, but 
all, of the tools they need to create real solutions to serious 
problems facing their communities. Without this amendment our work here 
is actually incomplete.
  I remember when we first began the task of designing solutions to end 
the welfare bureaucracy. We agreed the best thing we could do for the 
truly needy Americans was to return control of all major programs back 
to the States. We agreed on this approach because the current system 
run by Washington is broke, it does not work. I cannot understand why 
we would now turn around and say, ``Well, block grants are good, but 
not for food stamps.'' That is what I just heard. If local control is 
the solution for school lunches, family nutrition and child protection, 
which we believe it is, then it must also be the answer for reforming 
food stamps. The Governors need and deserve all the flexibility we can 
give them to solve the problems that they understand best. I say to my 
colleagues, ``To only give them two-thirds of the tools they need is 
like playing golf without a putter. You can't finish.''
  Two committees I served on stood fast, and fulfilled their promise 
and passed out a tough, but fair welfare bill. Despite all the 
Democratic rhetoric, I strongly support and believe in the block grant 
proposals contained in this bill, but I cannot believe the Committee on 
Agriculture caved in to the big farm lobbyists and failed to fulfill 
their Contract With America. By doing this they have put our entire 
effort at real reform at risk. This system was designed by the 
Governors and the Congress as an integrated system that works 
simultaneously, together. It was to work as one, each section 
supporting the next. This is why it is so important we pass this 
amendment.
  Let us get back to the State authority that our U.S. Constitution 
demands, Mr. Chairman. The Governors would not need and deserve nothing 
less than full welfare reform.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
distinguished gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out to the 
members of the committee that this amendment, when offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana in the Committee on Agriculture, got a total of 
five votes, and yet the Committee on Rules has made it in order while 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida, which is very 
important to correct the thrifty food plan provision under this bill, 
got 18 votes. It was not made in order by the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point out to my colleagues how this 
Committee on Rules of the majority is operating, giving an amendment 
that has no chance at all a chance, and yet would not give a good 
amendment a chance.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the concern and the sense of frustration 
of the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Sam Johnson, who spoke here just a 
moment ago, and, as I tried to indicate, in regard to the policy 
options that we considered in the House Committee on Agriculture there 
were four. The first option that was suggested by the gentleman from 
Indiana was obviously supported by the gentleman from Texas in terms of 
his remarks, and we offered the Governors a block grant, and we said, 
``What do you want? Here are the coupons. Here is the Food Stamp 
Program.''
  They said, ``Thank you, but no thank you. We don't want to administer 
the Food Stamp Program. We want the tax, 27 billion dollars' worth.''
  Well, with all due respect, Richard Nixon is no longer President, and 
we do not have any revenue to share.
  So then we said, ``OK, you can't have the cash. That really wouldn't 
be responsible. But you can have the coupons.''
  They said, ``We don't want the coupons.''
  That may give my colleagues a little indication as
   to what they would do with the cash.

  So then we considered a 40-60 split, and if you give them the 40 
percent, and that amounts to the people on food stamps that are also on 
welfare, and we wanted to have one-stop service, streamline it, bring 
the cost down.

                              {time}  1500

  But the 60 percent on the other side would have grown. That is about 
a $6 billion expenditure, and we could not afford that. So we decided 
to do what we tried to do for decades, years, and that is establish 
food stamp reform. And we have done that, and we have a good bill.
  I remind everyone on this floor that not one farm lobbyist came to 
this chairman and this committee and indicated that we should cave in 
in regards to food stamp reform. I am tired of hearing it, and it is 
not accurate. And the Committee on Agriculture measured up to its 
responsibility, and we have a fine food stamp reform package. If the 
package were considered a year ago, it would have been incredible in 
this House of Representatives.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Thurman].
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, when it comes to the question of block 
granting food stamps, I want to commend the responsible and thoughtful 
leadership of the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] and the gentleman 
from Missouri [Mr. Emerson] who both understand what a bad idea this 
is. The amendment was voted down 37 to 5 in the Committee on 
Agriculture just a few weeks ago.
  The notion that without block grants States are powerless against 
Federal 
 [[Page H3615]] bureaucrats is pure fiction. Block granting the food 
stamp program would place a terrible burden on States and take food out 
of the mouths of hungry children and the elderly.
  The big difference with block grants is in that the programs are no 
longer entitlements, so in a slump States would no longer get a 
automatic boost in Federal aid. They would have to cut benefits or, 
more likely, place newly unemployed on waiting lists. Longer-term 
recipients would keep their benefits as would people with steady job 
histories, but those with a little bad luck would suffer.
  This proposal would put hard-working families with children on 
waiting lists for food, just when they need it the most. It would 
actually put long-term recipients ahead of people with short-term 
needs. I thought we wanted to decrease long-term dependence.
  The Deal substitute recognized that State flexibility is important, 
but that welfare reform will fail if States do not have the proper 
resources for State programs. The Deal plan provides States with 
flexibility to respond to economic downturns and increases in child 
poverty.
  I would like to have my name associated with the chairman's remarks 
on the farm. Not one farmer came to me. Children came to me about this.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr].
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, when I looked at the amendment of the distinguished 
colleague from Indiana, Mr. Hostettler, I asked myself certain 
questions. I asked do we want a program that is streamlined? I said to 
myself, yes. I said do we want a program that is consistent? I said to 
myself, yes. I asked do we need a program that reduces fraud? I said 
yes. I said do we want a program that requires the dignity of work by a 
recipient that is able, and I said yes. More important, my constituents 
said yes to each and every one of those questions.
  I think this is a very well thought-out amendment, I think it is 
consistent with what we are doing here, and it has an added bonus of 
reducing the power of bureaucrats which I think is good, my 
constituents think is good, and the recipients of this important 
program think is good.
  I rise in strong support of my distinguished colleague from Indiana's 
amendment.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to first state the reason why the 
Committee on Rules most probably ruled this amendment in order was 
given the fact the recent CNN-USA Today-Gallop Poll says that 60 
percent of Americans believe the budget deficit should be cut by 
cutting food stamps. Not by reducing the increase in spending in food 
stamps, and not even by freezing the expenditures in food stamps as 
this amendment calls for, but by cutting food stamps. Sixty percent of 
Americans believe we have got to return to fiscal responsibility by 
reducing this program.
  In conclusion, the staff of Governor Pete Wilson of California 
contacted our office today and said that this amendment was vital to 
the total welfare reform that must happen on the State level. It gives 
the States the ability and the capability to have real welfare reform 
on the local level.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Pastor], a valued member of the committee.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to help set the record 
straight and talk about the actual cuts that the WIC Program would 
suffer under the Republican welfare proposal. To begin, the House has 
just passed a $25 million rescission to the WIC Program. Is this cut 
not to be considered a cut just because it was voted on separately? 
Second, under a block grant approach, WIC would be competing with other 
programs for funding and only 80 percent of its funds would be 
guaranteed for WIC-like services. Yet, how can we in good conscience 
say that WIC will not be cut when we are drastically cutting the other 
programs in its block grant? Is the remaining 20 percent that might be 
diverted to another program not to be considered a cut? Or, more to the 
point, if the child and adult care feeding program and the summer food 
program are cut, will that not lead some States to shift funds around 
to meet the various competing needs? What guarantees will we have to 
assure that funds for this program will be there when needed?
  Lastly, I want to clarify how WIC funds are spent. To begin, WIC 
dollars are not spent on items such as disposable diapers, as was 
alleged last night on the floor of the House. Expenditures under WIC 
are used to promote good nutrition and to encourage eligible persons to 
participate in this program. To fulfill the spirit of the block grant 
approach, States have already been given some latitude in the 
administration of this program. States have the
 option of approving food items to meet the specific nutritional needs 
of a particular population group which may have certain nutritional 
deficiencies. This way, nontraditional foods may be permitted to meet 
these identified needs. The principal point to remember, though, is 
that WIC vouchers are used exclusively on nutritional products. Are we 
now switching the terms of the debate to say that States should not 
determine how to best encourage mothers and children to participate in 
this program? I would admonish this body to seek a modicum of 
consistency as we move forward with the year's legislative agenda.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, is it the Chair's understanding that as 
the designee of the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, I can 
move to strike the last word?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has that right. If the gentleman is 
asking unanimous consent to combine it, he would have 6\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I ask 
unanimous consent to merge that additional time with the time I am 
currently controlling.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kansas?
   There was no objection.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, again I want to say that I am rising in reluctant 
opposition to the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana. The intent 
of the amendment is to move immediately in regard to block grants to 
the States. The intent of the amendment is good. The bill as passed by 
the committee gives us the opportunity to do that once States can 
demonstrate they meet the criteria of an EBT program. So we are not at 
odds. It is merely a timing issue.
  I would also like to add, in a calmer tone, that this perception that 
somehow the Committee on Agriculture did not address true food stamp 
reform is simply not accurate. I would like to stress again that no 
farm organization, no commodity group, no lobbyists in regard to the 
food chain, no one in the agriculture community, that I am aware, 
called the chairman in reference to changing any policy in regards to 
food stamp reform, whether it be a block grant or not.
  The decision reached by the committee was reached by determining 
serious policy options: Will it work, can we achieve the reform, can it 
be done in a timely basis.
  Now, I understand the blood pressure around this place in regards to 
the marching orders and the deadlines that have been suggested, not 
only with welfare reform but the entire Contract With America. There is 
nothing in the Contract With America, by the way, that specifies that 
block grants of cash be given to States. We are attempting, and I think 
we are actually achieving, true reform.
  Now, my good friend from Texas, the chairman emeritus of the House 
Committee on Agriculture, and others on the minority side, have 
characterized the food stamp reforms as something that we have done in 
regards to saving money to pay for tax cuts. We had this discussion all 
during our committee markup, and I want to repeat what I said then: The 
food stamp provisions of H.R. 4 in title IV are for the purpose of 
badly needed reforms. These reforms 
 [[Page H3616]] are to achieve policy changes, not to cut spending to 
pay for taxes.
  The Committee on Agriculture held extensive hearings, and let me just 
read again the provisions that are contained in this reform package. I 
want all sides to listen to this. I want all of the folks who have been 
so vocal on that side in regard to the tax cuts and all the Robin Hood 
statements that we have had in that regard, and I want everybody on 
this side over here who claims instant purity in regards to whatever 
this legislation should or should not be.
  We increase the penalties and procedures to curb the more than $3 
billion annually that is lost to waste, fraud, and abuse. We have not 
done that for years. We are doing it now. We are harmonizing the 
welfare reform in regards to AFDC and food stamp programs so that 
States can provide a more efficient one-stop service. Not only for the 
taxpayer, but for the user.
  In regards to the recipient, we have a promotion of real private 
sector work by requiring able-bodied individuals between 18 and 50 
years of age who have no dependents must work at least part-time now to 
be eligible for food stamps, called workfare, jobfare. It promotes the 
adoption of a new and more efficient technology within something called 
the electronic benefit transfer system.
  Finally, it takes the program off of autopilot that it has been on 
for years and years and years and years, to regain the control of the 
ballooning costs. This thing started about $1 million back in 1961. 
Four years later, we were up to $60 million. I remember the former 
chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, Bob Poage said, ``You 
know, sometimes this is going to get to be expensive. We are going to 
get to real money here.''
  Ten years later, $4.6 billion. Today, $27 billion, in terms of cost. 
Ten years ago, 19.9 million people. Today, 27.3 million people. The 
economy went up, these costs went up, automatically. The economy went 
down, and that is the time the Food Stamp Program should work. Why, of 
course they continued to go up.
  So we have restored, as far as I am concerned, the congressional 
responsibility to at least come in and take a look at this with a 2-
percent increase every year, and with real reform, as suggested by the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson], in terms of adding $100 million 
in terms of the feeding programs to the homeless and the soup kitchens 
all around the country. Under these reforms there will be no more 
uncontrolled growth in costs. If there is a future need for funding, 
Congress will do its job, we will step up to that responsibility. No 
child will go hungry.
  So I think it a good reform package.
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROBERTS. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with everything 
that the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agriculture has 
just said, and to say to my conservative brothers and sisters that the 
bottom line here is accountability. The chairman stated that we offered 
the States the block grant in food stamps, which is the form in which 
the program now exists. You do have a much higher level of 
accountability with food stamps than you do with cash. Frankly, food 
stamps or cash are neither one any good, which is why we have the 
strong provisions in this act to move us toward an electronic benefit 
transfer system in which we will achieve the highest level of 
accountability.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for his comments. There is sound policy for all of these reforms. It is 
time to stop building straw men and support the reform.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I join the gentleman from Kansas in opposition to this 
amendment. There was a novel and innovative block grant program called 
revenue sharing. It did not work. Besides, if you give 50 States the 
money, you will have 50 different programs. Is that streamlining?
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 45 seconds.
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the committee made a point 
when he said no child would go hungry. I believe he just said that.
  Does the chairman deny that in America today, with the highest rate 
of childhood poverty in the industrialized world, 5 million children 
are already hungry?
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to associate myself 
with the remarks of the chairman, the ranking member, and say that on 
the Hostettler amendment, I cannot believe that he would offer an 
amendment that reduces the work requirements. In a bill in which we 
have talked about work, this amendment would require recipients to work 
only 32 hours. The Deal substitute would require an average of 20 hours 
of work per week.
  With all of the rhetoric going on on this floor, how we would have 
entered in an amendment that was defeated 37 to 5 in the Committee on 
Agriculture, I cannot believe.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to Mr. Hostettler's 
amendment to block grant the Food Stamp Program and to freeze the 
spending level through fiscal year 2000. I believe it is very important 
that we maintain a very basic food safety net to ensure that children 
do not go hungry.
  The fact is that 82 percent of food stamp households contain children 
and 16 percent have elderly members. In addition, 92 percent of food 
stamp households have gross incomes at or below the Federal poverty 
level. Freezing the funding levels, therefore, will most heavily impact 
poor children and the elderly and will not account for major shifts in 
the economy.
  Not only does Mr. Hostettler's amendment threaten this safety net, it 
also weakens the current work requirement in the base bill. This 
amendment would require recipients to work only 32 hours in a calendar 
month, whereas, the Deal substitute would require an average of 20 
hours of work per week. The Deal substitute also provides funding for 
additional employment and training to help move people off welfare and 
into work.
  Finally, I would like to remind my colleagues of the discussion we 
had yesterday regarding the deficit reduction issue. Members from the 
other side of the aisle pointed out to me that the committees had 
spoken on deficit reduction provisions during the markup process. I 
resent that characterization since my substantive deficit reduction 
amendments were not allowed to be voted on. However, the sense-of-the-
committee resolution which stated savings should go to deficit 
reduction did unanimously pass the Agriculture Committee. On the other 
hand, I would like to point out that by a vote of 37 to 5, Members from 
both sides of the aisle in the Agriculture Committee rejected the 
Hostettler amendment. The committee has, in fact, spoken clearly on 
this issue.
  I urge the defeat of this amendment and support of a food safety net 
for children and the elderly.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Hostettler].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler] will 
be postponed.


                      ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, proceedings will now resume on 
those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed, in the 
following order: Amendment No. 21 offered by the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Traficant]; amendment No. 25 offered by the gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. Hostettler].
                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Traficant

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on amendment No. 21 printed in House Report 104-85 offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] on which further proceedings were 
postponed and 
 [[Page H3617]] on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my demand for a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] withdraws his 
demand for a recorded vote, and the amendment is agreed to.
  So the amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Hostettler

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on amendment No. 25 printed in House Report 104-85 offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler] on which further proceedings 
were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 114, 
noes 316, not voting 4, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 263]

                               AYES--114

     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (LA)
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bono
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     DeLay
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Duncan
     Dunn
     English
     Ensign
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Forbes
     Fox
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     King
     Klug
     Largent
     Livingston
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Paxon
     Petri
     Porter
     Portman
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Riggs
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Torkildsen
     Walker
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Zimmer

                               NOES--316

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Chapman
     Hastings (WA)
     Moakley
     Williams

                              {time}  1536

  Messrs. BASS, KIM, BERMAN, and DICKEY changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  Mrs. MYRICK and Messrs. BARTLETT, CRANE, COX of California, HEFLEY, 
PORTER, MOORHEAD, RAMSTAD, DORNAN, PETE GEREN of Texas, TAYLOR of 
Mississippi, FOX of Pennsylvania, and RIGGS changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 26 printed 
in House Report 104-85.


                     amendment offered by mr. blute

  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       Amendment offered by Mr. Blute:

       Page 37, after line 21, insert the following:
       ``(11) Denial of assistance for fugitive felons and 
     probation and parole violators.--
       ``(A) In general.--A State to which a grant is made under 
     section 403 may not use any part of the grant to provide 
     assistance to any individual who is--
       ``(i) fleeing to avoid prosecution, or custody or 
     confinement after conviction, under the laws of the place 
     from which the individual flees, for a crime, or an attempt 
     to commit a crime, which is a felony under the laws of the 
     place from which the individual flees, or which, in the case 
     of the State of New Jersey, is a high misdemeanor under the 
     laws of such State; or
       ``(ii) violating a condition of probation or parole imposed 
     under Federal or State law.
       ``(B) Exchange of information with law enforcement 
     agencies.--If a State to which a grant is made under section 
     403 establishes safeguards against the use or disclosure of 
     information about applicants or recipients of assistance 
     under the State program funded under this part, the 
     safeguards shall not prevent the State agency administering 
     the program from furnishing a Federal, State, or local law 
     enforcement officer, upon the request of the officer, with 
     the current address of any recipient if the officer furnishes 
     the agency with the name of the recipient and notifies the 
     agency that such recipient is fleeing to avoid prosecution, 
     or custody or confinement after conviction, under the laws of 
     the place from which the recipient flees, for a crime, or an 
     attempt to commit a crime, which is a felony under the laws 
     of the place from which the recipient flees, or which, in the 
     case of the State of New Jersey, is a high misdemeanor under 
     the laws of such State, or is violating a condition of 
     probation or parole imposed under Federal or State law, or 
     has information that is necessary for the officer to conduct 
     the official duties of the office, that the location or 
     apprehension of the recipient is within such official duties.
       Page 37, after line 21, insert the following:
       ``(11) Denial of assistance for minor children who are 
     absent from the home for a significant period.--
       ``(A) In general.--A State to which a grant is made under 
     section 403 may not use any part of the grant to provide 
     assistance for a minor child who has been, or is expected by 
     a parent (or other caretaker relative) of the child to be, 
     absent from the home for a period of 45 consecutive days or, 
     at the option of the State, such period of not less than 30 
     and not more than 90 consecutive days as the State may 
     provide for in the State plan submitted pursuant to section 
     402.
        [[Page H3618]] ``(B) State authority to establish good 
     cause exceptions.--The State may establish such good cause 
     exceptions to subparagraph (A) as the State considers 
     appropriate if such exceptions are provided for in the State 
     plan submitted pursuant to section 402.
       ``(C) Denial of assistance for relative who fails to notify 
     state agency of absence of child.--A State to which a grant 
     is made under section 403 may not use any part of the grant 
     to provide assistance for an individual who is a parent (or 
     other caretaker relative) of a minor child and who fails to 
     notify the agency administering the State program funded 
     under this part, of the absence of the minor child from the 
     home for the period specified in or provided for under 
     subparagraph (A), by the end of the 5-day period that begins 
     with the date that it becomes clear to the parent (or 
     relative) that the minor child will be absent for such period 
     so specified or provided for.
       Page 235, after line 24, insert the following (and make 
     such technical and conforming changes as may be appropriate):

     SEC. 581. ELIMINATION OF FOOD STAMP BENEFITS WITH RESPECT TO 
                   FUGITIVE FELONS AND PROBATION AND PAROLE 
                   VIOLATORS.

       (a) Ineligibility for Food Stamps.--Section 6 of the Food 
     Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2015), as amended by section 555, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(j) No member of a household who is otherwise eligible to 
     participate in the food stamp program shall be eligible to 
     participate in the program as a member of that or any other 
     household while the individual is--
       ``(1) fleeing to avoid prosecution, or custody or 
     confinement after conviction, under the laws of the place 
     from which he flees, for a crime, or an attempt to commit a 
     crime, which is a felony under the laws of the place from 
     which he flees, or which, in the case of the State of New 
     Jersey, is a high misdemeanor under the laws of such State; 
     or
       ``(2) violating a condition of probation or parole imposed 
     under a Federal or State law.''.
       (2) Exchange of Information With Law Enforcement 
     Officers.--Section 11(e)(8) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 2020(e)(8)) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and (C)'' and inserting ``(C)''; and
       (2) by inserting before the semicolon at the end the 
     following: ``, (D) notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the address of a member of a household shall be made 
     available, on request, to a Federal, State, or local law 
     enforcement officer if the officer furnishes the State agency 
     with the name of the member and notifies the agency that (i) 
     the member (I) is fleeing to avoid prosecution, or custody or 
     confinement after conviction, under the laws of the place 
     from which he flees, for a crime, or an attempt to commit a 
     crime, which is a felony under the laws of the place from 
     which he flees, or which, in the case of the State of New 
     Jersey, is a high misdemeanor under the laws of such State, 
     or is violating a condition of probation or parole imposed 
     under Federal or State law, or (II) has information that is 
     necessary for the officer to conduct the officer's official 
     duties, (ii) the location or apprehension of the member is 
     within the official duties of the officer, and (iii) the 
     request is made in the proper exercise of the duties, and''.
       Page 266, after line 15, insert the following:

     SEC. 606. DENIAL OF SSI BENEFITS FOR FUGITIVE FELONS AND 
                   PROBATION AND PAROLE VIOLATORS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1611(c) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1382(e)), as amended by section 601(b)(1) of this 
     Act, is amended by inserting after paragraph (2) the 
     following:
       ``(3) A person shall not be an eligible individual or 
     eligible spouse for purposes of this title with respect to 
     any month if, throughout the month, the person is--
       ``(A) fleeing to avoid prosecution, or custody or 
     confinement after conviction, under the laws of the place 
     from which the person flees, for a crime, or an attempt to 
     commit a crime, which is a felony under the laws of the place 
     from which the person flees, or which, in the case of the 
     State of New Jersey, is a high misdemeanor under the laws of 
     such State; or
       ``(B) violating a condition of probation or parole imposed 
     under Federal or State law.''.
       (b) Exchange of information with law enforcement 
     agencies.--Section 1631(e) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1383(e)) is 
     amended by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
       ``(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Commissioner shall furnish any Federal, State, or local law 
     enforcement officer, upon the request of the officer, with 
     the current address of any recipient of benefits under this 
     title, if the officer furnishes the agency with the name of 
     the recipient name and notifies the agency that--
       ``(A) the recipient--
       ``(i) is fleeing to avoid prosecution, or custody of 
     confinement after conviction, under the laws of the place 
     from which the person flees, for a crime, or an attempt to 
     commit a crime, which is a felony under the laws of the place 
     from which the person flees, or which, in this case of the 
     State of New Jersey, is a high misdemeanor under the laws of 
     such State;
       ``(ii) is violating a condition of probation or parole 
     imposed under Federal or State law; or
       ``(iii) has information that is necessary for the officer 
     to conduct the officer's official duties;
       ``(B) the location or apprehension of the recipient is 
     within the official duties of the officer; and
       ``(C) the request is made in the proper exercise of such 
     duties.''.
       Amend the table of contents accordingly.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Blute] and a Member opposed with each control 10 minutes.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I am reluctantly opposed to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute].
                        parliamentary inquiries

  Mr. SHAW. A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I have noticed during the debate on at least 
one occasion, if not more, that a Member of this body has stood up to 
claim the time on the negative side of the amendment, and has not voted 
that way.
  Is it the Chair's interpretation that those who claim to be voting or 
are against the amendment must have every intention to vote against it, 
also?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair must assume that the Member seeking the time 
in opposition intends at the time he seeks it to vote against it. It is 
not the Chair's intention to double check everyone's vote.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I am just curious if the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Shaw] could tell us the name of an individual who rose in 
opposition to an amendment and then did not vote that way.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I will tell the gentleman privately, if he 
wishes to know.
  Mr. VOLKMER. I would like to know, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, to extend debate, as the designee of the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons], I move to strike the last word 
and ask unanimous consent to merge that additional time with the time I 
am currently controlling.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would ask, does the gentleman from Tennessee 
[Mr. Ford] intend to control the entire 15 minutes? Was that the 
gentleman's request?
  Mr. FORD. Yes, Mr. Chairman, it was.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the unanimous consent request is 
agreed to.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Blute].
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Chairman, the need for welfare reform in our country 
is obvious. The system is broken and it just does not work. There are 
aspects of our welfare system that are downright silly.
  Recently, many of us saw the movie ``The Fugitive,'' with Harrison 
Ford. In the movie, the fugitive gets financial help from a friend. 
However, a more real world scenario would have the taxpayer financing 
the fugitive's flight from justice, because that is exactly what is 
happening in the streets of America today.

                              {time}  1545

  The truth is indeed stranger than fiction because in the real world 
fugitives do in fact go to the taxpayers to subsidize their life on the 
lam. Sting operations in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and other States have 
found anywhere from one-third to three-fourths of fugitive felons 
collecting welfare benefits. Last year, then Congressman and now 
Senator Rick Santorum and I introduced legislation to address this 
situation. This amendment, the Blute-Lipinski-Johnson amendment, is 
based on that bill and would solve this problem by doing two things.
  First, Mr. Chairman, it defines the term ``fugitive felon'' and cuts 
off benefits to those who fit the definition. Second, it forces Federal 
agencies to share certain information with law enforcement officials 
who request it, enabling them to better track down fugitives. Under 
present law, Federal social service agencies routinely deny information 
to the police regarding the whereabouts of criminals who have committed 
felonies and later fled justice, even though in many cases they are 
sending a check to the fugitive's 
 [[Page H3619]] new address. This amendment would end that scenario by 
requiring social service agencies that administer SSI, food stamps, and 
AFDC to turn off the spigot of free money once they are made aware that 
an individual is a fugitive felon. Presently there are about 392,000 
fugitive warrants on file at the National Crime Information Center. So 
if only 30 percent of this total is collecting an average welfare 
benefit package of $300 monthly, a very conservative estimate means 
that taxpayers could be shelling out almost $400 million annually. We 
have got to stop making crime pay.
  My amendment would take us a step closer to a smaller, more efficient 
welfare system that benefits those who truly need it.
  This legislation has been endorsed by the National Association of 
Chiefs of Police and the Fraternal Order of Police.
  Let's put an end to this taxpayer ripoff that allows criminals to 
benefit from the tax dollars of law-abiding Americans, and let's put an 
end to protecting these criminals from being thrown back into jail 
because our own government agencies are denying information about their 
location to law enforcement.
  Support the Blute-Lipinski-Johnson amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
  Mr. VOLKMER. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, it is very apparent to me that on Tuesday night and 
then yesterday, we in this House have been presented with legislation 
which I would call as ugly as a sow's ear. They have tried yesterday 
and today to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear by trimming it on the 
edges.
  We first had the amendment by the gentlewoman from Connecticut to 
improve on the child care provisions. But just marginally. We had 
amendments by the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Bunn] and the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] in regard to unwed mothers under 18. We 
still have major problem, but it is just a marginal improvement.
  In the debate on the Johnson amendment, the gentlewoman from Utah 
said was real cruel to mothers to deny them child care. That is what 
the bill did when it basically came out of the committees. It still 
does, because it does not fully fund the child care, so it is still 
cruel but maybe not quite as cruel. It is still a sow's ear.
  We have adopted the Traficant amendment and the Upton amendment, and 
the Blute amendment is now before us and I am sure it will be adopted. 
But these, too, are just minor changes on the fringes. Still the 
problem remains, reducing school lunches, reducing food stamps for the 
working poor, the hungry kids, kicking people off welfare, actually, 
kicking them off programs that will help them so that they work 
themselves out of, not letting them have those programs.
  Seventy billion dollars in total cuts. Where is it going to go? Major 
corporations, going to go to the wealthy in tax cuts when we do the 
bill next week.
  It is still a sow's ear, folks, You have not made a silk purse out of 
this sow's ear. The only silk purse that is going to be here today in 
my opinion is the Deal substitute. If you want a silk purse, you vote 
for the Deal substitute. You have got a sow's ear.
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Lipinski], a coauthor of this amendment.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I am very proud to stand up and support 
this amendment. I believe this amendment is a silk purse amendment and 
not a sow's ear amendment. As you all know now, fugitives have been 
receiving welfare benefits. I found it hard to believe at first, but 
upon further investigation, I discovered that the Federal and State 
laws prohibited some welfare agencies from disclosing the addresses of 
recipients to law enforcement departments under the guise of 
confidentiality.
  Does America really want to protect the confidentiality of a 
fugitive? Do the American people want to support these people with 
their tax dollars? I doubt it very seriously.
  The amendment that we offer today not only ensures the exchange of 
information between police and welfare agencies but makes fugitives 
ineligible for benefits in the first place. Currently there is no 
provision in the welfare bill to prohibit States from passing 
confidentiality laws. Section 403(f) of H.R. 1214 says that the Federal 
Government may not regulate the conduct of States except to the extent 
expressly provided. We need to provide that, so no State shall hinder 
police in their search for fugitives.
  It is estimated that one-third of those running from the law are 
receiving welfare benefits. Yet, in some States it is impossible or 
next to impossible to track them down by going to the agency and asking 
for an address. Lieutenant Griffin of the Chicago Police Department 
told me that it is a tremendous benefit to be able to access public aid 
lists. It is the only spot they really go to, he said.
  The Federal Government has been just as guilty as the States in 
protecting the rights of criminals. Between the two, we have created a 
bureaucratic nightmare.
  For example, the Food Stamp Act expressly prohibits the release of 
information of recipients. And the States build on this nonsense by 
either denying access of data or making the process of receiving data 
too prohibitive.
  Another situation that I discovered is the inconsistency with which 
information is available. For example, in Illinois, police can access 
AFDC lists but not so food stamp lists. Depending on what kind of 
assistance someone receives depends on whether police can track them 
down. Does this make any sense? I do not think so.
  Access of information should be consistent regardless of the type of 
assistance someone is receiving. Let's set a Federal standard. You 
break the law, you do not receive benefits, and the police can use 
these public aid lists if need be.
  What will happen if this amendment does not pass? Fugitives will 
continue to receive welfare benefits and the police will not be able to 
track them down. Let's pass a little common sense. Let's pass the 
Blute-Lipinski-Johnson amendment today.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  Mr. SANDERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, let's introduce just for kicks, as we say, a note of 
reality into this debate. Welfare reform and the end of food stamp 
abuse, yes. Everybody is for that. Increased pain and suffering for 
America's children, no, many of us are opposed to that.
  A little while ago, the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture 
stated that under his reform, no child in America would go hungry. Who 
are we kidding?
  Today in America, before cutbacks to food stamps or to WIC or to 
other nutrition programs, 5 million children in the United States are 
hungry. Today, in this country, we have by far the highest rate of 
childhood poverty in the industrialized world. What kind of country are 
we when we are talking about more cutbacks for low-income kids, when we 
already have double the highest rate of childhood poverty in the 
industrialized world?
  Mr. Chairman, if we were serious about welfare reform, and I do not 
think we really are, but if we were, we would be talking about a 
Federal jobs program to create real jobs so that poor people could then 
have real work and earn a real income.
  If we were serious about welfare reform, we would be talking about 
raising the minimum wage so that when poor people work, they can escape 
from poverty, not abolishing the minimum wage as some would have.
  If we are serious about talking about welfare reform, we must talk 
about improving child care capabilities, so that children of working 
mothers and working families are provided for. If we are serious about 
talking about welfare reform, we must talk about job training and 
transportation so that welfare recipients are able to get to the jobs 
that are open for them.
  Last, today we are talking about welfare reform as it applies to the 
poor. I hope that in the future we will have the guts to talk about 
welfare reform as it applies to the rich and the multinational 
corporations.
  [[Page H3620]] I hope that we will say that the U.S. Government with 
its huge deficit and its enormous social problems can no longer afford 
to spend tens of billions of dollars a year providing tax breaks and 
subsidies to the rich and the large corporations. I look forward to 
that welfare reform.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Rangel], one of the distinguished members of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of concern about 
people calling each other mean-spirited and not being concerned about 
the welfare of children in this great country of ours. But also there 
has been a restriction that our Republican friends have, and, that is, 
a contract. That contract seems to be driving people to do things that 
are inconsistent with what they truly believe. What are they driving to 
do?
  The first drive, the jewel in the crown, is to cut back taxes. That 
is the driving force. That is the engine. Whether it is $780 billion 
over 10 years or $200 billion that we have to cut back in taxes now, 
not that we have heard the American people screaming for it, but I 
assume the wealthy people know what is best for them and I assume you 
work closer with them. But assuming that you have agreed and you are 
committed in your contract to turn back $200 billion in revenues, then 
you have that same strong commitment to balance the budget, indeed, 
change the Constitution. Once you have reached those conclusions, the 
tax cut and to balance the budget, the only thing left to do is to cut, 
cut, cut, cut. And where do you cut? Did you go to the strongest that 
have been enjoying the subsidies? No, you went to our aged, you went to 
our sick, you went to our children, and you charged it all up to the 
lack of discretion of the teenaged mother for making God's child 
without having a legal contract.

                              {time}  1600

  How dare we in this body determine what a child should or should not 
have because of the lack of discretion of the mother? And how do we 
feel as federally elected legislators in saying we have messed up this 
program as Democrats, so our responsibility is to turn it over to the 
Governors, no strings attached? Oops, I made a mistake, there are 
strings attached.
  Do not show enough compassion to give cash assistance to anybody that 
has a child if they are 18 or younger and they are not married. Oops, 
another thing that had strings attached.
  If there is another child while you are on welfare, regardless of how 
it came or the conditions, the governors are restricted from giving 
cash assistance.
  Oh, there is another restriction. No matter what the economic 
conditions are in the locality where the recipient is, no matter how 
hard he or she tries to get a job, if no jobs are available, then we 
say the governors cannot give them cash assistance because the time has 
run out.
  I tell my colleagues this: If a political pundit had to find out how 
to win an election they would say go against affirmative action, go 
against immigrants, go against people who are poor, go against welfare, 
go against food stamps and make America feel that we have to reform the 
system. But then again, if you put that in a contract and you win, you 
can bet your life it is not enforceable, not in this great country it 
is not.
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Dallas, TX, Mr. Sam Johnson, one of the leaders of the welfare reform 
movement here in the Congress.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Rangel], I heard him yesterday talking about how we had 
left out our felons who were getting welfare, left them out. That is 
what we are talking about right now is an amendment to correct that and 
make it happen.
  The Deal bill does not even talk to that. In fact, it destroys any 
welfare reform that there is going.
  I cannot believe that our Federal Government actually pays with 
taxpayers dollars, I might add, welfare benefits to criminals who are 
fleeing prosecution from the law. I heard the gentleman say that.
  I would like to list for those who do not know the benefits criminals 
get while on the run: Criminals, criminals under current law can and do 
receive AFDC, SSI, and food stamps.
  Instead of giving benefits to those who truly are in need we are 
giving them to individuals who have broken the law and are trying to 
escape from it.
  The real question is why does this atrocity continue to happen. The 
answer is because current law prohibits Federal welfare agencies from 
sharing information with local law enforcement communities.
  What this means, if your local police officer calls the Federal 
welfare agency that administers those benefits and asks for the address 
of a known felon, that welfare agency by law is forbidden even from 
giving the most current address to the police.
  I cannot believe that this is happening in our country. It is just 
one more irritation that our police officers currently have to hurdle 
in their attempt to stop crime.
  This is simply outrageous. Whoever said crime does not pay never 
understood how Government bureaucracy works. I urge all of my 
colleagues and I hope the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel], too, 
will support this amendment and stop the flow of taxpayer dollars to 
criminals and allow welfare agencies to help our police officers fight 
the war on crime.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for the purpose of 
my support?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Rangel].
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to support this well 
thought out amendment to stop welfare payments from going to fugitives 
who are fleeing. The only thing I ask is, where does the fleeing 
fugitive apply for welfare?
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire about how much time we have 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Ford] has 7\1/2\ 
minutes remaining and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute] has 
1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North 
Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and I 
want to take this minute to talk about what I am for, what our caucus 
is for in terms of welfare reform.
  We are for a welfare reform package that is tough on work, that puts 
a work expectation for people receiving benefits.
  We are for a welfare reform package that enforces personal 
responsibility, particularly the personal responsibility for your 
children.
  Third, we are for a welfare reform package that does not punish kids 
because, for gosh sakes, it was not the kids that caused the problems 
we have with the present system.
  These are meaningful responses, meaningful reforms and they are 
represented in the Deal substitute. By contrast, the bill of the 
majority fails on all three counts, most particularly the work 
requirement.
  A Congressional Budget Office study put it on the front page of the 
Washington Post today talking about how States will fail under the GOP 
work rules.
  We need to make a work program work, and that is the Deal substitute. 
Please support it this afternoon.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Nadler].
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I simply rise to ask of the sponsors two 
questions: No. 1, the question of the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Rangel]. If someone is a fugitive, how is it that we are paying him 
anything, since the definition of a fugitive is we do not know where he 
is and he is not declaring it because he is on the run from the law?
  The second question is: The meaning of the amendment, where it says 
that if a child, a second provision of the 
 [[Page H3621]] amendment that says if a child is absent for any length 
of time that you would not give the welfare to that family. My question 
is would you simply not give the welfare attributable to that child 
during the period of absence or for other children also who may be 
present in the home?
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, with regard to the first question, it is happening 
right now where fugitive felons are receiving welfare benefits and law 
enforcement agencies cannot get the information from social service 
agencies as to exactly who these people are or where they are.
  Mr. NADLER. Could the gentleman answer the second question?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] 
has expired.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Tennessee 
for yielding the time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say I do not think there is a person in the 
House and certainly not in this great country that would say that 
criminals are by and large the ones getting welfare. I did not know 
that 2- and 3-years-olds were criminals, so I would certainly be 
supportive of keeping criminal fugitives from getting welfare, but I am 
really here to talk about is what I stand for in terms of how to make 
this program really work and really be welfare reform.
  We have to have real welfare to work, we have to have a job creation 
program that is really sincere and offers to people the real 
opportunity to work. At the same time, we have to be sensitive to our 
infants and to our women and children, and I just want to emphasize 
that. We hear all of the talk about investment in the future and 
taxpayers' money. And ``I do not want to pay for those deadbeats.'' 
This is what an investment in our children is all about.
  Just take the Women, Infants and Children Program. We can see what we 
would save if we were participating in the Women, Infants and Children 
Program some $12,000 to $15,000 per child that we invested in making 
sure that women, infants and children had good nutrition programs.
  The Republican program does not have good nutrition programs, it does 
not focus on the child. It focuses on taking away from the child.
  Let us move forward to a progressive standard for all people and that 
is vote for the Democratic alternative. Let us make sure welfare reform 
is that and not welfare punishment.
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Heineman], one Member who has had a real world experience 
with this issue, being a former police chief of Raleigh, NC.
  (Mr. HEINEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HEINEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Blute-
Lipinski-Johnson amendment. As a former police chief I can tell you 
that we need to crack down on the number of welfare recipients who 
become fugitive felons and are now collecting welfare benefits at the 
expense of the American taxpayer.
  Today there are almost 400,000 fugitive warrants on file at the 
National Crime Information Center--and it is estimated that one-third 
of those felons are receiving public assistance.
  What's even worse is that law enforcement officers are prevented by 
privacy laws and regulations from tracking down these wanted felons.
  Welfare and Social Security offices are prevented from telling law 
enforcement officials the whereabouts of a felon--even though they are 
sending him or her a Government check every month.
  This is outrageous and an affront to the American taxpayer. We need 
to crack down on this kind of waste and abuse of our current welfare 
system--and help our law enforcement officials. This amendment will 
correct this ridiculous situation.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Blute-Lipinski-Johnson amendment 
and I compliment my friend from Massachusetts for offering this 
amendment.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah].
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Pennsylvania State Legislature in 
1987, I sponsored the Employment Opportunities Act. Democrats and 
Republicans got together in Pennsylvania and created a joint job 
training initiative and moved 200,000 people off of the welfare rolls, 
not by punishing them but by providing job training and child care, and 
transportation subsidies so they could get to a multitude of training 
programs and they work. We do not have to be mean-spirited if we want 
to help Americans by moving them toward self-sufficiency. It has worked 
in a number of States.
  It is unfortunate that the Republican majority thinks that the 
American people really do not understand. We have 9 million children on 
welfare, and they come to the floor talking about one set of abuses in 
Chicago with 19 children in which someone was not doing the right thing 
with the welfare check. Millions of families are doing what they should 
do with a welfare check, and that is helping children meet their needs 
every day and working and preparing for the moment in which they can be 
self-sufficient again in this land. We should be doing as much here in 
the U.S. Congress.
  The Preamble to the Constitution says it is our responsibility to 
promote the general welfare. This majority today in this Congress is 
not moving to promote the general welfare. It is really moving to pull 
the carpet up from under millions of Americans who need the help so one 
day they can be in a position to be tax producers rather than 
recipients of subsidies from the Government.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, under the rule I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It seems we always get distracted from the debate on the amendment at 
hand. But I must say the gentleman who just spoke in the well spoke of 
local answers to problems, and then he turns right around and says but 
do not give the States and the local communities more opportunity to do 
the kind of constructive job that he just spoke to.
  Ironic, because our plan does precisely that. It puts more resources 
in the hands of the communities and the States where real success can 
occur, not where you have payment. And one thing my friend from New 
York forgot to mention is what are we doing here; we are cutting off 
Federal bureaucrats. We forget to use them in his litany and yes, we 
are doing that and we are creating more flexibility.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Massachusetts seek to yield his 
last one-half minute?
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of our time to the 
gentleman from Chattanooga, TN [Mr. Wamp].
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Wamp].
  (Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Blute] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, to keep convicted felons from receiving Government 
welfare benefits is through my eyes a no-brainer. This amendment will 
fix an injustice in the current system that I believe no one wants.
  Mr. Chairman, no matter what side of the debate you fall on, I think 
you will agree that welfare dollars should not be spent on criminals, 
should not be spent on criminals who have successfully avoided the law. 
This is not the type of success we want to reward.
  While you may agree this is wrong, the gentlewoman from Texas thinks 
this does not happen very much. It is an exception that is costing the 
taxpayers an estimated $1 billion annually.
  [[Page H3622]] The American people are frustrated. Mr. Chairman, I 
urge my colleagues to support this amendment and close a disgusting 
loophole in the welfare bureaucracy.
  Two hundred years ago Benjamin Franklin said:

       I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in my opinion 
     of the means. I think the best way of doing good for the poor 
     is not making them easy in poverty but leading them or 
     driving them out.

  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire how much time is remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Ford] has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] has 3\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, do we reserve the right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Tennessee has the right to close.
                              {time}  1615

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Blute].
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for 
yielding and commend him for his great work on this welfare reform 
bill.
  We all know our welfare system is broken, that it needs to be fixed, 
that it creates dependency, victimization, and ultimately despair 
amongst our citizens, and we need to change that, and we need to 
tighten up the welfare system so it does what it is supposed to do.
  And one of those things should not be giving welfare benefits to 
convicted felons who are on the lam from the law. I have with me a 
number of letters from the parole board in my State where they have 
been rejected from getting information from social welfare agencies on 
the whereabouts of felons that the parole board is looking for.
  This is a system that is broken. It is wrong. It should not happen.
  I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to adopt this 
amendment, and let us restore some sanity to our welfare system.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. McDermott], a very distinguished spokesman on welfare 
reform in this Nation, one who has been very active in this debate.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, the fundamental difference between the 
Democrat and the Republican approach to what we do about welfare is 
what you believe is the fundamental problem. If you beat on people, 
they will go to work; that is what Republicans believe.
  Now, if this bill were in effect in 1982 when Ronald Reagan, and we 
had that big sweep and we were close to the wall, the unemployment rate 
in the State of Washington was 12.1 percent. The national unemployment 
rate was 9.6 percent. The Bureau of Labor Statistics says the 
underemployment rate in the country at that time was 16.5 percent, and 
in the State of Washington it was 20 percent. That includes those 
people who were involuntarily working part-time and discouraged 
workers.
  Now, when you say you are going to take a 16-year-old kid and drive 
them out into the street by taking away the money for their kid and 
that somehow they are going to magically find a job when there is 20 
percent of the people unemployed or underemployed in the State of 
Washington, you simply live in a dream world.
  This is a bad bill.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, we have got to try to separate rhetoric from fact in 
this debate. It is very difficult to do.
  When we talk about the supposed reductions in whether WIC or school 
lunches or whatever it might be, we are not talking about cuts at all. 
We are talking about increases of dollars based on the current level.
  But from the Democrat side of the aisle, they think only Federal 
entitlement programs dictated in a straitjacket with Federal 
bureaucrats administering with pounds and pounds of regulations are the 
only way that you get help to people who need help. Just the reverse.
  And as far as work habits or work requirements are concerned, you can 
go to Massachusetts or Virginia, and you can go to States today that 
are putting people on work as a condition of welfare within 60 days. 
That is what we want all of the States to be able to do, and we want to 
get through with this waiver process and these pounds of papers that 
have to be filed that take money away from really going to those who 
need help.
  That is why we have got an outstanding welfare reform approach, and 
it is why the Democrat substitutes will not do the job.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, no one wants to see fugitives receive welfare in this 
country. You know, it is really amazing to see what the Republicans are 
doing and saying about children in this country. The Los Angeles 
opinion page on Sunday said that: ``Congressional Driveby: Gang-bangers 
Kill Innocent Kids. Republicans Just Kill Programs To Help Kids.'' And 
to quote the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], who is the chairman of 
the subcommittee, and the source is the Congressional Record of March 
22, he said, ``We are talking about children you would not want to 
leave your cat with over the weekend,'' or you hear what the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], who serves on the 
Committee on Ways and Means, says, ``It is not hard to clothe your 
kids, folks. Just go to the secondhand store to do so.''
  The Republicans are so mean to kids in this welfare reform package 
just for the sole purpose of giving the well-to-do rich of this Nation 
a huge tax cut.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FORD. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. HEFNER. I do not think felons should get welfare.
  But the numbers just do not add up, Mr. Chairman. If you are going to 
get $69 billion over 5 years to pay for a tax cut, somebody is going to 
get cut.
  Bureaucrats are bureaucrats whether in North Carolina or Washington, 
DC, or North Dakota or wherever they are. You are not cutting out 
bureaucrats. You are going to cut $69 billion worth of benefits to the 
most vulnerable people in these United States to give a tax cut to the 
wealthiest people in this country, and that is what you said in your 
contract, and that is what you are trying to live up to. So why not 
brag about it?
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Blute].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 30 printed 
in House Report 104-85.
                    amendment offered by mr. salmon

  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Salmon: Page 387, after line 10, 
     insert the following:

     SEC. 768. LIENS.

       Section 466(a)(4) (42 U.S.C. 666(a)(4)) is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(4) Procedures under which--
       ``(A) liens arise by operation of law against real and 
     personal property for amounts of overdue support owed by an 
     absent parent who resides or owns property in the State; and
       ``(B) the State accords full faith and credit to liens 
     described in subparagraph (A) arising in another State, 
     without registration of the underlying order.''.
       Amend the table of contents accordingly.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. 
Salmon] will be recognized for 10 minutes, and a Member opposed will be 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  Does the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Ford] seek the time in 
opposition?
  Mr. FORD. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Ford] will be 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Salmon].
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, delinquent parents can no longer be allowed to shirk 
their responsibilities and expect the Government to act in their place. 
That is unfair to the child. It is unfair to the taxpayer. It is time 
we sent a message if you bring a child into this world that you are 
going to care for it. This is the 
 [[Page H3623]] compassionate and sensible thing to do for our Nation's 
children.
  In child support cases, liens are not used by States to their full 
potential. Upon locating property, many caseworkers still prepare 
individual liens and seek judicial approval for each case. This is a 
slow and ineffective process, and our Nation's children are the ones 
that are paying for it.
  Our amendment makes it easier for States to collect or for States to 
issue liens to collect past-due support and to help each other collect 
child support debts by providing that child support liens are 
enforceable across State lines without going to court again unless 
contested. Past-due support in all cases already becomes a judgment by 
operation of law.
  Many States support this amendment. In fact, just about every State 
we have talked to wants this amendment. This is not an unfunded 
mandate. In fact, the States will save money by this measure, and the 
Nation's children will benefit.
  America cannot work unless its citizens take more responsibility for 
their own actions. It is time that parents fulfill not only their own 
emotional but also their financial obligations to their children. We 
can at least address the financial obligations in this body.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment has widespread support from the national 
child support enforcement advocates. Marilyn Smith, president of the 
National Child Support Enforcement Association, has campaigned 
tirelessly for the reforms in this amendment, and Jerri Jensen, 
president and founder of Aces, whose story was told this week in the TV 
movie ``Abandoned and Deceived,'' says that irresponsible parents 
should not be able to profit from selling out-of-state property while 
their children suffer due to lack of court-ordered child support.
  Child support enforcement is a vital component of welfare reform. 
Delinquent parents can no longer be allowed to shirk their 
responsibilities and expect the Government to act in their place. That 
is unfair to the child, and unfair to the taxpayer. It is time we sent 
the message that if you bring a child into this world, you must care 
for it. This is the compassionate and sensible thing to do for our 
Nation's children.
  The national collection rate of child support payments is abysmal. 
Regularly received collections average 18 percent in the United States. 
In my State, Arizona, the rate is only 10 percent, and even in the best 
States it reaches only as high as 27 percent. For this reason we have 
decided to adopt child support enforcement measures as part of the 
Welfare Reform legislation we promised in our Contract With America. 
The States will achieve a better collection rate though these 
provisions and thus lower costs to the States and Federal Government, 
who are left to provide the full financial care for children of 
delinquent parents.
  States are already required to use liens to collect past-due support 
but do not use this remedy to its full potential. Upon locating 
property, they prepare individual liens and must go back to court for 
each case, which is burdensome and slows the process significantly. 
Thus deadbeat parents can indulge in luxury items such as boats and 
fancy cars, buy real estate, make investments, etc., while their 
children are left to endure life's hardships with not only the 
emotional, but also the financial support of only one parent. Most 
often the mothers are left with this heavy burden, and are forced to 
look to the State and Federal Government for a helping hand. Abandoning 
parental responsibility can no longer be tolerated if this country is 
to survive, and the Government should not bear the burden of deadbeats 
anymore.
  The Salmon-Waldholtz-Torkildsen amendment is a simple, 
straightforward approach to the problems States are currently 
experiencing in collecting past-due support. It states that liens will 
arise by operation of law, which means that processing the thousands of 
delinquent cases will be much easier and cheaper by avoiding return 
visits to court. For example, since 1992, Massachusetts has issued 
administrative liens in every case where a noncustodial parent owed 
more than $500--liens to more than 90,000 child support delinquents 
with property as varied as workman's compensation claims, wages, bank 
accounts, and real estate. All were handled by computer on a wholesale 
rather than retail basis, collecting more than $13 million.
  Not only has the collection process been difficult within a State, it 
is even more so when delinquent parents cross State lines to thwart 
efforts to track them down and collect. Although 30 percent of all 
child support cases are interstate, only 10 percent of all dollars 
collected originate from out-of-State. For example, if a deadbeat dad 
from Arizona moves to Utah to avoid supporting his children, currently 
it is extremely difficult to recover the money he owes across State 
lines. Under our amendment, if the lien is sent to another State to 
attach property owned in that State, it can be filed by the State 
agency in the second State without going to court to get accepted as a 
lien issued in that State. Again, this simplifies the process and thus 
it will be vastly easier for States to collect even across State lines. 
Arizona, Massachusetts, and Utah have come out in support of this 
amendment and other States have expressed great interest in such 
procedural changes.
  The sections of the welfare reform bill that were reported out of the 
Committee on Ways and Means--primarily those sections dealing with 
child support enforcement reform--go far in solving the collection 
problems experienced at the State level. However, the Salmon-Waldholtz-
Torkildsen amendment is fundamental to the successful reform of the 
system, according to child support associations and State agencies 
across the Nation. The National Child Support Enforcement Association, 
a leader is the reform movement, has called this amendment the basis 
for every other enforcement mechanism in this legislation. Time is of 
the essence in our efforts to end the cycle of dependency while 
ensuring the well-being of our children.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Neal], one of the distinguished members of the 
Committee on Ways and Means and who handled an amendment similar to 
this, if not the same amendment, before the committee.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I think one of the most 
significant options in this debate has been how a well-organized 
minority can, indeed, move the majority. I remind the listeners today 
and the viewing audience that there was no child support initiative 
offered by the Republican majority in this House until we convinced 
them that there should have been a strong child support component. I 
offered a similar amendment to this during the Ways and Means markup, 
and it was turned down on a party-line vote.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen], to his credit, had 
contacted my office and asked me to offer this amendment. It has the 
support of Bill Clinton and Bill Weld. I think that this goes to the 
heart of personal responsibility, paying for the children that you 
have.
  During the Ways and Means Committee markup I offered an amendment to 
the child support enforcement title to include the use administrative 
liens to collect past-due child support. This amendment failed on a 
party line veto.
  Now this amendment has bipartisan support. Congressman Salmon and 
Congresswoman Waldhotz are cosponsors of this amendment. This amendment 
is something both President Clinton and Governor Weld agree upon.
  This is the type of amendment which should have bipartisan support. 
Under current law, a child support payment becomes a judgment by 
operation of law as it becomes due and unpaid and entitled to full 
faith and credit. This provision takes existing law one step further 
and allows States in interstate cases to move and to levy and seize 
assets without registering the underlying order in the sister States, 
unless the lien is contested on grounds of mistake of fact. Because the 
lien arises by operation of law, unlike current practice, which is 
``case-by-case.'' It gives similar treatment in interstate cases to 
liens as has been already accorded to interstate income withholding 
order since 1984. An estimated one third of delinquent obligors own 
property eligible for a lien. With approximately 3.5 million delinquent 
support cases nationwide, that equals a million or more liens, easy to 
issue and transmit by computer, impossible to write by and send by 
hand.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. McCrery].
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I want to commend the gentleman from Massachusetts for his efforts in 
committee and here on the floor to adopt this. As I told him during the 
committee, it was new to me. I just had to look at it, and a number of 
us have, and we are going to support it.

[[Page H3624]]

  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Neal], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana 
[Mr. McCrery]. I think that the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. McCrery] 
is an example of how this bill could have been accomplished in a 
bipartisan manner. From day 1, he indicated a willingness to work with 
the minority party to get a good, sound bill done, and his mind was 
always open in this debate.
  I thank the gentleman for his kind words.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen].
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Chairman, nearly 2 years ago, a constituent of 
mine--Susan Brotchie, a divorced mother and president of Advocates for 
Better Child Support--met with me and requested that I work on 
legislation to address the issue of delinquent parents hiding their 
assets in real property, and thus avoiding child support payments. Out 
of that meeting was born H.R. 1029 and the substance of this amendment.
  Let us face it. Child support enforcement will only be truly 
effective if we enforce cases across State lines. It is also important 
that we reduce the burden placed on parents left with little or no 
means of support. It is cost prohibitive for a parent whose children 
need support to chase a delinquent parent from State to State, hire 
lawyers, and wade through multiple State judicial systems.
  This amendment attacks the interstate problem at its core by allowing 
States to give full faith and credit to liens placed in other States. 
It saves Federal and State taxpayer money, while leaving in tact all 
State enforcement procedures. This amendment improves existing law; it 
does not create new, unfunded mandates on the States.
  My home State of Massachusetts remains a leader in the fight to make 
delinquent parents accountable. Since 1992, Massachusetts has issued 
administrative liens in every case where a parent owed more than $500. 
Massachusetts also set up reciprocal agreements with neighboring 
States, so that liens placed in Massachusetts are given full faith and 
credit in Vermont. These reforms have resulted in a 29-percent increase 
in child support collections in the last 3 years--a compliance rate 
that has risen from 51 to 60 percent--and 10,000 more families 
receiving support. Expanding this model nationwide would boost the rate 
of compliance in interstate cases up to 70 percent.
  By not passing this amendment, we are endorsing the safe havens that 
currently exist for parents who own property in other States. This 
Congress must send a powerful message to delinquent parents: You can no 
longer enjoy the benefits of property and luxuries in other States and 
not fulfill your fundamental commitment to our children.
  Welfare reform will only be complete if we boost compliance in 
interstate cases. Fewer children and single parents will turn to public 
assistance, making this amendment is win-win-win situation--a win for 
children, a win for custodial parents, and a win for taxpayers.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan], who is a former prosecutor.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. This 
is a actually a very, very good amendment to a very bad bill.
  We have been doing a lousy job in this country of holding people 
accountable when they have children. Mr. Chairman, as a prosecutor in 
Massachusetts, I prosecuted a case, the first criminal enforcement case 
in child support in Massachusetts under the revised statute. It was a 
defendant who was married, lived in Lowell, MA. This defendant took off 
to New York. He had 7 children at home. The bank began foreclosure 
procedures because the wife could not make payments. He was living in 
New York City, on 52d Street, and he had a place in the Caribbean.
  The child support enforcement division in Massachusetts could not get 
at any of the assets.
  We could do a much, much better job of collecting child support. 
State agencies do not have the ability to do long-arm statutes, go out 
and collect these assets. We could save $32 to $35 billion if we could 
just collect child support.
  By the way, 90 percent of the money that is owed in child support in 
this country is men who owe women child support. I cannot help but 
think that if 90 percent of the money was women who owed men, this 
system would have found out a way to collect these payments.
  This bill is part of a bill I supported and sponsored. It is long 
overdue. I would hope we could get something done to increase the 
effort to hold people accountable when they have children. We are doing 
a lousy job at it now.
  Massachusetts, as my colleague indicated, is a leader in this area.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.).
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
want to extend my congratulations to our colleague, the gentleman from 
Arizona. This is a wonderful amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I speak now as the first person back 10 years ago who 
brought the issue of child support, and the national disgrace it had 
become, before our Congress.
  We have had two reforms. I hope this third reform that is implicit in 
this bill--because child support enforcement is welfare reform--that 
is, his amendment, we will be recognizing that no child support system 
is any better than the individual States. So we have reached into the 
States. This is an interstate system, and we have to have reciprocity.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, before I yield additional time, in order to 
extend debate, as the designee of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Gibbons], I move to strike the last word and ask unanimous consent to 
merge that additional time with the time I currently control.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Tennessee?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Nadler].
  Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment which requires the 
States to adopt procedures under which liens may be imposed 
automatically against the property of persons who are delinquent in 
child support payments in another State, and also of the next amendment 
providing for suspension of drivers and professional licenses for child 
support delinquencies.
  The nonpayment of child support is an urgent public crisis that 
compromises the economic security of a very large number of American 
children and families. In 1994, more than half the children living in 
single-parent families were poor, and the majority, the large majority 
of them were in families where the child support payments were 
delinquent.
  Before I came to this House, I was the author of bills in the New 
York State Legislature which allowed for liens to be placed against the 
property of persons who were delinquent in their child support payments 
and which provided for suspension of drivers and professional licenses 
of delinquent payors.
  The lien bill passed and resulted in a large increase in child 
support collections in New York.
  The amendments before us today would improve the collection of child 
support in an area where we have serious collection difficulties, 
interstate collections. Interstate child support cases comprise 30 
percent of all child support cases and a very large fraction of the 
failures of collection.
  The effective child support enforcement helps many single-parent 
families make the move to independence, self-reliance. This approach 
has succeeded in New York, and it will improve the lives of single 
parents and their children across the country.
  This amendment will let absent parents know we are serious about 
collecting due child support. It will contribute to improving the 
economic conditions of children and families and will 
 [[Page H3625]] lessen the number of families forced to go on welfare 
to survive.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the next amendment 
as two very worthy amendments to what is, unfortunately, a very bad 
bill but which will improve that bill significantly.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Weller].
  (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WELLER. I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding this time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Salmon-Waldholtz-
Torkildsen amendment, which further strengthens the essential child 
support enforcement provisions contained in the ``Personal 
Responsibility Act,'' our Republican welfare reform initiative.
  It is unconscionable that 30 percent of dead-beat parents are able to 
shirk their responsibilities to their children because they reside in a 
different State than their children. In fact, in Illinois, little 
children were stiffed to the tune of $176.1 million in 1994 due to 
dead-beat parents who refused to meet their responsibility to their own 
flesh and blood. This has got to stop.
  Provisions in H.R. 4 go a long way toward solving this problem, and 
this amendment works hand-in-hand with these improvements by providing 
a simple, straightforward method of processing interstate collection. 
It simply allows liens on personal property filed in one State to be 
honored in a second State without having to go back to court, thereby 
avoiding unnecessary delays and judicial red-tape. It is better for the 
child and the taxpayer.
  Abandoning parental responsibility can no longer be tolerated--and 
the Personal Responsibility Act, with this amendment, brings us one 
step closer to providing America's children with the inherent parental 
support they need and deserve.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Salmon] has 4 minutes 
remaining and the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Ford] has 9 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Meek].
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, the debate on this floor regarding welfare reform has 
been, in my opinion, as far from what is real in the real world as 
anything I have ever seen. I have heard what a lot of you call 
rhetoric. I have heard a lot of theoretical aspirations from many of 
you.
  Many of you would not know a welfare mother if you saw her. Not only 
would you not know her, but you do not know how they live. You do not 
know what it takes to feed their children. You do not know what it 
takes to find a job.
  You talk about getting jobs. Leaving the jobs out of the bill and not 
having a full track to find a job, it is not easy to find a job. Most 
people on welfare will not work. I have not seen in any of these bills 
any way that would lead to a job.
  So all we are talking about here is vapor, vapor that does not really 
go any place. And we are looking at children in a very cruel way.
  There is no mistake about it. Our welfare system needs to be 
improved. We all know that. But do we have to improve it by taking food 
out of children's mouths? Do we have to improve it by taking away the 
welfare help we are giving States now? You are talking about States' 
rights, but you are not giving them the autonomy they need. On the one 
hand you say here is autonomy; on the other hand you take away the 
money. Does that make sense? It does not work. If you want the States 
to do something with welfare reform, then give them the same amount of 
money you gave them before.
  I stand here today to say to you that all of this is a bunch of 
baloney. It does not lead down to the neighborhoods where the people 
are poor and need help. All this about wearing second-hand clothes, 
where have you heard of such a mess before? Wearing second-hand 
clothes? It goes to show you where the mindset is. How can you make an 
amendment if you do not have the right mindset?
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Clement].
  Mr. CLEMENT. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, once you get past all the rhetoric, you are left with 
just the facts. And the facts are that H.R. 4 does not fund its 
requirements.
  Translation--H.R. 4 passes on a huge unfundated mandate to States, 
cities, counties and localities.
  Just yesterday President Clinton signed the unfunded mandate 
legislation into law. During the debate and in the days which have 
passed since we sent this legislation on, many on the other side have 
been beating their chest and talking about how they saved our States, 
cities, and American taxpayers from the evils of the Federal 
Government. And now, before the President's signature is even dry we 
are being asked to support the mother of all unfunded mandates.
  But do not just take my word for it. A letter from the United States 
Conference of Mayors ``* * * H.R. 4 will further strain local budgets. 
It basically shifts costs our way. We can expect general assistance 
expenditures to skyrocket in those states which provide it * * *''.
  The League of Cities had this to say about H.R. 4, ``The bill could 
be one of the greatest mandates ever imposed upon our communities.''
  And from a report issued today by the Congressional Budget Office on 
H.R. 4, ``the literature on welfare-to-work programs, as well as the 
experience with the JOBS program indicates that States are unlikely to 
obtain such high rates of participation.'' And June O'Neil, the 
Director who was recently installed by the Republican leadership said 
that ``given what is known about how these programs work, I was 
comfortable signing'' the report. ``We did this totally based on the 
evidence.''
  Support the only responsible welfare reform bill. Protect your States 
and cities. Support the Deal substitute.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I am a little confused. I have not found 
that the gentlewoman from Florida or the gentleman from Tennessee have 
been--they have been going on and on--and I do not find any of this 
information in the Salmon-Waldholtz-Torkildsen amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would inform the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. 
Salmon] that the Chair has been reasonably lenient because about 75 
percent of the conversation has not been on the appropriate amendment.
  Mr. SALMON. I am baffled. We seek child support enforcement.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Scarborough].
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I will actually speak on the Salmon amendment. I am a 
strong supporter of it. I have been listening to this debate for a 
week, ``Help the children, the children, the children; you are mean-
spirited.'' All you talk about is children, children. We finally have a 
bill before us, an amendment that will help children without increasing 
the Federal bureaucracy. It is about time. We have deadbeat dads going 
from State to State, running away from child enforcement authority, and 
here is a great idea. We can help children without funding a huge 
bureaucracy. The argument all week has been, ``You have got to vote 
more money, throw more money at a problem that we have not been able to 
solve for the past 30 years, by making bureaucracies larger. And if you 
are not for huge bureaucracies, then you are against children.'' That 
is garbage, and everybody here knows it is garbage.
  That is the great thing about the Salmon amendment: It finally helps 
us do it without increasing the size of bureaucracy.
  Let us cut down on deadbeat dads running away from their 
responsibility, and do it without creating a huge Federal bureaucracy.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of debate I yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra].
  Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for yielding the 
1\1/2\ minutes.
  [[Page H3626]] Mr. Chairman, we would like to discuss just this one 
particular amendment. The problem is that on a lot of these small 
amendments that we see, when you take a look at the entire bill, what 
we have is a beast. And whether you put lipstick on it or not, it is 
still an ugly beast. It is difficult to talk just about one little 
aspect of this entire debate when the beast is out there hovering over 
your shoulders.
  What we find in this entire debate is the fact that we are talking 
about cuts, cuts to kids, cuts to school lunch programs. And for what? 
We found out very clearly in an amendment that passed yesterday. These 
are cuts on kids, cuts on school lunch programs so that we could pay 
for cuts for tax breaks, cuts for the wealthy. That is what we are 
driving toward.
  Billions of dollars will be saved, saved by cutting from kids and 
cutting from school lunch so we can send it over to give tax breaks for 
the wealthy. That is what this is all about. That is our concern.
  But we have to talk about this entire legislation, not just about one 
particular amendment, because this is going to affect the entire 
country, not one individual.
  So let us remember, when we start voting on these particular 
amendments, whether you are voting to pass it or not, you cannot 
improve the looks of a beast by putting some lipstick on it. I hope 
that we understand that, ultimately, the folks who are going to suffer 
at the hands of this beast are not the folks in this room, not the 
people that got elected, but the people who voted to elect us to 
office. That is, the children and the families who will suffer because 
school lunch programs will not be there and day care will not be 
there--all because Republicans wanted to give tax cuts to the rich.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, let me inquire as to how much time the 
Democrats would have and whether or not we reserve the right to close 
on this particular issue.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Ford] has the right 
to close, and he has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to also know whether or not my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle will request the additional 5 
minutes and if so, how will we handle that in the closing?
  Mr. SALMON. Yes, we will request the additional 5 minutes.
  Mr. FORD. Then I will yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, as the designated 
representative for Mr. Archer, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is entitled to 5 minutes on his pro forma 
amendment and, without objection, may control that time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. I thank the Chair, and I yield to the 
gentleman.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I am a little bit baffled. It seems that we are hearing 
that this amendment somehow benefits the rich. I am getting a little 
bit confused. Actually this amendment hurts the rich deadbeat dads and 
it helps the children that are not getting their child support, and I 
would really appreciate if we can understand that cogent point and stay 
on point.
  I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, how this amendment came 
about. It did come up in the Committee on Ways and Means. It was not 
successful. I think it should have been there. I will agree that it 
should be a bipartisan effort, and I am happy to say I believe now it 
is. The gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz] and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen] and I put our heads together and came up 
with this idea. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen] has 
been working on this issue for the last couple of years, and it is an 
important issue, not only to American families, but children 
everywhere.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would like to inquire from the gentleman from 
Texas, [Mr. Sam Johnson] whether he is going to control the 5 minutes 
or if he is yielding the control of the 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. I will maintain control of the time, Mr. 
Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland 
[Mrs. Morella].
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I just think that this amendment makes a 
great deal of sense. Here we are talking about child support 
enforcement, and I can tell my colleagues that for instance in my State 
of Maryland $500 million plus is in arrears, and only $300 million has 
been aid.
  I say to my colleagues, Now, if you're going to have this amendment 
in order, this means that, if somebody from Maryland has a deadbeat 
parent who may be in Florida in a marvelous palazzo which has been 
purchased, this will allow her to be able to put a lien, have a lien 
put on, that property in order to help to support the children that 
have been parented by both of them.
  I think it makes a great deal of sense. Current law allows the 
imposition of liens by processing orders through the judicial system, 
but it is really a very difficult, if not impossible, process for an 
out-of-State parent to utilize. So this bill would eliminate such a 
system. It would order states to give full faith and credit to any lien 
imposed by another State in the pursuit of child support collection. 
When we cannot collect child support by utilizing all the means that we 
have available, and this is a means that is available, then taxpayers 
pay, and children, children, suffer.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I certainly urge strong support of this amendment.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Blute].
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the authors of this 
amendment, including my colleague from Massachusetts. Our State has 
taken the lead on this issue. Governor Weld and his Lieutenant Governor 
Salucci believe this is absolutely essential to any welfare reform, 
but, speaking of all the States, I say to my colleagues, If you look 
around this country, and look at Massachusetts, and Wisconsin, State 
after State have engaged in stronger welfare reform than we're talking 
about here. The States are way ahead of this Congress in tightening up 
and changing this welfare system, and we better get our act together 
here, and pass this amendment and pass this bill so we can do what we 
said we're going to do, and reform our welfare system and catch up to 
all those State governments out there.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz].
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment designed to help 
make parents meet their moral and legal responsibility to support their 
children. In our mobile society, many parents evade their child support 
obligations simply by moving to another State. Thirty percent of 
delinquent child support cases involve parents who have moved to 
another State, while the families they left behind suffer.
  The bill we are debating today includes strong new measures to 
enforce child support orders and track down deadbeat parents. But, we 
can make a good provision even better with this amendment.
  The Salmon-Waldholtz-Torkildsen amendment will help ensure that when 
a State issues a child support order, the debt can be collected 
regardless of where the noncustodial parent lives or owns property. 
This amendment streamlines the process of collecting past due child 
support by allowing liens to attached to property automatically, 
without registration of the original child support order in the State 
in which the deadbeat parents' property is located. All 50 States allow 
some sort of lien to arise automatically, by operation of law. This 
amendment will not require States to significantly chance their laws, 
but does require that liens for past due child support be accorded this 
most simplified kind of enforcement to avoid the expense and time of 
registering liens in various jurisdictions.
  The Salmon-Waldholtz-Torkildsen amendment is not an unfunded mandate 
and it does not alter State law regarding lien priority. The amendment 
 [[Page H3627]] does not impose additional costs on the States. What it 
does do, is simplify the procedure for enforcing valid child support 
orders and does away with the current incentive for irresponsible 
parents to move out of State to try to dodge their obligations.
  The bill is supported by the National Child Support Enforcement 
Association, the Association for Children for Enforcement of Support, 
and by my home State of Utah which is well-known for objecting to 
Federal mandates.
  Nothing in our society is more simple than a parent's duty to support 
their child. This simple amendment will make it easier to enforce that 
duty against parents who ignore it.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Salmon-Waldholtz-Torkildsen 
amendment.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 20 seconds to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Hefner].
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman on an 
excellent, excellent amendment. I wish he had had more input into this 
very bad bill, but I support it strongly. I think it is the one bright 
spot in this terrible bill.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a good amendment, but, as Ann 
Richards, Governor of Texas, said, ``Just because you dress up a pig, 
that doesn't mean it still isn't a pig,'' and that is what this bill 
is.
  I think we are going to make the same mistake that this Congress made 
a long time ago under President Nixon. President Nixon worked hard. He 
got through this House on a bipartisan basis a sweeping welfare reform 
bill, and then, when it went to the Senate, it got killed because it 
was crunched between extreme conservatives on one side and extreme 
liberals on the other side. And so this country went for years without 
welfare reform.
  Now I am afraid we are going to see the same thing. I think we are 
seeing in this House the chances of this bill becoming law being 
destroyed by the extremism of those who are supporting the committee 
Republican bill. I do not think the public wants us to pursue ideology. 
I do no think they want us to pursue our pet theory of social 
engineering. I think the public wants us to focus on how to move people 
on welfare to work; that ought to be the sole question. They want to 
know what works in the real world.
  It seems to me that the crucial difference between the Deal amendment 
and the base bill which we are debating is that the Deal amendment is 
more real. It deals with real world situations. It will move more 
people into the world of work. The committee bill tries to do that on 
the cheap. It is not going to work. It will fail the basic 
responsibility that we have to the American people.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I would urge us to support the Deal amendment when 
we get the opportunity.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump].
  (Mr. STUMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my concern over title VII 
subtitle G section 459(h)(1)(A)(ii)(V) of H.R. 1214, which would permit 
garnishment of veterans disability compensation. While I support the 
bill, I oppose the particular provisions regarding garnishment of VA 
disability compensation.
  Mr. Chairman, there is an alternative to garnishment. VA has long had 
a process known as apportionment, which accomplishes essentially the 
same result as garnishment. As directed by 38 CFR 3.451, VA can 
apportion disability benefits by considering the:

       Amount of VA benefits payable; other resources and income 
     of the veteran and those dependents in whose behalf 
     apportionment is claimed; and special needs of the veterans, 
     his or her dependents, and the apportionment claimants. The 
     amount apportioned should generally be consistent with the 
     total number of dependents involved. Ordinarily, 
     apportionment of more than 50 percent of the veterans benefit 
     would constitute undo hardship--on the veteran, while 
     apportionment of less than 20 percent of the benefits would 
     not provide a reasonable amount for any apportionee.

  I would like to work with my distinguished colleague, Mr. Archer, 
chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, to ensure the interests of 
the disabled veterans and their dependents are protected. As chairman 
of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I intend to review VA's 
apportionment authority under chapter 53 of title 38.
  There is a good reason to retain the current method of apportioning 
VA disability pay. That is the presence of a disability which impairs 
the earning power of the veteran. There is an agency which is best 
suited to judge the fairness of an application for apportionment; an 
agency with the most knowledge of the case, and that is the VA.
  Children of disabled veterans do not suffer because the authorities 
are unable to locate the veteran to enforce child support or alimony 
orders. A disabled veteran who receives a disability benefit must have 
a mailing address.
  There is a long history of special treatment of disability payments 
to veterans. They are tax-exempt. They have generally been safe from 
garnishment.
  I believe disabled veterans should meet their parental obligations 
whenever they are financially able to do so.
  In 1994, there were approximately 22,729 cases in which VA 
apportioned compensation or pension benefits.
  There is a system in place--the VA and its authority to apportion. I 
hope my concerns can be addressed as this measure moves through the 
Senate and into conference.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Bartlett].
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, from the other side of the 
aisle we have heard a lot of comments during the debate on this 
amendment about taking food out of the mouths of children. I would just 
like to observe that this amendment, colleagues, does exactly the 
opposite of that. It puts food in the mouths of children because this 
is an amendment that has to do with parental responsibility, with 
deadbeat dads and occasionally, perhaps, a deadbeat mom. But this is a 
bill that does exactly the opposite of what they are accusing it of not 
doing. This amendment puts food in the mouths of children, and the 
debate during this time ought to be focused on this amendment. I am 
very pleased that the last two speakers on that side of the aisle did 
admit, after all of the diatribe before, that this, in fact, was a good 
amendment and should be supported, and I support it, too.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado [Mr. Schroeder].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that we are 
glad these amendments are bringing this bill up to the level of the 
Deal bill, and that is all we are talking about here.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, 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.)
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman H.R. 4 is a big failure. H.R. 4 
does not create a single job. It is reform in name only. It cuts the 
school lunch program. It cuts resources for child care. It cuts health 
care. It cuts transportation. It cuts the tools that make a difference 
in whether someone keeps a stable job or ends up back on welfare.
  Haste makes waste. Republicans are in a hurry to pay for the tax 
breaks for the rich at the expense of hungry children, the elderly and 
veterans. Once the sound bites are over, the American people will 
realize that the contract ``with'' is a contract ``on.''
  Shame, shame, shame, Republican shame.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Mink substitute which 
will transform the AFDC program into a program that will really move 
people from welfare to work.
  The Mink substitute significantly increases the funding for 
education, job training, employment services, and child care for 
welfare recipients. These components are essential to any program to 
help people move into the work force. This amendment helps to make sure 
that States move people off of welfare and into real jobs.
  H.R. 4 is a bad bill. It is a mean-spirited bill because it does not 
provide the tools needed to help people work and lift themselves out of 
poverty. Yes, we need real reform that helps people get off welfare for 
good and helps them to take care of their own families. But H.R. 4 does 
not create a single job. It repeals the main job training program even 
though education and job training are the keys off welfare. This bill 
is a big failure; it is reform in name only:
  It cuts resources for child care.
  It cuts health care.
  It cuts transportation.
  [[Page H3628]] It cuts the tools that make the difference in whether 
someone keeps a stable job or ends up back on welfare.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Mink substitute to improve this 
bad bill that the majority has shamelessly rushed through the House.
  Shame, shame, shame on the Republicans.
  The Republican bill is just part of a bigger GOP plan to rush bad 
legislation through so Americans won't see the fine print in the 
Contract on America.
  Haste makes waste. Republicans are in too much of a hurry to pay for 
tax breaks for the rich at the expense of hungry children, the elderly, 
and veterans. Once the sound bites are over, the American public will 
realize that this slash and burn lawmaking will only hurt the most 
vulnerable in America.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Sam 
Johnson, for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out for 
starters that Ann Richards is the ex-Governor of Texas. I believe Mr. 
George Bush is the Governor down there now by acclamation.
  I might add that the Deal bill, which my colleagues have been talking 
about at length all day, is really the Clinton deal, phony deal, bill. 
Let me just say that it does not talk to any of the issues that we have 
been discussing. Our bill is totally more substantive than that. It 
talks to fugitives that are in food stamps. It talks to the food 
stamps. It talks to the kids.
  Mr. Chairman, with the amendments we have we have a far stronger bill 
than the Deal bill, the Clinton deal, phony deal, bill ever thought of 
being. As a matter of fact, the Clinton deal is an unfunded mandate on 
the States. Medicaid transitional assistance is increased from 1 year 
to 2 years. States must provide additional Medicaid benefits which, 
according to CBO, the Deal bill, the Clinton deal, phony deal, bill 
will cost the States an additional $1.5 billion between now and the 
year 2000.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. 
Salmon] mentioned earlier that the Democrats are talking about the bill 
in general and not talking about the amendment that is before the 
Congress today. I would say his amendment was offered in the full 
committee. We tried, as Democrats, in every way to perfect the bill at 
the subcommittee level and the full committee level. We debated this 
particular amendment. We debated the next amendment that will be on 
this House floor. Democrats voted for this amendment in the full 
committee, Republicans voted no against both amendments in the 
Subcommittee and full committee.

                              {time}  1700

  Better still, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw] indicated to us 
that we would have an opportunity to bring this particular amendment on 
child support enforcement to the full committee. We thought these 
provisions would have been in the bill. They were not included in the 
bill. Plus, the Democrats tried to go before the Committee on Rules 
with 104 Democratic amendments. We wanted to perfect this bill on the 
House floor. The Republicans are denying the Democrats an opportunity 
to perfect the bill. We think the Deal substitute is the right answer 
to this welfare issue before this House today.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Salmon].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Salmon] will be 
postponed.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 31 printed 
in House Report 104-85.


                   amendment offered by mrs. roukema

  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order under 
the rule.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Roukema:
       Page 387, after line 10, insert the following:

     SEC. 768. STATE LAW AUTHORIZING SUSPENSION OF LICENSES.

       Section 466(a) (42 U.S.C. 666(a)), as amended by sections 
     715, 717(a), and 723 of this Act, is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(15) Authority to withhold or suspend licenses.--
     Procedures under which the State has (and uses in appropriate 
     cases) authority to withhold or suspend, or to restrict the 
     use of driver's licenses, professional and occupational 
     licenses, and recreational licenses of individuals owing 
     overdue support or failing, after receiving appropriate 
     notice, to comply with subpoenas or warrants relating to 
     paternity or child support proceedings.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from New Jersey 
[Mrs. Roukema] and a Member opposed will each control 10 minutes.
  Does the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Ford] seek control of the time 
in opposition?
  Mr. FORD. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema] will be 
recognized for 10 minutes, and the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Ford] 
will be recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the provisions of this bill go far. With the last 
amendment, with the provisions in the bill, we are probably 90 percent 
close to closing this circle, the circle of loopholes that have existed 
in law regarding interstate child support enforcement. I hope that we 
can close that full circle.
  I do not know whether or not we can this year, but for my colleagues 
who do not have the background, I want you to know this has been a 10-
year effort with two major reforms, and now I would hope that in the 
interests of the children, and in the interests of the taxpayers, that 
we recognize that we have to deal firmly and strongly with this 
national disgrace of child support enforcement and the deadbeats.
  The amendment before us is very straightforward. States must have in 
place a program of their own design and choosing that provides for the 
revocation, suspension, or restriction of driver's licenses, 
professional and occupational licenses, and recreational licenses for 
deadbeat parents. We are talking, remember, about wilful violation, 
repeated wilful violation of legal child support orders.
  As we debate this amendment today, I want to point out that we as 
Republicans have referred to the States as the laboratories of 
democracy, and here we can learn in this amendment exactly how 
effective States have been in terms of leading the way on effective 
child support enforcement. These reforms have saved taxpayers millions 
of dollars in a relatively very short time.
  By the way, there are at least 19 States, and some say closer to 25, 
that already have these kinds of measures on the books. For example, 
the State of Maine has been a leader in this respect and has come to be 
known for its effectiveness in terms of using the prospect of losing a 
license. They have collected multiple millions of dollars in very short 
time, less than a year, in delinquent child support payments, and they 
have only had to suspend, believe it or not, 41 licenses. The State of 
California has had a very similar experience. They have collected $10 
million in a short time and have not revoked even one single license. I 
think what it shows is when the law means business, deadbeat parents 
miraculously come up with the money which they swore was not available.
  Effective child support enforcement reforms are an essential 
component of true welfare prevention. Research has been conducted by 
various groups, whether it is Columbia University or the Department of 
Health and Human Services, that show up to 40 percent of mothers on 
public assistance would not be on welfare today if they were receiving 
the legal support orders to which they are legally and morally 
entitled.
  It is a national disgrace, as I have said before. Our child support 
enforcement system continues to allow the 
 [[Page H3629]] most obvious things to go on and people are neglecting 
their children, their moral obligations, and their legal obligations. 
Make no mistake about it: If we close this circle and close the 
loopholes, as we are about to do today, the so-called enforcement gap, 
the difference between how much child support can be collected and how 
much child support is actually collected, has been estimated 
conservatively at $34 billion.
  Perhaps the most salient fact we must keep in mind as we seek to 
improve our system is that our interstate system is only as good as its 
weakest link. States that have been enforcing and collecting child 
support payments that have given it a priority are penalized by those 
States who fail to reciprocate. That is precisely why we need 
comprehensive reform, to ensure that all States come up to the highest 
level and not sink to the lowest common denominator.
  So what this amendment is about is putting into practice what our 
language has been, family values, needs of children, and, of course, to 
save the taxpayer.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly], the great woman warrior of child support 
enforcement on the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Chairman, there has been much disagreement on this 
floor the last 2 days, and honest disagreement, on the way we are going 
forward in welfare reform. Of course, that is what this process is 
about and what this democracy is about. But when we come to the 
amendment of the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema], the 
amendment for child support enforcement, revoking the licenses of 
delinquent parents, I think it is very nice we can come together on 
both sides of the aisle and agree on this amendment to revoke licenses 
of people who do not pay.
  When we say licenses, we are talking about a driver's license, we are 
talking about a professional license. We are talking about saying to 
somebody if you want to have what society can give you and be according 
to the law in the area of what you want to do, such as drive a car 
under the rulings of the State, then you will pay your child support.
  When this amendment came up in the Committee on Ways and Means, we 
had a 17 to 17 tie. The committee discussed it on both sides of the 
aisle, much talk, and we sat and figured out how this could be 
acceptable to all of us. I am delighted that the gentlewoman from New 
Jersey [Mrs. Roukema] has got this amendment on the floor. The Women's 
Caucus, with all the other members, the gentlemen that are members of 
the caucus over the years, this is the idea, to be serious about child 
support enforcement.
  This is tough. This says to people we should collect child support 
enforcement, and if you are going to have to be inconvenienced, it 
might be quite a real inconvenience. I must say in this situation, you 
do not necessarily immediately take away the license. If someone comes 
forth and says ``I am willing to make an agreement, I can only give so 
much,'' and they are up front about it, this can work. It worked in New 
Hampshire, it worked in 19 other States, and I think it can work in a 
Federal way. I think it is nice we can come together on an amendment 
and agree. I thank the gentlewoman for bringing it forth on the floor 
and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw] for bringing it up again 
after the committee.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my strong support for this 
amendment on revoking the licenses of delinquent parents.
  I offered an identical amendment in the Ways and Means Committee, 
which I regret to say rejected the provision on a 17 to 17 tie vote. I 
said then, and say again now, we should not be squeamish about being as 
tough on delinquent parents as the bill is on mothers and children.
  Nineteen States are already experimenting with restricting 
professional and driver's licenses of delinquent parents and the 
initial indications are very good. For example, Maine has collected $23 
million in additional collections just since August 1993. The State 
only had to revoke 41
 licenses to get this money: in other words, the threat was almost 
always enough.

  California increased collections by $10 million without revoking a 
single license--just by sending out notices to delinquent parents.
  The Department of Health and Human Services look at this evidence and 
estimated that nationwide license revocation could increase child 
support collections by $2.5 billion over 10 years.
  Let us say once and for all that both parents share responsibility 
for their children. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, this license revocation amendment is so 
very important to child support enforcement. It had its inception in 
the Women's Caucus child support bill in the last Congress. It was also 
contained in the Women's Caucus bill this year, too.
  The caucus has always felt that license revocation is critical to any 
effective child support reform. I want to thank the gentlewoman from 
New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema], the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. 
Kennelly], and others for their strong support, and the strong support 
of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Collins] for this amendment.
  Why must it be done on a Federal level? Because States have been 
notoriously lax in implementing strong child support reforms. This says 
States must have license revocation procedures in place. We now have 19 
States that have revocation procedures in place, and in those cases we 
have found that people immediately get out and write their checks for 
child support, because they do not want to lose their hunting license, 
their driver's license, or their professional license.
  Using as one of the examples Maine, Maine has collected nearly $13 
million in back support and only revoked 15 licenses. Let us support 
this important amendment.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, to extend debate as Mr. 
Archer's designee, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is entitled to 5 minutes on his pro forma 
amendment and may control that time or allow that time to be controlled 
by others.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, to extend debate as Mr. Gibbon's designee, I 
move to strike the last word and ask unanimous consent to merge that 
additional time with time I am currently controlling.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Tennessee?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], our distinguished chairman of the 
committee that designed such a wonderful welfare bill.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman. I would like to stand in support of the amendment, and 
I want to direct my remarks to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. 
Kennelly] who offered this in the committee, at which time I did vote 
against it. We concocted a variation of it, a much weaker one which 
expressed the desire of the Congress to put this, for the States to put 
this in their own bill. It is effective and it is.
  I would like to say to the gentlewoman I have come along to your way 
of thinking on this and intend to support it, and wanted to be sure 
that I did come forward and congratulate you for being as persistent as 
you were, and also to congratulate the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Roukema] as well as other Members of this Congress, who did work hard 
to see that this became a part of the bill.
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Chairman, we did have some good discussion in 
committee. I thank the chairman.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. McInnis].
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment reflects an idea 
that works. In the United States a very interesting statistic is that 4 
percent of 
 [[Page H3630]] our population, 4 percent of our population, is behind 
on their car payments. Almost 50 percent of the population that is 
legally obligated to pay child support is behind on their child support 
payments. This amendment works. It is a good idea.
  Now, some people will say that it is not a good amendment, it is not 
a good idea, because you are taking away the ability for these people 
obligated to pay child support from driving to work. But I ask you to 
take a look at the statistics where it has been tried.
  For example, in Maine, they only had to revoke 41 licenses. Just the 
fear of the revoking of the license brought in $23 million. In 
California, they collected $10 million without revoking one license.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the sponsors on both sides of the aisle on 
this amendment. This is an idea that works.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].

                              {time}  1715

  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee 
for yielding time to me. I thank the gentlewoman from New Jersey for 
bringing this forward.
  The prior speakers have pointed this out. Thank goodness we have had 
the bipartisan Women's Caucus or we would not have this great alliance, 
because the Women's Caucus has been working on this year after year 
after year. And let me tell you how disappointed we were when the 
committee marked up the welfare reform bill of the majority side, the 
Republican side, and there were some Members who had a press conference 
and said how pleased they were it was father friendly.
  Well, let me tell you, first of all, it is not just fathers who miss 
payments. this is really a deadbeat parent issue, unfortunately, 
anymore. But the women have constantly rallied and the Congresswoman 
from New Jersey is reminding us all of that to say that children in a 
divorce should be held economically harmless as long as possible. And 
that is what this is about. This is welfare prevention.
  My colleague from Colorado points out that car
   payments are made almost automatically and yet child support 
payments are ignored. They are going to dig this society up and think 
that we worship cars and did not like our children. There is something 
wrong with that picture.

  I am really glad there has been a change of heart on the other side 
and that they are now going to put this in their bill and that now all 
the bills will be as strong as they can be on child support enforcement 
because it has been much too long in coming.
  The children of America deserve this. They deserve not to have to 
live under the taint of welfare because one parent decided that they 
had had enough of that and wanted to escape. This is about 
responsibility. This is about taking responsibility and enforcing it. 
It is very, very important.
  Again, I thank my colleague from New Jersey and all the Congresswomen 
and the members of the caucus across the aisle who have stood for this 
for so long.
  This is a good day in that no matter what happens, we are going to 
have the highest standard here, and it is about time.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].
  (Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
amendment and in support of this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the child support 
provisions in H.R. 1214, the Personal Responsibility Act, including the 
amendments to it that we will consider today.
  I would like to take this opportunity to commend my colleagues on the 
Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues who have worked long and hard 
on child support issues. In particular, Congresswomen Marge Roukema and 
Barbara Kennelly, who served on the U.S. Commission on Interstate Child 
Support, have brought years of leadership and experience to our debate. 
The Child Support Responsibility Act, which we introduced earlier this 
year along with Congresswomen Connie Morella, Patricia Schroeder, and 
Eleanor Holmes Norton, has been largely adopted into the welfare reform 
bill before us today.
  Consequently, I am extremely pleased that the child support title in 
this bill will go a long way toward solving some of the most difficult 
problems in the system. If focuses on locating parents who move from 
State to State in order to avoid paying support, and puts into effect 
tough enforcement mechanisms that will force reluctant parents into 
paying even when we already know their whereabouts. The legislation 
sets up interacting State databases of child support orders, which will 
be matched against basic ``new hire'' data so that State child support 
officials can locate missing, non-paying parents. It applies the same 
wage withholding and enforcement rules to Federal employees, including 
military personnel, as currently apply to the rest of the workforce. It 
makes enforcement of orders for parents who are self-employed easier 
through a number of means, such as the newly adopted amendment to 
administer liens on an interstate level.
  Finally, this legislation contains my provision adopted in the Ways 
and Means Committee that will put work requirements on many 
noncustodial parents who are behind in paying child support, often due 
to their not having a job. Just because a person is not employed does 
not mean his or her obligation to support the child ends. Many children 
are on welfare because one parent is not paying their court-ordered 
child support. This provision requires parents to either pay their 
child support, enter into a repayment plan through the courts, or work 
in a government-sponsored program. Since the government is paying for 
the child's support through a welfare check, it is entirely reasonable 
to expect something in return from the non-paying parent. And we do.
  I am confident that the child support legislation we have before us 
today will result in millions upon millions more dollars being put 
toward the support of children by their parents. It is with great 
enthusiasm that I support the child support enforcement title of the 
bill, as well as the bill as a whole.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].
  (Mr. CUNNINGHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I 
would like to advise the gentlewoman from Colorado, it is the 
Republican bill that is passing it. The democrats would not bring it 
up.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for 
yielding time to me. I rise to thank the gentlewoman from New Jersey 
[Mrs. Roukema] for her leadership on this issue and certainly my 
colleague and friend, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly], 
who has been in the forefront of this fight, as have others on this 
floor.
  Mr. Chairman, every able-bodied American must understand it is wrong 
to have children you cannot or will not care for and support. The 
message we are sending with this amendment is, if you are a deadbeat 
parent, we are going to pursue you and demand you meet your moral and 
legal obligations to those children you brought into this world.
  It is a simple but a very compelling and important message.
  We understand during the course of this debate that one problem with 
children in America today is that too many people believe that having 
children is a spectator sport. Too many deadbeat dads, unfortunately, 
believe it is a nonparticipatory event after birth.
  This amendment says, you need to care for and support, to the extent 
of your ability, your child. And if you do not, the rest of us, who 
will clearly want to support that child, will, however, exact a price 
from you.
  This is a good amendment. This moves in the right direction. The 
gentleman from Colorado made a very salient point, nobody wants to lose 
their car so they stay current with their car payments. They ought to 
be much more responsible when it comes to caring for the dearest thing 
they may ever have. And that is their child.
  I thank the gentlewoman for offering this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, every able-bodied American must understand--it is wrong 
to have children you cannot or will not care for.
  And the message we are sending with this amendment is if you are a 
deadbeat parent, we are going to pursue you and demand you 
[[Page H3631]] meet your moral and legal responsibilities to those 
children you brought into this world.
  This amendment puts real teeth into the child support enforcement 
system.
  It would require States to establish procedures under which they 
could withhold, suspend, or restrict State issued licenses of persons 
delinquent in making court ordered child support payments.
  It would give my State of Maryland an additional weapon in its fight 
to collect $771 million in uncollected child support from deadbeat 
parents.
  Last week, the Health and Human Services Department released a study 
which tracked the revocation of State issued licenses from parents 
ignoring child support obligations.
  It estimates that if similar programs were in place nationwide, child 
support collections would grow by $2.5 billion over 10 years. Clearly, 
the mere threat of not receiving or keeping licenses has caused 
deadbeat parents to pay what they owe in child support.
  Moreover, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the Federal 
Government could save $146 million over the first 5 years as a result 
of a nationwide license revocation program. This is a direct savings to 
the American taxpayers.
  If there is a way we can cause deadbeat dads and moms to support 
their children, we must. This amendment provides us with a responsible 
and just action by helping to instill in parents the values needed in 
child rearing. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Martini].
  Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, time 
to me and applaud her efforts today.
  Mr. Chairman, once again I rise to speak out on the important issue 
of forcing deadbeat parents to pay their fair share of child support. 
In threatening to revoke the drivers or professional licenses of 
parents whose payments are in arrears, Mrs. Roukema has proposed to us 
an enforcement mechanism that will truly go a long way toward 
collecting more money for children in need. Similar to Mr. Upton's 
amendment offered earlier, Mrs. Roukema is championing a plain old 
question of right and wrong. The message is simple if you do not want 
to play by the rules, do not expect privileges from the State. What is 
more, this measure will work.
  Maine instituted the same reform and sent over 22,000 notices in a 
year and a half to deadbeat parents informing them that they were in 
danger of losing their licenses.
  While over 13 million dollars in back support was recovered, only 41 
licenses needed to be revoked.
  I cannot think of any better evidence of this measure's 
effectiveness.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, it is encouraging that at least we have 
found one subject on which we all agree, and it is a terribly important 
subject. And whether it is men or women legislators or Republicans and 
Democrats, we realize something has to be done.
  We all know that the single greatest correlative factor to poverty 
and, thus, welfare dependency is teenage girls becoming pregnant, out 
of wedlock, without a man to support the family.
  One thing we may not be aware of, I was shocked when I found out, is 
that the vast majority of the men that are causing teenage pregnancies 
are significantly older adult men. They are men who oftentimes are 
financially independent, and they skip out on their responsibilities. 
But this is much more than skipping out on one's responsibilities.
  What we are left with is a program that in effect punishes the parent 
who raises the child, who assumes responsibility for the discipline, 
the structure, the financial support of that child, worries every day 
about their health care, about their child care, about their 
discipline, while the man who is at least equally responsible has no 
concern for what is happening to the family they created.
  There is probably no greater scandal in American society today than 
to think of the millions of young children of families who are living 
in poverty because of the lack of responsibility and accountability by 
the men who caused those families, who are equally responsible for 
their support. If nothing else happens, we at least will make sure that 
they have to assume their responsibility when welfare reform 
legislation is passed.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Eshoo].
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for 
yielding time to me.
  I rise in support of the Roukema amendment. I would like to salute 
the gentlewoman from New Jersey for her decade-long effort on this as 
well as the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly] and the women 
that have worked long before me in the House of Representatives through 
the bipartisan Women's Causus.
  Mr. Chairman, this bipartisan measure would put real teeth in the 
enforcement of child support payments by requiring states to establish 
license revocation programs for deadbeat parents.
  According to a recent HHS study, 19 States have already adopted this. 
Just the threat of revoking licenses has raised $35 million in nine 
States that collect these statistics. In fact, my own State of 
California has collected over $10 million of outstanding child support 
since beginning its program in late 1992.
  If similar programs were in place nationwide--as this amendment would 
require-child support collections would grow by $2.5 billion over 10 
years and Federal welfare spending would shrink by $146 million in half 
that time.
  Mr. Chairman, revoking a license is a powerful tool for enforcing 
child support. The Roukema amendment would put this tool in the hands 
of officials who need it and put money in the pockets of families who 
deserve it and where it should be. I urge my colleagues to support this 
bipartisan proposal.
  And again, I would like to pay tribute to the gentlewomen, the great 
women that have served before us and those that have brought this 
forward.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New 
York [Mrs. Lowey].
  (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Roukema amendment to the child support enforcement provisions contained 
in this bill. Many members of the congressional caucus for women's 
issues, particularly Congresswomen Barbara Kennelly and Lynn Woolsey, 
have long worked for comprehensive, fundamental reforms of the child 
support enforcement system. We are pleased that many of the provisions 
of the caucus bill were incorporated into the current bill by the Ways 
and Means Committee.
  Child support enforcement is essential to the reform of the welfare 
system. Deadbeat parents in the United States owe over $34 billion to 
their children--more than the cost of the entire welfare system. To 
help families stay off welfare in the first place, we must strengthen 
the child support enforcement system and demand that parents support 
the child they bring into this world.
  This amendment, building on the work of Congresswoman Kennelly, does 
just this: It strengthens the enforcement provisions in the bill. We're 
reforming the system now, because families and children can't enforce 
the laws on their own. They need our help.
  By requiring States to establish procedures under which they would 
withhold, suspend, or restrict the State-issued licenses of persons who 
are delinquent in making court-ordered child support payments, the 
amendment provides the leverage States need to convince deadbeat 
parents to pay-up. This amendment, by giving children and families the 
assurance that States will take away privileges this society has 
granted to parents, should send a strong message that those parents 
must fulfill their obligations to their own offspring. What is more, we 
know this works in the States that have already established license 
revocation procedures.
  Let us build on what works and pass this amendment. Let's help 
children recover the support owed to them.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. McCrery].
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  [[Page H3632]] I just want a chance to say that I want to commend all 
who worked on this amendment--the gentlewoman from New Jersey, as well 
as the gentlewoman from Connecticut who offered it in committee. I 
thought it was a good amendment in committee.
  I voted present, but I have had a chance to look at it since then, 
and I am prepared to vote for it today and urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Hoke].
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, talk about a great idea whose time has come. 
This certainly is such an idea. I really wanted to express my 
appreciation to the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema] for her 
leadership on this.
  I would like to point out one thing with respect to this bill that I 
think is particularly important with respect to this amendment.
  That is, when you combine the establishment of a paternity 
requirement along with this revocation of a license requirement, what 
you are going to do is for the first time you are going to actually 
create consequences for teenage boys who will have to think twice about 
the consequences of their actions because they will become accountable. 
They will become accountable in a way that will have maybe a lot more 
impact than anything that we have done to date.
  That is the car keys. We are going to take away the car keys, and I 
believe it will have a profound impact on promiscuity. And we will 
really do what we have not been able to do in other ways.
  I rise in strong support, and I thank the gentlewoman for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Harman].
  (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Roukema 
amendment to strengthen the welfare reform bill's child support 
enforcement provisions.
  As a mother of four, I know that child support enforcement is the 
mother of welfare reform. The best way to reform our welfare system is 
to prevent mothers from going on welfare in the first place, and that 
is what these provisions will do. It is time that both parents take 
responsibility for themselves and for their children.
  I applaud the child support provisions in the welfare reform bill 
before us, which are based on the Child Support Responsibility Act that 
I, along with many members of the congressional caucus for women's 
issues, cosponsored. I was distressed to learn, however, that the Ways 
and Means Committee omitted a critical provision which requires States 
to enact laws denying professional, occupational, and driver's licenses 
to deadbeat parents. The Roukema amendment would reinsert this 
critically important enforcement provision.
  The child support provisions are built around a key element of the 
Child Support Responsibility Act, the creation of centralized 
registries for child support orders and ``new hires'' information, and 
the centralization of child support collections and distribution. 
Interstate coordination is critical to reach the high percentage of 
deadbeats who try to escape responsibility by residing in other States.
  Although I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Roukema 
amendment to ensure that both parents take responsibility for their 
children, this is a good amendment to a bad bill. I also urge my 
colleagues to support the Deal substitute that would also allow States 
to suspend the licenses of those in arrears in their child support 
payments while being tough on work without punishing children.
                              {time}  1730

  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I would ask how much time I have 
remaining.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema] has 1 
minute remaining.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Delaware [Mr. Castle].
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly support this amendment, and all the 
work the gentlewoman has done on this. Child support enforcement is 
another issue which has bipartisan support, as we have seen today, and 
for good reason.
  There now exists about $45 billion in back child support owed. About 
5 million mothers are on welfare because fathers do not pay. At least 
$10 billion in child support goes unpaid each year.
  A Columbia University study found almost 40 percent of welfare 
beneficiaries could be self-sufficient if noncustodial parents paid 
their support. The proposal to deny licenses, along with other measures 
in our bill to crack down on deadbeat dads, would increase child 
support collections by $24 billion over 10 years, and help 800,000 
mothers and children off welfare.
  We need to send parents all across the country a loud signal: if you 
neglect your responsibility to support your children, we will suspend 
your license, garnish your pay, track you down, and make you pay. My 
State discovered this some number of years ago, and has very high 
rankings in the area of paternity and child support payment.
  Mr. Chairman, I encourage us all to support this amendment.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Waters].
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased and proud to rise in support 
of the Roukema amendment. We need to penalize parents who do not 
support their children. I think we will find that there is no 
disagreement in this House. Democrats and Republicans alike do not like 
deadbeat dads. I think this is an example of the kind of cooperation we 
could have had on welfare reform if we had had a little bit of reasoned 
cooperation.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to say it is a good amendment, again, to a 
bad bill. I still think the bill is bad because we are taking money, we 
are taking food out of the mouths of children in order to provide tax 
cuts for the rich. I think we are punishing teenaged parents unfairly 
when we should be training them to become independent.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to plead with my colleagues to please do 
something about that portion of the bill that would deny cash benefits 
to disabled children. I have discovered that deaf children, I have 
discovered that crippled children, and mentally retarded children are 
going to be terribly hurt by this legislation. Their parents will have 
no way of getting people to help them while they are working, and it is 
unfair.
  If Members want to do better and cooperate in the way that we have 
been cooperating on the deadbeat dads, I would ask them to eliminate 
that from their bad bill, and I think we could do something about real 
reform.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of our 
time to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Collins], our colleague on the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Collins] is recognized 
for 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise as a cosponsor of this amendment and its role in 
the debate on how and why a change to the welfare system is needed.
  Mr. Chairman, why is change needed? Because today's welfare system 
provides an income-based subsidy for 26 percent of the families in this 
country.
  In 1965, President Johnson launched the war on poverty which was 
supposed to be a short-term investment. For the next 5 years, the rolls 
of AFDC grew from 4.3 million to 9.6 million--this was a record growth 
for welfare during 5 years when unemployment averaged 3.8 percent--the 
lowest unemployment rate in 40 years. It is evident the lack of jobs 
was not the reason for the growth.
  What was the reason? The 1960's expansion of the welfare system 
taught a new generation of Americans that it is your right as a citizen 
to depend on the Government to provide an income. The welfare system of 
the sixties said it is fine to have children out of wedlock if you 
cannot afford them--because it is your right to have the Federal 
Government support them. The welfare system of the sixties said it was 
fine for 
 [[Page H3633]] children to have children; and, acceptable for dead-
beat parents to evade responsibility because it is your right to 
transfer the needs of your children to the Federal Government. The 
welfare expansion of the 1960's changed the attitudes and behavior of 
millions of people.
  That attitude is wrong--but that attitude still exists today and that 
attitude is the major problem with the current welfare system. Middle-
income American workers are tired of working hard to make ends meet, 
only to have more money taken out of their family budgets, to pay for 
those who think it is their right to depend on the Government.
  This legislation will change welfare assistance so that it is not 
seen as a citizen's right--but instead a vehicle for temporary, 
transitional assistance--an alternative of last resort.
  This amendment, under very flexible parameters, will require States 
to establish procedures for the revocation of driver's, professional, 
occupational, and recreational licenses for noncustodial parents that 
have failed to be responsible for their children. It will send a strong 
message to noncustodial parents that they can no longer push the 
responsibility of supporting their children onto someone else.
  The Personal Responsibility Act will continue to provide assistance 
to families while eliminating the nature of the status quo.
  I urge support of this amendment and this welfare change bill.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel].
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I was called off the floor. I just wanted 
to make sure from the chairman, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Clay 
Shaw], whether or not the language in the Roukema amendment is the same 
language we had in the Committee on Ways and Means, which we referred 
to as the Kennelly amendment.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RANGEL. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, in the Committee on Ways and Means I do not 
believe we have the statutory language, so it is different, but the 
intent is the same. I think I made that very clear in my short 
statement on the floor, in which I addressed the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I join with the Women's Caucus, and 
join with my Democratic colleagues who offered this amendment in the 
Committee on Ways and Means. I certainly join with all of those here 
today in giving strong support to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, we tried to perfect this bill in the full committee. We 
said to our Republican colleagues who voted this amendment down in the 
Committee on Ways and Means that this was the right thing to do.
  Even though we will vote in a few minutes, and hopefully we will pass 
this amendment, this does not make up for the cuts and the pain that 
they will have caused on the children with this passage of the Personal 
Responsibility Act that is before this committee today. They will take 
the $69.4 billion in cuts and give it to the privileged few of America. 
It will be painful on children in this Nation, and it certainly will 
send the wrong message.
  Although we will vote on a very good amendment that will help perfect 
this bill, by no means will this make up for the pain that it will 
cause and the cruelty that there will be on the children of the welfare 
population of this Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge my friends to vote for this amendment, but 
I want the Republicans to know by no means will they make up for what 
they are doing to the children of this Nation.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New 
Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema] 
will be postponed.


                      announcement by the chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, proceedings will now resume on 
those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed, in the 
following order:
  First, amendment No. 30 offered by the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. 
Salmon];
  Second, amendment No. 31 offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey 
[Mrs. Roukema].
                    amendment offered by mr. salmon

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Salmon] on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             RECORDED VOTE

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 15-minute vote, followed by a 5-minute 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. 
Roukema].
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 433, 
noes 0, not voting 1, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 264]

                               AYES--433

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     [[Page H3634]] McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Hefley
       

                              {time}  1759

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                      announcement by the chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the Chair announces that he will 
reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which the 
following vote will be taken by electronic device.


                   amendment offered by mrs. roukema

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. 
Roukema] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 426, 
noes 5, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 265]

                               AYES--426

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NOES--5

     Chenoweth
     Cubin
     Skaggs
     Stupak
     Watt (NC)

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Bunn
     Meek
     Miller (FL)

                              {time}  1808

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
 amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. deal of georgia

  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature 
of a substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Deal 
     of Georgia: Strike out all after the enacting clause and 
     insert:
     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Individual Responsibility 
     Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       The table of contents of this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.
Sec. 3. Amendment of the Social Security Act.
      [[Page H3635]] TITLE I--TIME-LIMITED TRANSITIONAL ASSISTANCE

Sec. 101. Limitation on duration of AFDC benefits.
Sec. 102. Establishment of Federal data base.

                        TITLE II--MAKE WORK PAY

                        Subtitle A--Health Care

Sec. 201. Transitional medicaid benefits.

                  Subtitle B--Earned Income Tax Credit

Sec. 211. Notice of availability required to be provided to applicants 
              and former recipients of AFDC, food stamps, and medicaid.
Sec. 212. Notice of availability of earned income tax credit and 
              dependent care tax credit to be included on W-4 form.
Sec. 213. Advance payment of earned income tax credit through State 
              demonstration programs.

                         Subtitle C--Child Care

Sec. 221. Dependent care credit to be refundable; high-income taxpayers 
              ineligible for credit.
Sec. 222. Funding of child care services.

                    Subtitle D--AFDC Work Disregards

Sec. 231. Option to increase disregard of earned income.
Sec. 232. State option to establish voluntary diversion program.
Sec. 233. Elimination of quarters of coverage requirement for married 
              teens under AFDC-UP program.

                   Subtitle E--AFDC Asset Limitations

Sec. 241. Increase in resource thresholds; separate threshold for 
              vehicles.
Sec. 242. Limited disregard of amounts saved for post-secondary 
              education, the purchase of a first home, or the 
              establishment or operation of a microenterprise.

                   TITLE III--THE WORK FIRST PROGRAM

Sec. 301. Work first program.
Sec. 302. Regulations.
Sec. 303. Applicability to States.
Sec. 304. Sense of the Congress relating to availability of work first 
              program in rural areas.
Sec. 305. Grants to community-based organizations.

 TITLE IV--FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY AND IMPROVED CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT

Subtitle A--Eligibility and Other Matters Concerning Title IV-D Program 
                                Clients

Sec. 401. State obligation to provide paternity establishment and child 
              support enforcement services.
Sec. 402. Distribution of payments.
Sec. 403. Due process rights.
Sec. 404. Privacy safeguards.

             Subtitle B--Program Administration and Funding

Sec. 411. Federal matching payments.
Sec. 412. Performance-based incentives and penalties.
Sec. 413. Federal and State reviews and audits.
Sec. 414. Required reporting procedures.
Sec. 415. Automated data processing requirements.
Sec. 416. Director of CSE program; staffing study.
Sec. 417. Funding for secretarial assistance to State programs.
Sec. 418. Reports and data collection by the Secretary.

                  Subtitle C--Locate and Case Tracking
Sec. 421. Central State and case registry.
Sec. 422. Centralized collection and disbursement of support payments.
Sec. 423. Amendments concerning income withholding.
Sec. 424. Locator information from interstate networks.
Sec. 425. Expanded Federal Parent Locator Service.
Sec. 426. Use of social security numbers.

         Subtitle D--Streamlining and Uniformity of Procedures

Sec. 431. Adoption of uniform State laws.
Sec. 432. Improvements to full faith and credit for child support 
              orders.
Sec. 433. State laws providing expedited procedures.

                  Subtitle E--Paternity Establishment

Sec. 441. Sense of the Congress.
Sec. 442. Availability of parenting social services for new fathers.
Sec. 443. Cooperation requirement and good cause exception.
Sec. 444. Federal matching payments.
Sec. 445. Performance-based incentives and penalties.
Sec. 446. State laws concerning paternity establishment.
Sec. 447. Outreach for voluntary paternity establishment.

      Subtitle F--Establishment and Modification of Support Orders

Sec. 451. National Child Support Guidelines Commission.
Sec. 452. Simplified process for review and adjustment of child support 
              orders.

               Subtitle G--Enforcement of Support Orders

Sec. 461. Federal income tax refund offset.
Sec. 462. Internal Revenue Service collection of arrears.
Sec. 463. Authority to collect support from Federal employees.
Sec. 464. Enforcement of child support obligations of members of the 
              Armed Forces.
Sec. 465. Motor vehicle liens.
Sec. 466. Voiding of fraudulent transfers.
Sec. 467. State law authorizing suspension of licenses.
Sec. 468. Reporting arrearages to credit bureaus.
Sec. 469. Extended statute of limitation for collection of arrearages.
Sec. 470. Charges for arrearages.
Sec. 471. Denial of passports for nonpayment of child support.
Sec. 472. International child support enforcement.
Sec. 473. Seizure of lottery winnings, settlements, payouts, awards, 
              and bequests, and sale of forfeited property, to pay 
              child support arrearages.
Sec. 474. Liability of grandparents for financial support of children 
              of their minor children.
Sec. 475. Sense of the Congress regarding programs for noncustodial 
              parents unable to meet child support obligations.

                      Subtitle H--Medical Support

Sec. 481. Technical correction to ERISA definition of medical child 
              support order.
Sec. 482. Extension of medicaid eligibility for families losing AFDC 
              due to increased child support collections.

                    Subtitle I--Effect of Enactment

Sec. 491. Effective dates.
Sec. 492. Severability.

              TITLE V--TEEN PREGNANCY AND FAMILY STABILITY

                        Subtitle A--Federal Role

Sec. 501. State option to deny AFDC for additional children.
Sec. 502. Minors receiving AFDC required to live under responsible 
              adult supervision.
Sec. 503. National clearinghouse on adolescent pregnancy.
Sec. 504. Incentive for teen parents to attend school.
Sec. 505. State option to disregard 100-hour rule under AFDC-UP 
              program.
Sec. 506. State option to disregard 6-month limitation on AFDC-UP 
              benefits.
Sec. 507. Elimination of quarters of coverage requirement under AFDC-UP 
              program for families in which both parents are teens.
Sec. 508. Denial of Federal housing benefits to minors who bear 
              children out-of-wedlock.
Sec. 509. State option to deny AFDC to minor parents.

                         Subtitle B--State Role

Sec. 511. Teenage pregnancy prevention and family stability.
Sec. 512. Availability of family planning services.

                    TITLE VI--PROGRAM SIMPLIFICATION

                Subtitle A--Increased State Flexibility

Sec. 601. State option to provide AFDC through electronic benefit 
              transfer systems.
Sec. 602. Deadline for action on application for waiver of requirement 
              applicable to program of aid to families with dependent 
              children.

        Subtitle B--Coordination of AFDC and Food Stamp Programs

Sec. 611. Amendments to part A of title IV of the Social Security Act.
Sec. 612. Amendments to the Food Stamp Act of 1977.

                      Subtitle C--Fraud Reduction

Sec. 631. Sense of the Congress in support of the efforts of the 
              administration to address the problems of fraud and abuse 
              in the supplemental security income program.
Sec. 632. Study on feasibility of single tamper-proof identification 
              card to serve programs under both the Social Security Act 
              and health reform legislation.

                   Subtitle D--Additional Provisions

Sec. 641. State options regarding unemployed parent program.
Sec. 642. Definition of essential person.
Sec. 643. ``Fill-the-gap'' budgeting.
Sec. 644. Repeal of requirement to make certain supplemental payments 
              in States paying less than their needs standards.
Sec. 645. Collection of AFDC overpayments from Federal tax refunds.
Sec. 646. Territories.
Sec. 647. Disregard of student income.
Sec. 648. Lump-sum income.

            TITLE VII--CHILD PROTECTION BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM

Sec. 701. Establishment of programs.
Sec. 702. Repeals and conforming amendments.
Sec. 703. Effective date.

                         TITLE VIII--SSI REFORM

            Subtitle A--Eligibility of Children for Benefits

Sec. 801. Restrictions on eligibility.
Sec. 802. Continuing disability reviews for certain children.
Sec. 803. Disability review required for SSI recipients who are 18 
              years of age.
Sec. 804. Applicability.
    [[Page H3636]] Subtitle B--Denial of SSI Benefits by Reason of 
               Disability to Drug Addicts and Alcoholics

Sec. 811. Denial of SSI benefits by reason of disability to drug 
              addicts and alcoholics.

                          TITLE IX--FINANCING

                    Subtitle A--Treatment of Aliens

Sec. 901. Extension of deeming of income and resources under AFDC, SSI, 
              and food stamp programs.
Sec. 902. Requirements for sponsor's affidavits of support.
Sec. 903. Extending requirement for affidavits of support to family-
              related and diversity immigrants.

      Subtitle B--Limitation on Emergency Assistance Expenditures

Sec. 911. Limitation on expenditures for emergency assistance.

                       Subtitle C--Tax Provisions

Sec. 921. Certain Federal assistance includible in gross income.
Sec. 922. Earned income tax credit denied to individuals not authorized 
              to be employed in the United States.
Sec. 923. Phaseout of earned income credit for individuals having more 
              than $2,500 of taxable interest and dividends.
Sec. 924. AFDC and food stamp benefits not taken into account for 
              purposes of the earned income tax credit.

                    TITLE X--FOOD ASSISTANCE REFORM

          Subtitle A--Food Stamp Program Integrity and Reform

Sec. 1001. Authority to establish authorization periods.
Sec. 1002. Specific period for prohibiting participation of stores 
              based on lack of business integrity.
Sec. 1003. Information for verifying eligibility for authorization.
Sec. 1004. Waiting period for stores that initially fail to meet 
              authorization criteria.
Sec. 1005. Bases for suspensions and disqualifications.
Sec. 1006. Authority to suspend stores violating program requirements 
              pending administrative and judicial review.
Sec. 1007. Disqualification of retailers who are disqualified from the 
              WIC program.
Sec. 1008. Permanent debarment of retailers who intentionally submit 
              falsified applications.
Sec. 1009. Expanded civil and criminal forfeiture for violations of the 
              Food Stamp Act.
Sec. 1010. Expanded authority for sharing information provided by 
              retailers.
Sec. 1011. Expanded definition of ``coupon''.
Sec. 1012. Doubled penalties for violating food stamp program 
              requirements.
Sec. 1013. Mandatory claims collection methods.
Sec. 1014. Reduction of basic benefit level.
Sec. 1015. Pro-rating benefits after interruptions in participation.
Sec. 1016. Work requirement for able-bodied recipients.
Sec. 1017. Extending current claims retention rates.
Sec. 1018. Coordination of employment and training programs.
Sec. 1019. Promoting expansion of electronic benefits transfer.
Sec. 1020. One-year freeze of standard deduction.
Sec. 1021. Nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico.
Sec. 1022. Other amendments to the Food Stamp Act of 1977.

                   Subtitle B--Commodity Distribution

Sec. 1051. Short title.
Sec. 1052. Availability of commodities.
Sec. 1053. State, local and private supplementation of commodities.
Sec. 1054. State plan.
Sec. 1055. Allocation of commodities to States.
Sec. 1056. Priority system for State distribution of commodities.
Sec. 1057. Initial processing costs.
Sec. 1058. Assurances; anticipated use.
Sec. 1059. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 1060. Commodity supplemental food program.
Sec. 1061. Commodities not income.
Sec. 1062. Prohibition against certain State charges.
Sec. 1063. Definitions.
Sec. 1064. Regulations.
Sec. 1065. Finality of determinations.
Sec. 1066. Relationship to other programs.
Sec. 1067. Settlement and adjustment of claims.
Sec. 1068. Repealers; amendments.

                      TITLE XI--DEFICIT REDUCTION

Sec. 1101. Dedication of savings to deficit reduction.

                       TITLE XII--EFFECTIVE DATE

Sec. 1201. Effective date.
     SEC. 3. AMENDMENT OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT.

       Except as otherwise expressly provided, wherever in this 
     Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an 
     amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the 
     reference shall be considered to be made to a section or 
     other provision of the Social Security Act.
             TITLE I--TIME-LIMITED TRANSITIONAL ASSISTANCE

     SEC. 101. LIMITATION ON DURATION OF AFDC BENEFITS.

       Section 402(a) (42 U.S.C. 602(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (44);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (45) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (45) the following:
       ``(46) in the case of a State that has exercised the option 
     provided for in paragraph (52), provide that--
       ``(A) a family shall not be eligible for aid under the 
     State plan if a member of the family is--
       ``(i) prohibited from participating in the State program 
     established under subpart 1 of part G by reason of section 
     497(b); or
       ``(ii) prohibited from participating in the State program 
     established under subpart 2 of part G by reason of section 
     499(a)(4); and
       ``(B) each member of the family shall be considered to be 
     receiving such aid for purposes of eligibility for medical 
     assistance under the State plan approved under title XIX for 
     so long as the family would be eligible for such aid but for 
     subparagraph (A).''.

     SEC. 102. ESTABLISHMENT OF FEDERAL DATA BASE.

       Section 402 (42 U.S.C. 602) is amended by inserting after 
     subsection (c) the following:
       ``(d) The Secretary shall establish and maintain a data 
     base of participants in State programs established under 
     parts F and G which shall be made available to the States for 
     use in administering subsection (a)(46).''.
                        TITLE II--MAKE WORK PAY
                        Subtitle A--Health Care

     SEC. 201. TRANSITIONAL MEDICAID BENEFITS.

       (a) Extension of Medicaid Enrollment for Former AFDC 
     Recipients for 1 Additional Year.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1925(b)(1) (42 U.S.C. 1396r-
     6(b)(1)) is amended by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting the following: ``, and that the State shall offer 
     to each such family the option of extending coverage under 
     this subsection for any of the first 2 succeeding 6-month 
     periods, in the same manner and under the same conditions as 
     the option of extending coverage under this subsection for 
     the first succeeding 6-month period.''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--Section 1925(b) (42 U.S.C. 
     1396r-6(b)) is amended--
       (A) in the heading, by striking ``Extension'' and inserting 
     ``Extensions'';
       (B) in the heading of paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``Requirement'' and inserting ``In general'';
       (C) in paragraph (2)(B)(ii)--
       (i) in the heading, by striking ``period'' and inserting 
     ``periods'', and
       (ii) by striking ``in the period'' and inserting ``in each 
     of the 6-month periods'';
       (D) in paragraph (3)(A), by striking ``the 6-month period'' 
     and inserting ``any 6-month period'';
       (E) in paragraph (4)(A), by striking ``the extension 
     period'' and inserting ``any extension period''; and
       (F) in paragraph (5)(D)(i), by striking ``is a 3-month 
     period'' and all that follows and inserting the following: 
     ``is, with respect to a particular 6-month additional 
     extension period provided under this subsection, a 3-month 
     period beginning with the 1st or 4th month of such extension 
     period.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to calendar quarters beginning on or after 
     October 1, 1997, without regard to whether or not final 
     regulations to carry out such amendments have been 
     promulgated by such date.
                  Subtitle B--Earned Income Tax Credit

     SEC. 211. NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED TO 
                   APPLICANTS AND FORMER RECIPIENTS OF AFDC, FOOD 
                   STAMPS, AND MEDICAID.

       (a) AFDC.--Section 402(a) (42 U.S.C. 602(a)), as amended by 
     sections 101 and 102 of this Act, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (46);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (47) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (47) the following:
       ``(48) provide that the State agency must provide written 
     notice of the existence and availability of the earned income 
     credit under section 32 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     to--
       ``(A) any individual who applies for aid under the State 
     plan, upon receipt of the application; and
       ``(B) any individual whose aid under the State plan is 
     terminated, in the notice of termination of benefits.''.
       (b) Food Stamps.--Section 11(e) of the Food Stamp Act of 
     1977 (7 U.S.C. 2020(e)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (24) by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (25) by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (25) the following:
       ``(26) that whenever a household applies for food stamp 
     benefits, and whenever such benefits are terminated with 
     respect to a household, the State agency shall provide to 
     each member of such household notice of--
       ``(A) the existence of the earned income tax credit under 
     section 32 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and
       ``(B) the fact that such credit may be applicable to such 
     member.''.
       (c) Medicaid.--Section 1902(a) (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)) is 
     amended--
     [[Page H3637]]   (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of 
     paragraph (61);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (62) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(63) provide that the State shall provide notice of the 
     existence and availability of the earned income tax credit 
     under section 32 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to each 
     individual applying for medical assistance under the State 
     plan and to each individual whose eligibility for medical 
     assistance under the State plan is terminated.''.

     SEC. 212. NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT 
                   AND DEPENDENT CARE TAX CREDIT TO BE INCLUDED ON 
                   W-4 FORM.

       Section 1114 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 
     1990 (26 U.S.C. 21 note), relating to program to increase 
     public awareness, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new sentence: ``Such means shall include printing a 
     notice of the availability of such credits on the forms used 
     by employees to determine the proper number of withholding 
     exemptions under chapter 24 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986.''.

     SEC. 213. ADVANCE PAYMENT OF EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT THROUGH 
                   STATE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--Section 3507 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to the advance payment of the earned income 
     tax credit) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) State Demonstrations.--
       ``(1) In general.--In lieu of receiving earned income 
     advance amounts from an employer under subsection (a), a 
     participating resident shall receive advance earned income 
     payments from a responsible State agency pursuant to a State 
     Advance Payment Program that is designated pursuant to 
     paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Designations.--
       ``(A) In general.--From among the States submitting 
     proposals satisfying the requirements of subsection (g)(3), 
     the Secretary (in consultation with the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services) may designate not more than 4 State 
     Advance Payment Demonstrations. States selected for the 
     demonstrations may have, in the aggregate, no more than 5 
     percent of the total number of household participating in the 
     program under the Food Stamp program in the immediately 
     preceding fiscal year, Administrative costs of a State in 
     conducting a demonstration under this section may be included 
     for matching under section 403(a) of the Social Security Act 
     and section 16(a) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977.
       ``(B) When designation may be made.--Any designation under 
     this paragraph shall be made no later than December 31, 1995.
       ``(C) Period for which designation is in effect.--
       ``(i) In general.--Designations made under this paragraph 
     shall be effective for advance earned income payments made 
     after December 31, 1995, and before January 1, 1999.
       ``(ii) Special rules.--

       ``(I) Revocation of designations.--The Secretary may revoke 
     the designation under this paragraph if the Secretary 
     determines that the State is not complying substantially with 
     the proposal described in paragraph (3) submitted by the 
     State.
       ``(II) Automatic termination of designations.--Any failure 
     by a State to comply with the reporting requirements 
     described in paragraphs (3)(F) and (3)(G) has the effect of 
     immediately terminating the designation under this paragraph 
     (2) and rendering paragraph (5)(A)(ii) inapplicable to 
     subsequent payments.

       ``(3) Proposals.--No State may be designated under 
     subsection (g)(2) unless the State's proposal for such 
     designation--
       ``(A) identifies the responsible State agency,
       ``(B) describes how and when the advance earned income 
     payments will be made by that agency, including a description 
     of any other State or Federal benefits with which such 
     payments will be coordinated,
       ``(C) describes how the State will obtain the information 
     on which the amount of advance earned income payments made to 
     each participating resident will be determined in accordance 
     with paragraph (4),
       ``(D) describes how State residents who will be eligible to 
     receive advance earned income payments will be selected, 
     notified of the opportunity to receive advance earned income 
     payments from the responsible State agency, and given the 
     opportunity to elect to participate in the program,
       ``(E) describes how the State will verify, in addition to 
     receiving the certifications and statement described in 
     paragraph (7)(D)(iv), the eligibility of participating 
     residents for the earned tax credit,
       ``(F) commits the State to furnishing to each participating 
     resident and to the Secretary by January 31 of each year a 
     written statement showing--
       ``(i) the name and taxpayer identification number of the 
     participating resident, and
       ``(ii) the total amount of advance earned income payments 
     made to the participating resident during the prior calendar 
     year,
       ``(G) commits the State to furnishing to the Secretary by 
     December 1 of each year a written statement showing the name 
     and taxpayer identification number of each participating 
     resident,
       ``(H) commits the State to treat the advanced earned income 
     payments as described in subsection (g)(5) and any repayments 
     of excessive advance earned income payments as described in 
     subsection (g)(6),
       ``(I) commits the State to assess the development and 
     implementation of its State Advance Payment Program, 
     including an agreement to share its findings and lessons with 
     other interested States in a manner to be described by the 
     Secretary, and
       ``(J) is submitted to the Secretary on or before June 30, 
     1995.
       ``(4) Amount and timing of advance earned income 
     payments.--
       ``(A) Amount.--
       ``(i) In general.--The method for determining the amount of 
     advance earned income payments made to each participating 
     resident is to conform to the full extent possible with the 
     provisions of subsection (c).
       ``(ii) Special rule.--A State may, at its election, apply 
     the rules of subsection (c)(2)(B) by substituting `between 60 
     percent and 75 percent of the credit percentage in effect 
     under section 32(b)(1) for an individual with the 
     corresponding number of qualifying children' for `60 percent 
     of the credit percentage in effect under section 32(b)(1) for 
     such an eligible individual with 1 qualifying child' in 
     clause (i) and `the same percentage (as applied in clause 
     (i))' for `60 percent' in clause (ii).
       ``(B) Timing.--The frequency of advance earned income 
     payments may be made on the basis of the payroll periods of 
     participating residents, on a single statewide schedule, or 
     on any
      other reasonable basis prescribed by the State in its 
     proposal; however, in no event may advance earned income 
     payments be made to any participating resident less 
     frequently than on a calendar-quarter basis.
       ``(5) Payments to be treated as payments of withholding and 
     fica taxes.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of this title, advance 
     earned income payments during any calendar quarter--
       ``(i) shall neither be treated as a payment of compensation 
     nor be included in gross income, and
       ``(ii) shall be treated as made out of--

       ``(I) amounts required to be deducted by the State and 
     withheld for the calendar quarter by the State under section 
     3401 (relating to wage withholding), and
       ``(II) amounts required to be deducted for the calendar 
     quarter under section 3102 (relating to FICA employee taxes), 
     and
       ``(III) amounts of the taxes imposed on the State for the 
     calendar quarter under section 3111 (relating to FICA 
     employer taxes),

     as if the State had paid to the Secretary, on the day on 
     which payments are made to participating residents, an amount 
     equal to such payments.
       ``(B) Advance payments exceed taxes due.--If for any 
     calendar quarter the aggregate amount of advance earned 
     income payments made by the responsible State agency under a 
     State Advance Payment Program exceeds the sum of the amounts 
     referred to in subparagraph (A)(ii) (without regard to 
     paragraph (6)(A)), each such advance earned income payment 
     shall be reduced by an amount which bears the same ratio to 
     such excess as such advance earned income payment bears to 
     the aggregate amount of all such advance earned income 
     payments.
       ``(6) State repayment of excessive advance earned income 
     payments.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, in the case of an excessive advance earned income 
     payment a State shall be treated as having deducted and 
     withheld under section 3401 (relating to wage withholding), 
     and therefore is required to pay to the United States, the 
     repayment amount during the repayment calendar quarter.
       ``(B) Excessive advance earned income payment.--For 
     purposes of this section, an excessive advance income payment 
     is that portion of any advance earned income payment that, 
     when combined with other advance earned income payments 
     previously made to the same participating resident during the 
     same calendar year, exceeds the amount of earned income tax 
     credit to which that participating resident is entitled under 
     section 32 for that year.
       ``(C) Repayment amount.--The repayment amount is equal to 
     50 percent of the excess of--
       ``(i) excessive advance earned income payments made by a 
     State during a particular calendar year, over
       ``(ii) the sum of--

       ``(I) 4 percent of all advance earned income payments made 
     by the State during that calendar year, and
       ``(II) the excessive advance earned income payments made by 
     the State during that calendar year that have been collected 
     from participating residents by the Secretary.

       ``(D) Repayment calendar quarter.--The repayment calendar 
     quarter is the second calendar quarter of the third calendar 
     year after the calendar year in which an excessive earned 
     income payment is made.
       ``(7) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(A) State advance payment program.--The term `State 
     Advance Payment Program' means the program described in a 
     proposal submitted for designation under paragraph (1) and 
     designated by the Secretary under paragraph (2).
       ``(B) Responsible state agency.--The term `responsible 
     State agency' means the single State agency that will be 
     making the advance earned income payments to residents of the 
     State who elect to participate in a State Advance Payment 
     Program.
       ``(C) Advance earned income payments.--The term `advance 
     earned income payments' 
      [[Page H3638]] means an amount paid by a responsible State 
     agency to residents of the State pursuant to a State Advance 
     Payment Program.
       ``(D) Participating resident.--The term `participating 
     resident' means an individual who--
       ``(i) is a resident of a State that has in effect a 
     designated State Advance Payment Program,
       ``(ii) makes the election described in paragraph (3)(C) 
     pursuant to guidelines prescribed by the State,
       ``(iii) certifies to the State the number of qualifying 
     children the individual has, and
       ``(iv) provides to the State the certifications and 
     statement set forth in subsections (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), 
     and (b)(4) (except that for purposes of this clause (iv), the 
     term `any employer' shall be substituted for `another 
     employer' in subsection (b)(3)), along with any other 
     information required by the State.''.
       (b) Technical Assistance.--The Secretaries of Treasury and 
     Health and Human Services shall jointly ensure that technical 
     assistance is provided to State Advance Payment Programs and 
     that these programs are rigorously evaluated.
       (c) Annual Reports.--The Secretary shall issue annual 
     reports detailing the extent to which--
       (1) residents participate in the State Advance Payment 
     Programs,
       (2) participating residents file Federal and State tax 
     returns,
       (3) participating residents report accurately the amount of 
     the advance earned income payments made to them by the 
     responsible State agency during the year, and
       (4) recipients of excessive advance earned income payments 
     repaid those amounts.

     The report shall also contain an estimate of the amount of 
     advance earned income payments made by each responsible State 
     agency but not reported on the tax returns of a participating 
     resident and the amount of excessive advance earned income 
     payments.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--For purposes of 
     providing technical assistance described in subsection (b), 
     preparing the reports described in subsection (c), and 
     providing grants to States in support of designated State 
     Advance Payment Programs, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated in advance to the Secretary of the Treasury and 
     the Secretary of Health and Human Services a total of 
     $1,400,000 for fiscal years 1996 through 1999.
                         Subtitle C--Child Care

     SEC. 221. DEPENDENT CARE CREDIT TO BE REFUNDABLE; HIGH-INCOME 
                   TAXPAYERS INELIGIBLE FOR CREDIT.

       (a) Credit To Be Refundable.--
       (1) In general.--Section 21 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 (relating to expenses for household and dependent care 
     services necessary for gainful employment) is hereby moved to 
     subpart C of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of such 
     Code (relating to refundable credits) and inserted after 
     section 34.
       (2) Technical amendments.--
       (A) Section 35 of such Code is redesignated as section 36.
       (B) Section 21 of such Code is redesignated as section 35.
       (C) Paragraph (1) of section 35(a) of such Code (as 
     redesignated by subparagraph (B)) is amended by striking 
     ``this chapter'' and inserting ``this subtitle''.
       (D) Subparagraph (C) of section 129(a)(2) of such Code is 
     amended by striking ``section 21(e)'' and inserting ``section 
     35(e)''.
       (E) Paragraph (2) of section 129(b) of such Code is amended 
     by striking ``section 21(d)(2)'' and inserting ``section 
     35(d)(2)''.
       (F) Paragraph (1) of section 129(e) of such Code is amended 
     by striking ``section 21(b)(2)'' and inserting ``section 
     35(b)(2)''.
       (G) Subsection (e) of section 213 of such Code is amended 
     by striking ``section 21'' and inserting ``section 35''.
       (H) Paragraph (2) of section 1324(b) of title 31, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting before the period ``, or 
     from section 35 of such Code''.
       (I) The table of sections for subpart C of part IV of 
     subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by striking 
     the item relating to section 35 and inserting the following:

``Sec. 35. Expenses for household and dependent care services necessary 
              for gainful employment.
``Sec. 36. Overpayments of tax.''.

       (J) The table of sections for subpart A of such part IV is 
     amended by striking the item relating to section 21.
       (b) Higher-Income Taxpayers Ineligible for Credit.--
     Subsection (a) of section 35 of such Code, as redesignated by 
     subsection (a), is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(3) Phaseout of credit for higher-income taxpayers.--The 
     amount of the credit which would (but for this paragraph) be 
     allowed by this section shall be reduced (but not below zero) 
     by an amount which bears the same ratio to such amount of 
     credit as the excess of the taxpayer's adjusted gross income 
     for the taxable year over $60,000 bears to $20,000. Any 
     reduction determined under the preceding sentence which is 
     not a multiple of $10 shall be rounded to the nearest 
     multiple of $10.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1996.

     SEC. 222. FUNDING OF CHILD CARE SERVICES.

       (a) Elimination of Child Care Programs.--
       (1) AFDC and transitional child care programs.--
       (A) Repealer.--Section 402(g) (42 U.S.C. 602(g)) is hereby 
     repealed.
       (B) Conforming amendments.--
       (i) Section 403(a)(3) (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(3)) is amended by 
     striking ``other than services furnished pursuant to section 
     402(g)''.
       (ii) Section 403(e) (42 U.S.C. 603(e)) is amended--

       (I) by striking ``, 402(a)(43), and 402(g)(1),'' and 
     inserting ``and 402(a)(43)''; and
       (II) by striking the 2nd sentence.

       (2) At-risk child care program.--Sections 402(i) and 403(n) 
     (42 U.S.C. 602(i) and 603(n)) are hereby repealed.
       (3) Child care programs under the child care and 
     development block grant act of 1990.--The Child Care and 
     Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858 et seq.) 
     is hereby repealed.
       (b) Funding of Child Care Services Through Social Services 
     Block Grant Program.--Title XX (42 U.S.C. 1397-1397f) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 2008. CHILD CARE.

       ``(a) Conditional Entitlement.--In addition to any payment 
     under section 2002 or 2007, each State with a plan approved 
     under this section for a fiscal year shall be entitled to 
     payment of an amount equal to the special allotment of the 
     State for the fiscal year.
       ``(b) State Plans.--
       ``(1) Content.--A plan meets the requirements of this 
     paragraph if the plan--
       ``(A) identifies an appropriate State agency to be the lead 
     agency responsible for administering at the State level, and 
     coordinating with local governments, the activities of the 
     State pursuant to this section;
       ``(B) describes the activities the State will carry out 
     with funds provided under this section;
       ``(C) provides assurances that the funds provided under 
     this section will be used to supplement, not supplant, State 
     and local funds as well as Federal funds provided under any 
     Act and applied to child care activities in the State during 
     fiscal year 1989;
       ``(D) provides assurances that the State will not expend 
     more than 7 percent of the funds provided to the States under 
     this section for the fiscal year for administrative expenses;
       ``(E) provides assurances that, in providing child care 
     assistance, the State will give priority to families with low 
     income and families living in a low-income geographical area;
       ``(F) ensures that child care providers reimbursed under 
     this section meet applicable standards of State and local 
     law;
       ``(G) provides assurances that the lead agency will 
     coordinate the use of funds provided under this section with 
     the use of other Federal resources for child care provided 
     under this Act, and with other Federal, State, or local child 
     care and preschool programs operated in the State;
       ``(H) provides for the establishment of such fiscal and 
     accounting procedures as may be necessary to--
       ``(i) ensure a proper accounting of Federal funds received 
     by the State under this section; and
       ``(ii) ensure the proper verification of the reports 
     submitted by the State under subsection (f)(2);
       ``(I) provides assurances that the State will not impose 
     more stringent standards and licensing or regulatory 
     requirements on child care providers receiving funds provided 
     under this section than those imposed on other child care 
     providers in the State;
       ``(J) provides assurances that the State will not implement 
     any policy or practice which has the effect of significantly 
     restricting parental choice by--
       ``(i) expressly or effectively excluding any category of 
     care or type of provider within a category of care;
       ``(ii) limiting parental access to or choices from among 
     various categories of care or types of providers; or
       ``(iii) excluding a significant number of providers in any 
     category of care; and
       ``(K) provides assurances that parents will be informed 
     regarding their options under this section, including the 
     option of receiving a child care certificate or voucher.
       ``(2) Form.--A State may submit a plan that meets the 
     requirements of paragraph (1) in the form of amendments to 
     the State plan submitted pursuant to section 658E of the 
     Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990, as in 
     effect before the effective date of section 222 of the 
     Individual Responsibility Act of 1995.
       ``(3) Approval.--Not later than 90 days after the date the 
     State submits a plan to the Secretary under this subsection, 
     the Secretary shall either approve or disapprove the plan. If 
     the Secretary disapproves the plan, the Secretary shall 
     provide the State with an explanation and recommendations for 
     changes in the plan to gain approval.
       ``(c) Special Allotments.--
       ``(1) In general.--The special allotment of a State for a 
     fiscal year equals the amount that bears the same ratio to 
     the amount specified in paragraph (2) for the fiscal year, as 
     the number of children who have not attained 13 years of age 
     and are residing with families in the State bears to the 
     total number of such children in all States with plans 
     approved under this section for the fiscal year, determined 
     on the basis of the most recent data available from the 
     Department of 
      [[Page H3639]] Commerce at the time the special allotment is 
     determined.
       ``(2) Amount specified.--The amount specified in this 
     paragraph is--
       ``(A) $1,400,000,000 for fiscal year 1997; and
       ``(B) $1,450,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1998, 1999, 
     and 2000.
       ``(d) Payments to States.--
       ``(1) Payments.--The Secretary shall provide funds to each 
     State with a plan approved under this section for a fiscal 
     year from the special allotment of the State for the fiscal 
     year, in accordance with section 6503 of title 31, United 
     States Code.
       ``(2) Expenditure of funds by states.--Except as provided 
     in paragraph (3)(A), each State to which funds are paid under 
     this section for a fiscal year shall expend such funds in the 
     fiscal year or in the immediately succeeding fiscal year.
       ``(3) Redistribution of unexpended special allotments.--
       ``(A) Remittance to the secretary.--Each State to which 
     funds are paid under this section for a fiscal year shall 
     remit to the Secretary that part of such funds which the 
     State intends not to, or does not, expend in the fiscal year 
     or in the immediately succeeding fiscal year.
       ``(B) Redistribution.--The Secretary shall increase the 
     special allotment of each State with a plan approved under 
     this part for a fiscal year that does not remit any amount to 
     the Secretary for the fiscal year by an amount equal to--
       ``(i) the aggregate of the amounts remitted pursuant to 
     subparagraph (A) for the fiscal year; multiplied by
       ``(ii) the adjusted State share for the fiscal year.
       ``(C) Adjusted state share.--As used in subparagraph 
     (B)(ii), the term `adjusted State share' means, with respect 
     to a fiscal year--
       ``(i) the special allotment of the State for the fiscal 
     year (before any increase under subparagraph (B)); divided by
       ``(ii)(I) the sum of the special allotments of all States 
     with plans approved under this part for the fiscal year; 
     minus
       ``(II) the aggregate of the amounts remitted to the 
     Secretary pursuant to subparagraph (A) for the fiscal year.
       ``(e) Use of Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--Funds provided under this section shall 
     be used to expand parent choices in selecting child care, to 
     address deficiencies in the supply of child care, and to 
     expand and improve child care services, with an emphasis on 
     providing such services to low-income families and 
     geographical areas. Subject to the approval of the Secretary, 
     States to which funds are paid under this section shall use 
     such funds to carry out child care programs and activities 
     through cash grants, certificates, or contracts with 
     families, or public or private entities as the State 
     determines appropriate. States shall take parental preference 
     into account to the maximum extent possible in carrying out 
     child care programs.
       ``(2) Specific uses.--Each State to which funds are paid 
     under this section may expend such funds for--
       ``(A) child care services for infants, sick children, 
     children with special needs, and children of adolescent 
     parents;
       ``(B) after-school and before-school programs and programs 
     during nontraditional hours for the children of working 
     parents;
       ``(C) programs for the recruitment and training of day care 
     workers, including older Americans;
       ``(D) grant and loan programs to enable child care workers 
     and providers to meet State and local standards and 
     requirements;
       ``(E) child care programs developed by public and private 
     sector partnerships;
       ``(F) State efforts to provide technical assistance 
     designed to help providers improve the services offered to 
     parents and children; and
       ``(G) other child care-related programs consistent with the 
     purpose of this section and approved by the Secretary.
       ``(3) Limitations on use of funds.--A State to which funds 
     are paid under this section for a fiscal year shall use not 
     less than 80 percent of such funds to provide direct child 
     care assistance to low-income parents through child care 
     certificates or vouchers, contracts, or grants.
       ``(4) Methods of funding.--Funds for child care services 
     under this title shall be for the benefit of parents and 
     shall be provided through child care vouchers or certificates 
     provided directly to parents or through contracts or grants 
     with public or private providers.
       ``(5) Parental rights of choice.--Any parent who receives a 
     child care certificate under this title may use such 
     certificate with any child care provider, including those 
     providers which have religious activities, if such provider 
     is freely chosen by the parent from among the available 
     alternatives.
       ``(6) Child care certificates.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of this title, a child care 
     certificate is a certificate issued by a State directly to a 
     parent or legal guardian for use only as payment for child 
     care services in any child care facility eligible to receive 
     funds under this Act.
       ``(B) Redemption.--If the demand for child care services of 
     families qualified to receive such services from a State 
     under this Act exceeds the available supply of such services, 
     the State shall ration assistance to obtain such services 
     using procedures that do not disadvantage parents using child 
     care certificates, relative to other methods of financing, in 
     either the waiting period or the pecuniary value of such 
     services.
       ``(C) Commencement of certificate program.--Beginning not 
     later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this 
     section, each State that receives funds under this title 
     shall offer a child care certificate program in accordance 
     with this section.
       ``(D) Authority to use child care funds for certificate 
     program.--Each State to which funds are paid under this title 
     may use the funds provided to the State under this title 
     which are required to be used for child care activities to 
     plan and establish the State's child care certificate 
     program.
       ``(7) Option of receiving a child care certificate.--Each 
     parent or legal guardian who receives assistance pursuant to 
     this title shall be provided with the option of enrolling 
     their child with an eligible child care provider that 
     receives funds through grants, contracts, or child care 
     certificates provided under this title. Such parent shall 
     have the right to use such certificates to purchase child 
     care services from an eligible provider of their choice. The 
     State shall ensure that parental preference is considered to 
     the maximum extent possible in awarding grants or contracts.
       ``(8) Rights of religious child care providers.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a religious child 
     care provider who receives funds under this Act may require 
     adherence by employees to the religious tenets or teachings 
     of the provider.
       ``(9) Eligible child care providers.--Any child care 
     provider who meets applicable standards of State and local 
     law shall be eligible to receive funds under this section. As 
     used in this paragraph, the term `child care provider' 
     includes--
       ``(A) proprietary for-profit entities, relatives, informal 
     day care homes, religious child care providers, day care 
     centers, and any other entities that the State determines 
     appropriate subject to approval of the Secretary;
       ``(B) nonprofit organizations under subsections (c) and (d) 
     of section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
       ``(C) professional or employee associations;
       ``(D) consortia of small businesses; and
       ``(E) units of State and local governments, and elementary, 
     secondary, and post-secondary educational institutions.
       ``(10) Prohibited uses.--Any State to which funds are paid 
     under this section may not use such funds--
       ``(A) to satisfy any State matching requirement imposed 
     under any Federal grant;
       ``(B) for the purchase or improvement of land, or the 
     purchase, construction, or permanent improvement (other than 
     minor remodeling) of any building or other facility; or
       ``(C) to provide any service which the State makes 
     generally available to the residents of the State without 
     cost to such residents and without regard to the income of 
     such residents.
       ``(f) Reporting Requirements.--
       ``(1) Notice to secretary of unexpended funds.--Each State 
     which has not completely expended the funds paid to the State 
     under this section for a fiscal year in the fiscal year or 
     the immediately succeeding fiscal year shall notify the 
     Secretary of any amount not so expended.
       ``(2) State reports on use of funds.--Not later than 18 
     months after the date of the enactment of this section, and 
     each year thereafter, the State shall prepare and submit to 
     the Secretary, in such form as the Secretary shall prescribe, 
     a report describing the State's use of funds paid to the 
     State under this section, including--
       ``(A) the number, type, and distribution of services and 
     programs under this section;
       ``(B) the average cost of child care, by type of provider;
       ``(C) the number of children serviced under this section;
       ``(D) the average income and distribution of incomes of the 
     families being served;
       ``(E) efforts undertaken by the State pursuant to this 
     section to promote and ensure health and safety and improve 
     quality; and
       ``(F) such other information as the Secretary considers 
     appropriate.
       ``(3) Guidelines for state reports; coordination with 
     reports under section 2006.--Within 6 months after the date 
     of the enactment of this section, the Secretary shall 
     establish guidelines for State reports under paragraph (2). 
     To the extent feasible, the Secretary shall coordinate such 
     reporting requirement with the reports required under section 
     2006 and, as the Secretary deems appropriate, with other 
     reporting requirements placed on States as a condition of 
     receipt of other Federal funds which support child care.
       ``(4) Reports by the secretary.--
       ``(A) Reports to the congress of summary of state 
     reports.--The Secretary shall annually summarize the 
     information reported to the Secretary pursuant to paragraph 
     (2) and provide such summary to the Congress.
       ``(B) Reports to the states on effective practices.--The 
     Secretary shall annually provide the States with a report on 
     particularly effective practices and programs supported by 
     funds paid to the State under this section, which ensure the 
     health and safety of children in care, promote quality child 
     care, and provide training to all types of providers.
       ``(g) Administration and Enforcement.--
       ``(1) Administration.--The Secretary shall--
     [[Page H3640]]   ``(A) coordinate all activities of the 
     Department of Health and Human Services relating to child 
     care, and, to the maximum extent practicable, coordinate such 
     activities with similar activities of other Federal entities;
       ``(B) collect, publish, and make available to the public a 
     listing of State child care standards at least once every 3 
     years; and
       ``(C) provide technical assistance to assist States to 
     carry out this section, including assistance on a 
     reimbursable basis.
       ``(2) Enforcement.--
       ``(A) Review of compliance with state plan.--The Secretary 
     shall review and monitor State compliance with this section 
     and the plans approved under this section for the State, and 
     shall have the power to terminate payments to the State in 
     accordance with subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Noncompliance.--
       ``(i) In general.--If the Secretary, after reasonable 
     notice to a State and opportunity for a hearing, finds that--

       ``(I) there has been a failure by the State to comply 
     substantially with any provision or requirement set forth in 
     the plan approved under this section for the State; or
       ``(II) in the operation of any program for which assistance 
     is provided under this section there is a failure by the 
     State to comply substantially with any provision of this 
     section;

     the Secretary shall notify the State of the findings and that 
     no further payments may be made to such State under this 
     section (or, in the case of noncompliance in the operation of 
     a program or activity, that no further payments to the State 
     will be made with respect to such program or activity) until 
     the Secretary is satisfied that there is no longer any such 
     failure to comply or that the noncompliance will be promptly 
     corrected.
       ``(ii) Additional sanctions.--In the case of a finding of 
     noncompliance made pursuant to clause (i), the Secretary may, 
     in addition to imposing the sanctions described in such 
     subparagraph, impose the other appropriate sanctions, 
     including recoupment of money improperly expended for 
     purposes prohibited or not authorized by this section, and 
     disqualification from the receipt of financial assistance 
     under this section.
       ``(iii) Notice.--The notice required under subparagraph (A) 
     shall include a specific identification of any additional 
     sanction being imposed under clause (ii).
       ``(C) Issuance of rules.--The Secretary shall establish by 
     rule procedures for--
       ``(i) receiving, processing, and determining the validity 
     of complaints concerning any failure of a State to comply 
     with the State plan or any requirement of this section; and
       ``(ii) imposing sanctions under this subsection.

     ``SEC. 2009. CHILD CARE DURING PARTICIPATION IN EMPLOYMENT, 
                   EDUCATION, AND TRAINING; EXTENDED ELIGIBILITY.

       ``(a) Child Care Guarantee.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each State agency referred to in section 
     2008(b)(1)(A) shall guarantee child care in accordance with 
     section 2008--
       ``(A) for any individual who is participating in an 
     education or training activity (including participation in a 
     program established under part G of title IV) if the State 
     agency approves the activity and determines that the 
     individual is participating satisfactorily in the activity;
       ``(B) for each family with a dependent child requiring such 
     care to the extent that such care is determined by the State 
     agency to be necessary for an individual in the family to 
     accept employment or remain employed, including in a 
     community service job under part H of title IV; and
       ``(C) to the extent that the State agency determines that 
     such care is necessary for the employment of an individual, 
     if the family of which the individual is a member has ceased 
     to receive aid under the State plan approved under part A of 
     title IV by reason of increased hours of, or income from, 
     such employment or by reason of section 402(a)(8)(B)(ii)(II), 
     subject to paragraph (2) of this subsection.
       ``(2) Limitations on eligibility for transitional child 
     care.--A family shall not be eligible for child care under 
     paragraph (1)(C)--
       ``(A) for more than 12 months after the last month for 
     which the family received aid described in such paragraph;
       ``(B) if the family did not receive such aid in at least 3 
     of the most recent 6 months in which the family received such 
     aid;
       ``(C) if the family does not include a child who is (or, if 
     needy, would be) a dependent child (within the meaning of 
     part A of title IV);
       ``(D) for any month beginning after the caretaker relative 
     (within the meaning of such part) in the family has 
     terminated his or her employment without good cause; or
       ``(E) with respect to a child, for any month beginning 
     after the caretaker relative in the family has refused to 
     cooperate with the State in establishing or enforcing the 
     obligation of any parent of the child to provide support for 
     the child, without good cause as determined by the State 
     agency in accordance with standards prescribed by the 
     Secretary which shall take into consideration the best 
     interests of the child.
       ``(b) State Entitlement to Payments.--Each State with a 
     plan approved under section 2008 shall be entitled to receive 
     from the Secretary for any fiscal year an amount equal to--
       ``(1) the total amount expended by the State to carry out 
     subsection (a) during the fiscal year; multiplied by
       ``(2) the greater of--
       ``(A) 70 percent; or
       ``(B) the Federal medical assistance percentage (as defined 
     in the last sentence of section 1118, increased by 10 
     percentage points.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments and repeals made by 
     this section shall take effect on October 1, 1996.
                    Subtitle D--AFDC Work Disregards

     SEC. 231. OPTION TO INCREASE DISREGARD OF EARNED INCOME.

       Section 402(a)(8)(A) (42 U.S.C. 602(a)(8)(A)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (vii); and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(ix) if electing to disregard clauses (ii) and (iv), 
     shall disregard from the earned income of any child, 
     relative, or other individual specified in clause (ii) an 
     amount equal to not less than the first $120 and not more 
     than the first $225 of the total of such earned income not 
     disregarded under any other clause of this subparagraph, plus 
     not more than one third of the remainder of such earned 
     income; and''.

     SEC. 232. STATE OPTION TO ESTABLISH VOLUNTARY DIVERSION 
                   PROGRAM.

       Section 402(a) (42 U.S.C. 602(a)), as amended by sections 
     101, 102, and 211(a) of this Act, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (47);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (48) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (48) the following:
       ``(49) at the option of the State, and in such part or 
     parts of the State as the State may select, provide that--
       ``(A) upon the recommendation of the caseworker who is 
     handling the case of a family eligible for aid under the 
     State plan, the State shall, in lieu of any other payment 
     under the State plan to a family during a time period of not 
     more than 3 months, make a lump-sum payment to the family for 
     the time period in an amount not to exceed--
       ``(i) the amount of the monthly benefit to which the family 
     is entitled under the State plan; multiplied by
       ``(ii) the number of months in the time period;
       ``(B) a lump-sum payment pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall 
     not be made more than once to any family; and
       ``(C) if, during a time period for which the State has made 
     a lump-sum payment to a family pursuant to subparagraph (A), 
     the family applies for and (but for the lump-sum payment) 
     would be eligible for aid under the State plan for a greater 
     monthly benefit than the monthly benefit to which the family 
     was entitled under the State plan at the time of the 
     calculation of the lump sum payment, then, notwithstanding 
     subparagraph (A), the State shall, for that part of the time 
     period that remains after the family becomes eligible for the 
     greater monthly benefit, provide monthly benefits to the 
     family in an amount not to exceed--
       ``(i) the amount by which the greater monthly benefit 
     exceeds the former monthly benefit, multiplied by the number 
     of months in the time period; divided by
       ``(ii) the whole number of months remaining in the time 
     period.''.

     SEC. 233. ELIMINATION OF QUARTERS OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT FOR 
                   MARRIED TEENS UNDER AFDC-UP PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Section 407(b)(1)(A)(iii)(I) (42 U.S.C. 
     607(b)(1)(A)(iii)(I)) is amended by inserting ``except in the 
     case of a family in which the parents are married and neither 
     parent has attained 20 years of age,'' after ``(I)''.
       (b) Extension of AFDC-UP Program.--Section 401(h) of the 
     Family Support Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 602 and note, 607) is 
     amended by striking ``1998'' and inserting ``2000''.
                   Subtitle E--AFDC Asset Limitations

     SEC. 241. INCREASE IN RESOURCE THRESHOLDS; SEPARATE THRESHOLD 
                   FOR VEHICLES.

       Section 402(a)(7)(B) (42 U.S.C. 602(a)(7)(B)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$1,000 or such lower amount as the State 
     may determine'' and inserting ``$2,000''; and
       (2) in clause (i), by striking ``such amount as the 
     Secretary may prescribe'' and inserting ``the dollar amount 
     prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture under section 5(g) 
     of the Food Stamp Act of 1977''.

     SEC. 242. LIMITED DISREGARD OF AMOUNTS SAVED FOR POST-
                   SECONDARY EDUCATION, THE PURCHASE OF A FIRST 
                   HOME, OR THE ESTABLISHMENT OR OPERATION OF A 
                   MICROENTERPRISE.

       (a) Disregard From Resources.--Section 402(a)(7)(B) (42 
     U.S.C. 602(a)(7)(B)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' before ``(iv)''; and
       (2) by inserting ``, or (v) any amount not exceeding $8,000 
     in 1 qualified asset account (as defined in section 406(i)) 
     of 1 member of such family'' before ``; and''.
       (b) Disregard From Income.--
       (1) In general.--Section 402(a)(8)(A) (42 U.S.C. 
     602(a)(8)(A)), as amended by section 231 of this Act, is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (viii); and
       (B) by inserting after clause (ix) the following new 
     clause:
     [[Page H3641]]   ``(x) shall disregard any interest or income 
     earned on a qualified asset account (as defined in section 
     406(i)) and paid into the account, to the extent that the 
     total amount in the account, after such payment, does not 
     exceed $8,000; and''.
       (2) Nonrecurring lump sum exempt from lump sum rule.--
     Section 402(a)(17) (42 U.S.C. 602(a)(17)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following: ``; and that this paragraph 
     shall not apply to earned or unearned income received in a 
     month on a nonrecurring basis to the extent that such income 
     is placed in a qualified asset account (as defined in section 
     406(i)) the total amount in which, after such placement, does 
     not exceed $8,000;''.
       (3) Treatment as income.--Section 402(a)(7) (42 U.S.C. 
     602(a)(7)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (B);
       (B) by striking the semicolon at the end of subparagraph 
     (C) and inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) shall treat as income any distribution from a 
     qualified asset account (as defined in section 406(i)(1)) 
     that is not a qualified distribution (as defined in section 
     406(i)(2));''.
       (c) Definitions.--Section 406 (42 U.S.C. 606) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(i)(1) The term `qualified asset account' means a 
     mechanism approved by the State (such as individual 
     retirement accounts, escrow accounts, or savings bonds) that 
     allows savings of an individual receiving aid to families 
     with dependent children to be used for a purpose described in 
     paragraph (2).
       ``(2) The term `qualified distribution' means a 
     distribution for expenses directly related to 1 or more of 
     the following purposes:
       ``(A) The attendance of a member of the family at any 
     postsecondary education program.
       ``(B) The purchase of residential real property for the 
     family that the family intends to occupy, if no member of the 
     family has an ownership interest in such a property.
       ``(C) The establishment or operation of a microenterprise 
     owned by a member of the family.
       ``(j) The term `microenterprise' means a commercial 
     enterprise which has 5 or fewer employees, 1 or more of whom 
     owns the enterprise.''.
                   TITLE III--THE WORK FIRST PROGRAM

     SEC. 301. WORK FIRST PROGRAM.

       (a) State Plan Requirement.--Section 402(a) (42 U.S.C. 
     602(a)), as amended by sections 101, 102, 211(a), and 232 of 
     this Act, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (48);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (49) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (49) the following:
       ``(50) provide that the State--
       ``(A) shall develop an individual responsibility plan in 
     accordance with part F for each applicant for, or recipient 
     of, aid under the State plan who--
       ``(i) has attained 18 years of age; or
       ``(ii) has not completed high school or obtained a 
     certificate of high school equivalency, and is not attending 
     secondary school;
       ``(B) has in effect and operation--
       ``(i) a work first program that meets the requirements of 
     subpart 1 of part G (or, for any fiscal year for which the 
     Secretary has approved a State plan under subpart 2 of part 
     G, such subpart 2); and
       ``(ii) a community service program that meets the 
     requirements of part H, or a job placement voucher program 
     that meets the requirements of part I, but not both;
       ``(C) shall provide a position in the workfare program 
     established by the State under part H, or a job placement 
     voucher under the job placement voucher program established 
     by the State under part I to any individual who, by reason of 
     section 497(b), is prohibited from participating in the work 
     first program operated by the State, and shall not provide 
     such a position or such a voucher to any other individual; 
     and
       ``(D) shall provide to participants in such programs such 
     case management services as are necessary to ensure the 
     integrated provision of benefits and services under such 
     programs.''.
       (b) Establishment and Operation of Program.--Title IV (42 
     U.S.C. 601 et seq.) is amended by striking part F and 
     inserting the following:

                ``Part F--Individual Responsibility Plan

     ``SEC. 481. ASSESSMENT.

       ``The State agency referred to in section 402(a)(3) shall 
     make an initial assessment of the skills, prior work 
     experience, and employability of each individual for whom 
     section 402(a)(50)(A) requires the State to develop an 
     individual responsibility plan.

     ``SEC. 482. INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY PLANS.

       ``(a) In General.--On the basis of the assessment made 
     under section 481 with respect to an individual, the State 
     agency, in consultation with the individual, shall develop an 
     individual responsibility plan for the individual, which--
       ``(1) shall provide that participation by the individual in 
     job search activities shall be a condition of eligibility for 
     aid under the State plan approved under part A, except during 
     any period for which the individual is employed full-time in 
     an unsubsidized job in the private sector;
       ``(2) sets forth an employment goal for the individual and 
     a plan for moving the individual immediately into private 
     sector employment;
       ``(3) sets forth the obligations of the individual, which 
     may include a requirement that the individual attend school, 
     maintain certain grades and attendance, keep school age 
     children of the individual in school, immunize children, 
     attend parenting and money management classes, or do other 
     things that will help the individual become and remain 
     employed in the private sector; and
       ``(4) may require that the individual enter the State 
     program established under part G, if the caseworker 
     determines that the individual will need education, training, 
     job placement assistance, wage enhancement, or other services 
     to become employed in the private sector.
       ``(b) Timing.--The State agency shall comply with 
     subsection (a) with respect to an individual--
       ``(1) within 90 days (or, at the option of the State, 180 
     days) after the effective date of this part, in the case of 
     an individual who, as of such effective date, is a recipient 
     of aid under the State plan approved under part A; or
       ``(2) within 30 days (or, at the option of the State, 90 
     days) after the individual is determined to be eligible for 
     such aid, in the case of any other individual.

     ``SEC. 483. PROVISION OF PROGRAM AND EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION.

       ``The State shall inform all applicants for and recipients 
     of aid under the State plan approved under part A
      of all available services under the State plan for which 
     they are eligible.

     ``SEC. 484. REQUIREMENT THAT RECIPIENTS ENTER THE WORK FIRST 
                   PROGRAM.

       ``(a) In General.--Beginning with fiscal year 2004, the 
     State shall place recipients of aid under the State plan 
     approved under part A, who have not become employed in the 
     private sector within 1 year after signing an individual 
     responsibility plan, in the first available slot in the State 
     program established under part G, except as provided in 
     subsection (b).
       ``(b) Exceptions.--A State may not be required to place a 
     recipient of such aid in the State program established under 
     part G if the recipient--
       ``(1) is ill, incapacitated, or of advanced age;
       ``(2) has not attained 18 years of age;
       ``(3) is caring for a child or parent who is ill or 
     incapacitated; or
       ``(4) is enrolled in school or in educational or training 
     programs that will lead to private sector employment.

     ``SEC. 485. PENALTIES.

       ``(a) State not Operating a Work First Program Under a 
     State Model or a Workfare Program.--In the case of a State 
     that is not operating a program under subpart 2 of part G or 
     under part H:
       ``(1) Failure to comply with individual responsibility plan 
     or agreement of mutual responsibility.--
       ``(A) Progressive reductions in aid for 1st and 2nd 
     failures.--The amount of aid otherwise payable under the 
     State plan approved under part A to a family that includes an 
     individual who fails without good cause to comply with an 
     individual responsibility plan (or, if the State has 
     established a program under subpart 1 of part G and the 
     individual is required to participate in the program, an 
     agreement of mutual responsibility) signed by the individual 
     (other than by reason of conduct described in paragraph (2)) 
     shall be reduced by--
       ``(i) 33 percent for the 1st such act of noncompliance; or
       ``(ii) 66 percent for the 2nd such act of noncompliance.
       ``(B) Denial of aid for 3rd failure.--In the case of the 
     3rd such act of noncompliance, the family of which the 
     individual is a member shall not thereafter be eligible for 
     aid under the State plan approved under part A.
       ``(C) Acts of noncompliance.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph, a 1st act of noncompliance by an individual 
     continues for more than 1 calendar month shall be considered 
     a 2nd act of noncompliance, and a 2nd act of noncompliance 
     that continues for more than 3 calendar months shall be 
     considered a 3rd act of noncompliance.
       ``(2) Denial of afdc to adults refusing to work, look for 
     work, or accept a bona fide offer of employment.--
       ``(A) Refusal to work or look for work.--If an unemployed 
     individual who has attained 18 years of age refuses to work 
     or look for work--
       ``(i) in the case of the 1st such refusal, aid under the 
     State plan approved under part A shall not be payable with 
     respect to the individual until the later of--

       ``(I) a period of not less than 6 months after the date of 
     the first such refusal; or
       ``(II) the first date the individual agrees to work or look 
     for work.

       ``(ii) in the case of the 2nd such refusal, the family of 
     which the individual is a member shall not thereafter be 
     eligible for aid under the State plan approved under part A.
       ``(B) Refusal to accept a bona fide offer of employment.--
     If an unemployed individual who has attained 18 years of age 
     refuses to accept a bona fide offer of employment, the family 
     of which the individual is a member shall not thereafter be 
     eligible for aid under the State plan approved under part A.
       ``(b) Other States.--In the case of any other State, the 
     State shall reduce, by such amount as the State considers 
     appropriate, 
      [[Page H3642]] the amount of aid otherwise payable under the 
     State plan approved under part A to a family that includes an 
     individual who fails without good cause to comply with an 
     individual responsibility plan signed by the individual.
                      ``Part G--Work First Program

                       ``Subpart 1--Federal Model

     ``SEC. 491. ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF STATE PROGRAMS.

       ``A work first program meets the requirements of this 
     subpart if the program meets the following requirements:
       ``(1) Objective.--The objective of the program is for each 
     program participant to find and hold a full-time unsubsidized 
     paid job, and for this goal to be achieved in a cost-
     effective fashion.
       ``(2) Method.--The method of the program is to connect 
     recipients of aid to families with dependent children with 
     the private sector labor market as soon as possible and offer 
     them the support and skills necessary to remain in the labor 
     market. Each component of the program should be permeated 
     with an emphasis on employment and with an understanding that 
     minimum wage jobs are a stepping stone to more highly paid 
     employment.
       ``(3) Job creation.--The creation of jobs, with an emphasis 
     on private sector jobs, shall be a component of the program 
     and shall be a priority for each State office with 
     responsibilities under the program.
       ``(4) Use of incentives.--The State shall use incentives to 
     change the culture of each State office with responsibilities 
     under the State plan approved under part A, improve the 
     performance of employees, and ensure that the objective of 
     each employee of each such State office is to find an 
     unsubsidized paid job for each program participant.
       ``(5) Caseworker training.--The State may provide such 
     training to caseworkers and related personnel (including 
     through the use of incentives) as may be necessary to ensure 
     successful job placements that result in full-time public or 
     private employment (outside the State agencies with 
     responsibilities under part A) for program participants. The 
     State shall reward any caseworker who enters an agreement of 
     mutual responsibility with a program participant that 
     provides for education or training activities as well as 
     work.
       ``(6) Reports.--Each office with responsibility for 
     operating the program shall make monthly statistical reports 
     to the governing body of the State, county, and city in which 
     located, of job placements and the number of program 
     participants who are no longer receiving aid under the State 
     plan approved under part A as a result of participation in 
     the program.
       ``(7) Case management teams.--
       ``(A) Duties.--The program requires the State to assign to 
     each individual required or allowed to participate in the 
     program a case management team that shall meet with the 
     program participant and develop an agreement of mutual 
     responsibility for the individual.
       ``(B) Deadline.--
       ``(i) In general.--The case management team shall comply 
     with subparagraph (A) with respect to a program participant 
     within 30 days (or, at the option of the State, within a 
     period not exceeding 90 days) after the later of--

       ``(I) the date the application of the program participant 
     for aid under the State plan approved under part A was 
     approved; or
       ``(II) the date this subpart first applies to the State.

       ``(ii) Repeat participants.--Within 30 days after the State 
     makes a determination under section 497(b)(2) to allow an 
     individual to participate in the program, the case management 
     team shall meet with the individual and develop an agreement 
     of mutual responsibility for the individual.
       ``(8) Agreements of mutual responsibility.--The agreement 
     of mutual responsibility for a participant shall--
       ``(A) contain an individualized comprehensive plan, 
     developed by the team and the participant, to move the 
     participant into a full-time unsubsidized job, through 
     activities under section 492, 493, 494, 495, or 496;
       ``(B) to the greatest extent possible, be designed to move 
     the participant as quickly as possible into whatever type and 
     amount of work as the participant is capable of handling, and 
     increases the responsibility and amount of work over time 
     until the participant is able to work full-time;
       ``(C) where necessary, provide for education or training of 
     the participant;
       ``(D) provide that aid under the State plan is to be paid 
     to the participant based on the number of hours that the 
     participant spends in activities provided for in the 
     agreement;
       ``(E) provide that the participant shall spend at least 30 
     hours per week (or, at State
      option, at least 20 hours per week during fiscal years 1997 
     and 1998, and at least 25 hours per week during fiscal 
     year 1999) in activities provided for in the agreement;
       ``(F) provide that the participant shall accept any bona 
     fide offer of unsubsidized full-time employment, unless the 
     participant has good cause for not doing so;
       ``(G) at the option of the State, require the participant 
     to undergo appropriate substance abuse treatment; and
       ``(H) at the option of the State, require the participant 
     to have his or her children receive appropriate immunizations 
     against disease.
       ``(9) Options for participants.--The case manager for a 
     program participant shall present the participant with each 
     option offered under the State program through which the 
     participant will, over time, be moved into full-time 
     unsubsidized employment.
       ``(10) One-stop employment shops.--
       ``(A) In general.--In carrying out the program, the State 
     shall utilize and make available to each program participant, 
     through the establishment and operation or utilization of 
     appropriate Federal or State one-stop employment shops, 
     services under programs carried out under the following 
     provisions of law:
       ``(i) Part A of title II of the Job Training Partnership 
     Act (29 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (relating to the adult training 
     program).
       ``(ii) Part B of title II of such Act (29 U.S.C. 1630 et 
     seq.) (relating to the summer youth employment and training 
     programs).
       ``(iii) Part C of title II of such Act (29 U.S.C. 1641 et 
     seq.) (relating to the youth training program).
       ``(iv) Title III of such Act (29 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) 
     (relating to employment and training assistance for 
     dislocated workers).
       ``(v) Part B of title IV of such Act (29 U.S.C. 1691 et 
     seq.) (relating to the Job Corps).
       ``(vi) The Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied 
     Technology Education Act (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.).
       ``(vii) The Adult Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.).
       ``(viii) Part B of chapter 1 of title I of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 2741 et seq.) 
     (relating to Even Start family literacy programs).
       ``(ix) Subtitle A of title VII of the Stewart B. McKinney 
     Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11421) (relating to adult 
     education for the homeless).
       ``(x) Subtitle B of title VII of such Act (42 U.S.C. 11431 
     et seq.) (relating to education for homeless children and 
     youth).
       ``(xi) Subtitle C of title VII of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     11441) (relating to job training for the homeless).
       ``(xii) The School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994.
       ``(xiii) The National and Community Service Act of 1990 (42 
     U.S.C. 12501 et seq.).
       ``(xiv) The National Skill Standards Act of 1994.
       ``(B) Coordination.--In utilizing appropriate Federal or 
     State one-stop employment shops described in subparagraph 
     (A), the State shall ensure coordination between the 
     caseworker of each program participant and the administrators 
     of the programs carried out under the provisions of law 
     described in such subparagraph.
       ``(11) Nondisplacement.--The program may not be operated in 
     a manner that results in--
       ``(A) the displacement of a currently employed worker or 
     position by a program participant;
       ``(B) the replacement of an employee who has been 
     terminated with a program participant; or
       ``(C) the replacement of an individual who is on layoff 
     from the same position given to a program participant or any 
     equivalent position.

     ``SEC. 492. REVAMPED JOBS PROGRAM.

       ``A State that establishes a program under this subpart may 
     operate a program similar to the program known as the `GAIN 
     Program' that has been operated by Riverside County, 
     California, under Federal law in effect immediately before 
     the date this subpart first applies to the State of 
     California.
     ``SEC. 493. USE OF PLACEMENT COMPANIES.

       ``(a) In General.--A State that establishes a program under 
     this subpart may enter into contracts with private companies 
     (whether operated for profit or not for profit) for the 
     placement of participants in the program in positions of 
     full-time employment, preferably in the private sector, for 
     wages sufficient to eliminate the need of such participants 
     for cash assistance.
       ``(b) Required Contract Terms.--Each contract entered into 
     under this section with a company shall meet the following 
     requirements:
       ``(1) Provision of job readiness and support services.--The 
     contract shall require the company to provide, to any program 
     participant who presents to the company a voucher issued 
     under subsection (d) intensive personalized support and job 
     readiness services designed to prepare the individual for 
     employment and ensure the continued success of the individual 
     in employment.
       ``(2) Payments.--
       ``(A) In general.--The contract shall provide for payments 
     to be made to the company with respect to each program 
     participant who presents to the company a voucher issued 
     under subsection (d).
       ``(B) Structure.--The contract shall provide for the 
     majority of the amounts to be paid under the contract with 
     respect to a program participant, to be paid after the 
     company has placed the participant in a position of full-time 
     employment and the participant has been employed in the 
     position for such period of not less than 5 months as the 
     State deems appropriate.
       ``(c) Competitive Bidding Required.--Contracts under this 
     section shall be awarded only after competitive bidding.
       ``(d) Vouchers.--The State shall issue a voucher to each 
     program participant whose agreement of mutual responsibility 
     provides for the use of placement companies under this 
     section, indicating that the participant is eligible for the 
     services of such a company.
     [[Page H3643]] ``SEC. 494. TEMPORARY SUBSIDIZED JOB CREATION.

       ``A State that establishes a program under this subpart may 
     establish a program similar to the program known as `JOBS 
     Plus' that has been operated by the State of Oregon under 
     Federal law in effect immediately before the date this 
     subpart first applies to the State of Oregon.

     ``SEC. 495. MICROENTERPRISE.

       ``(a) Grants and Loans to Nonprofit Organizations for the 
     Provision of Technical Assistance, Training, and Credit to 
     Low Income Entrepreneurs.--A State that establishes a program 
     under this subpart may make grants and loans to nonprofit 
     organizations to provide technical assistance, training, and 
     credit to low income entrepreneurs for the purpose of 
     establishing microenterprises.
       ``(b) Microenterprise Defined.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term `microenterprise' means a commercial 
     enterprise which has 5 or fewer employees, 1 or more of whom 
     owns the enterprise.

     ``SEC. 496. WORK SUPPLEMENTATION PROGRAM.

       ``(a) In General.--A State that establishes a program under 
     this subpart may institute a work supplementation program 
     under which the State, to the extent it considers 
     appropriate, may reserve the sums that would otherwise be 
     payable to participants in the program as aid to families 
     with dependent children and use the sums instead for the 
     purpose of providing and subsidizing jobs for the 
     participants (as described in subsection (c)(3)(A) and (B)), 
     as an alternative to the aid to families with dependent 
     children that would otherwise be so payable to the 
     participants.
       ``(b) State Flexibility.--
       ``(1) Nothing in this subpart, or in any State plan 
     approved under part A, shall be construed to prevent a State 
     from operating (on such terms and conditions and in such 
     cases as the State may find to be necessary or appropriate) a 
     work supplementation program in accordance with this section 
     and section 494 (as in effect immediately before the date 
     this subpart first applies to the State).
       ``(2) Notwithstanding section 402(a)(23) or any other 
     provision of law, a State may adjust the levels of the 
     standards of need under the State plan as the State 
     determines to be necessary and appropriate for carrying out a 
     work supplementation program under this section.
       ``(3) Notwithstanding section 402(a)(1) or any other 
     provision of law, a State operating a work supplementation 
     program under this section may provide that the need 
     standards in effect in those areas of the State in which the 
     program is in operation may be different from the need 
     standards in effect in the areas in which the program is not 
     in operation, and the State may provide that the need 
     standards for categories of recipients may vary among such 
     categories to the extent the State determines to be 
     appropriate on the basis of ability to participate in the 
     work supplementation program.
       ``(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a State 
     may make such further adjustments in the amounts of the aid 
     to families with dependent children paid under the plan to 
     different categories of recipients (as determined under 
     paragraph (3)) in order to offset increases in benefits from 
     needs-related programs (other than the State plan approved 
     under part A) as the State determines to be necessary and 
     appropriate to further the purposes of the work 
     supplementation program.
       ``(5) In determining the amounts to be reserved and used 
     for providing and subsidizing jobs under this section as 
     described in subsection (a), the State may use a sampling 
     methodology.
       ``(6) Notwithstanding section 402(a)(8) or any other 
     provision of law, a State operating a work supplementation 
     program under this section--
       ``(A) may reduce or eliminate the amount of earned income 
     to be disregarded under the State plan as the State 
     determines to be necessary and appropriate to further the 
     purposes of the work supplementation program; and
       ``(B) during 1 or more of the first 9 months of an 
     individual's employment pursuant to a program under this 
     subpart, may apply to the wages of the individual the 
     provisions of subparagraph (A)(iv) of section 402(a)(8) 
     without regard to the provisions of subparagraph (B)(ii)(II) 
     of such section.
       ``(c) Rules Relating to Supplemented Jobs.--
       ``(1) A work supplementation program operated by a State 
     under this section may provide that any individual who is an 
     eligible individual (as determined under paragraph (2)) shall 
     take a supplemented job (as defined in paragraph (3)) to the 
     extent that supplemented jobs are available under the 
     program. Payments by the State to individuals or to employers 
     under the work supplementation program shall be treated as 
     expenditures incurred by the State for aid to families with 
     dependent children except as limited by subsection (d).
       ``(2) For purposes of this section, an eligible individual 
     is an individual who is in a category which the State 
     determines should be eligible to participate in the work 
     supplementation program, and who would, at the time of 
     placement in the job involved, be eligible for aid to 
     families with dependent children under an approved State plan 
     if the State did not have a work supplementation program in 
     effect.
       ``(3) For purposes of this subsection, a supplemented job 
     is--
       ``(A) a job provided to an eligible individual by the State 
     or local agency administering the State plan under part A; or
       ``(B) a job provided to an eligible individual by any other 
     employer for which all or part of the wages are paid by the 
     State or local agency.

     A State may provide or subsidize under the program any job 
     which the State determines to be appropriate.
       ``(4) At the option of the State, individuals who hold 
     supplemented jobs under a State's work supplementation 
     program shall be exempt from the retrospective budgeting 
     requirements imposed pursuant to section 402(a)(13)(A)(ii) 
     (and the amount of the aid which is payable to the family of 
     any such individual for any month, or which would be so 
     payable but for the individual's participation in the work 
     supplementation program, shall be determined on the basis of 
     the income and other relevant circumstances in that month).
       ``(d) Cost Limitation.--The amount of the Federal payment 
     to a State under section 403 for expenditures incurred in 
     making payments to individuals and employers under a work 
     supplementation program under this subsection shall not 
     exceed an amount equal to the amount which would otherwise be 
     payable under such section if the family of each individual 
     employed in the program established in the State under this 
     section had received the maximum amount of aid to families 
     with dependent children payable under the State plan to such 
     a family with no income (without regard to adjustments under 
     subsection (b)) for the lesser of--
       ``(1) 9 months; or
       ``(2) the number of months in which the individual was 
     employed in the program.
       ``(e) Rules of Interpretation.--
       ``(1) This section shall not be construed as requiring the 
     State or local agency administering the State plan to provide 
     employee status to an eligible individual to whom the State 
     or local agency provides a job under the work supplementation 
     program (or with respect to whom the State or local agency 
     provides all or part of the wages paid to the individual by 
     another entity under the program), or as requiring any State 
     or local agency to provide that an eligible individual 
     filling a job position provided by another entity under the 
     program be provided employee status by the entity during the 
     first 13 weeks the individual fills the position.
       ``(2) Wages paid under a work supplementation program shall 
     be considered to be earned income for purposes of any 
     provision of law.
       ``(f) Preservation of Medicaid Eligibility.--Any State that 
     chooses to operate a work supplementation program under this 
     section shall provide that any individual who participates in 
     the program, and any child or relative of the individual (or 
     other individual living in the same household as the 
     individual) who would be eligible for aid to families with 
     dependent children under the State plan approved under part A 
     if the State did not have a work supplementation program, 
     shall be considered individuals receiving aid to families 
     with dependent children under the State plan approved under 
     part A for purposes of eligibility for medical assistance 
     under the State plan approved under title XIX.

     ``SEC. 497. PARTICIPATION RULES.

       ``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), a 
     State that establishes a program under this part may require 
     any individual receiving aid under the State plan approved 
     under part A to participate in the program.
       ``(b) 2-Year Limitation on Participation.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), an 
     individual may not participate in a State program established 
     under this part if the individual has participated in the 
     State program established under this part for 24 months after 
     the date the individual first signed an agreement of mutual 
     responsibility under this part, excluding any month during 
     which the individual worked for an average of at least 25 
     hours per week in a private sector job.
       ``(2) Authority to allow repeat participation.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B) of this 
     paragraph, a State may allow an individual who, by reason of 
     paragraph (1), would be prohibited from participating in the 
     State program established under this part to participate in 
     the program for such additional period or periods as the 
     State determines appropriate.
       ``(B) Limitation on percentage of repeat participants.--
       ``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii) of 
     this subparagraph, the number of individuals allowed under 
     subparagraph (A) to participate during a program year in a 
     State program established under this part shall not exceed--

       ``(I) 10 percent of the total number of individuals who 
     participated in the State program established under this part 
     or the State program established under part H during the 
     immediately preceding program year; or
       ``(II) in the case of fiscal year 2004 or any succeeding 
     fiscal year, 15 percent of such total number of individuals.

       ``(ii) Authority to increase limitation.--

       ``(I) Petition.--A State may request the Secretary to 
     increase to not more than 15 
      [[Page H3644]] percent the percentage limitation imposed by 
     clause (i)(I) for a fiscal year before fiscal year 2004.
       ``(II) Authority to grant request.--The Secretary may 
     approve a request made pursuant to subclause (I) if the 
     Secretary deems it appropriate. The Secretary shall develop 
     recommendations on the criteria that should be applied in 
     evaluating requests under subclause (I).

     ``SEC. 498. CASELOAD PARTICIPATION RATES; PERFORMANCE 
                   MEASURES.

       ``(a) Participation Rates.--
       ``(1) Requirement.--A State that operates a program under 
     this part shall achieve a participation rate for the 
     following fiscal years of not less than the following 
     percentage:

``Fiscal year:                                              Percentage:
  1997...........................................................16....

  1998...........................................................20....

  1999...........................................................24....

  2000...........................................................28....

  2001...........................................................32....

  2002...........................................................40....

  2003 or later.................................................52.....

       ``(2) Participation rate defined.--
       ``(A) In general.--As used in this subsection, the term 
     `participation rate' means, with respect to a State and a 
     fiscal year, an amount equal to--
       ``(i) the average monthly number of individuals who, during 
     the fiscal year, participate in the State program established 
     under this part or the State program (if any) established 
     under part H; divided by
       ``(ii) the average monthly number of individuals for whom 
     an individual responsibility plan is in effect under section 
     482 during the fiscal year.
       ``(B) Special rule.--For each of the 1st 12 months after an 
     individual ceases to receive aid under a State plan approved 
     under part A by reason of having become employed for more 
     than 25 hours per week in an unsubsidized job in the private 
     sector, the individual shall be considered to be 
     participating in the State program established under this 
     part, and to be an adult recipient of such aid, for purposes 
     of subparagraph (A).
       ``(3) State compliance reports.--Each State that operates a 
     program under this part for a fiscal year shall submit to the 
     Secretary a report on the participation rate of the State for 
     the fiscal year.
       ``(4) Effect of failure to meet participation rates.--
       ``(A) In general.--If a State reports that the State has 
     failed to achieve the participation rate required by 
     paragraph (1) for the fiscal
      year, the Secretary may make recommendations for changes in 
     the State program established under this part and (if the 
     State has established a program under part H) the State 
     program established under part H. The State may elect to 
     follow such recommendations, and shall demonstrate to the 
     Secretary how the State will achieve the required 
     participation rates.
       ``(B) Second consecutive failure.--Notwithstanding 
     subparagraph (A), if a State fails to achieve the 
     participation rate required by paragraph (1) for 2 
     consecutive fiscal years, the Secretary may--
       ``(i) require the State to make changes in the State 
     program established under this part and (if the State has 
     established a program under part H) the State program 
     established under part H; and
       ``(ii) reduce by 5 percent the amount otherwise payable to 
     the State under paragraph (1) or (2) (whichever applies to 
     the State) of section 403(a).
       ``(b) Performance Standards.--The Secretary shall develop 
     standards to be used to measure the effectiveness of the 
     programs established under this part and part H in moving 
     recipients of aid under the State plan approved under part A 
     into full-time unsubsidized employment.
       ``(c) Performance-Based Measures.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall, by regulation, 
     establish measures of the effectiveness of the State programs 
     established under this part and under part H in moving 
     recipients of aid under the State plan approved under part A 
     into full-time unsubsidized employment, based on the 
     performance of such programs.
       ``(2) Annual compliance reports.--Each State that operates 
     a program under this part shall submit to the Secretary 
     annual reports that compare the achievements of the program 
     with the performance-based measures established under 
     paragraph (1).

                   ``Subpart 2--Optional State Plans

     ``SEC. 499. STATE ROLE.

       ``(a) Program Requirements.--Any State may establish and 
     operate a work first program that meets the following 
     requirements, unless the State is operating a work first 
     program under subpart 1:
       ``(1) Objective.--The objective of the program is for each 
     program participant to find and hold a full-time unsubsidized 
     paid job, and for this goal to be achieved in a cost-
     effective fashion.
       ``(2) Method.--The method of the program is to connect 
     recipients of aid to families with dependent children with 
     the private sector labor market as soon as possible and offer 
     them the support and skills necessary to remain in the labor 
     market. Each component of the program should be permeated 
     with an emphasis on employment and with an understanding that 
     minimum wage jobs are a stepping stone to more highly paid 
     employment. The program shall provide recipients with 
     education, training, job search and placement, wage 
     supplementation, temporary subsidized jobs, or such other 
     services that the State deems necessary to help a recipient 
     obtain private sector employment.
       ``(3) Job creation.--The creation of jobs, with an emphasis 
     on private sector jobs, shall be a component of the program 
     and shall be a priority for each State office with 
     responsibilities under the program.
       ``(4) Forms of assistance.--The State shall provide 
     assistance to participants in the program in the form of 
     education, training, job placement services (including 
     vouchers for job placement services), work supplementation 
     programs, temporary subsidized job creation, job counseling, 
     assistance in establishing microenterprises, or other 
     services to provide individuals with the support and skills 
     necessary to obtain and keep employment in the private 
     sector.
       ``(5) 2-year limitation on participation.--The program 
     shall comply with section 497(b).
       ``(6) Agreements of mutual responsibility.--
       ``(A) In general.--The State agency shall develop an 
     agreement of mutual responsibility for each program 
     participant, which will be an individualized comprehensive 
     plan, developed by the team and the participant, to move the 
     participant into a full-time unsubsidized job. The agreement 
     should detail the education, training, or skills that the 
     individual will be receiving to obtain a full-time 
     unsubsidized job, and the obligations of the individual.
       ``(B) Hours of participation requirement.--The agreement 
     shall provide that the individual shall participate in 
     activities in accordance with the agreement for--
       ``(i) not fewer than 20 hours per week during fiscal years 
     1997 and 1998;
       ``(ii) not fewer than 25 hours per week during fiscal year 
     1999; and
       ``(iii) not fewer than 30 hours per week thereafter.
       ``(7) Caseload participation rates.--The program shall 
     comply with section 498.
       ``(8) Nondisplacement.--The program shall comply with 
     section 491(11).
       ``(b) Annual Reports.--
       ``(1) Compliance with performance measures.--Each State 
     that operates a program under this subpart shall submit to 
     the Secretary annual reports that compare the achievements of 
     the program with the performance-based measures established 
     under section 490(b).
       ``(2) Compliance with participation rates.--Each State that 
     operates a program under this subpart for a fiscal year shall 
     submit to the Secretary a report on the participation rate of 
     the State for the fiscal year.

     ``SEC. 500. FEDERAL ROLE.

       ``(a) Approval of State Plans.--
       ``(1) In general.--Within 60 days after the date a State 
     submits to the Secretary a plan that provides for the 
     establishment and operation of a work first program that 
     meets the requirements of section 499, the Secretary shall 
     approve the plan.
       ``(2) Authority to extend approval deadline.--The 60-day 
     deadline established in paragraph (1) with respect to a State 
     may be extended in accordance with an agreement between the 
     Secretary and the State.
       ``(b) Performance-Based Measures.--The Secretary shall, by 
     regulation, establish measures of the effectiveness of the 
     State program established under this subpart and (if the 
     State has established a program under part H) the State 
     program established under part H in moving recipients of aid 
     under the State plan approved under part A into full-time 
     unsubsidized employment, based on the performance of such 
     programs.
       ``(c) Effect of Failure To Meet Participation Rates.--
       ``(1) In general.--If a State reports that the State has 
     failed to achieve the participation rate required by section 
     499(a)(7) for the fiscal year, the Secretary may make 
     recommendations for changes in the State program established 
     under this subpart and (if the State has established a 
     program under part H) the State program established under 
     part H. The State may elect to follow such recommendations, 
     and shall demonstrate to the Secretary how the State will 
     achieve the required participation rates.
       ``(2) Second consecutive failure.--Notwithstanding 
     paragraph (1), if the State has failed to achieve the 
     participation rates required by section 499(a)(7) for 2 
     consecutive fiscal years, the Secretary may require the State 
     to make changes in the State program established under this 
     subpart and (if the State has established a program under 
     part H) the State program established under part H.

                       ``Part H--Workfare Program

     ``SEC. 500A. ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF PROGRAM.

       ``(a) In General.--A State that establishes a work first 
     program under a subpart of part G may establish and carry out 
     a workfare program that meets the requirements of this part, 
     unless the State has established a job placement voucher 
     program under part I.
       ``(b) Objective.--The objective of the workfare program is 
     for each program participant to find and hold a full-time 
     unsubsidized paid job, and for this goal to be achieved in a 
     cost-effective fashion.
       ``(c) Case Management Teams.--The State shall assign to 
     each program participant a case management team that shall 
     meet with the participant and assist the participant to 
     choose the most suitable workfare job under subsection (e), 
     (f), or (g) and to eventually obtain a full-time unsubsidized 
     paid job.
     [[Page H3645]]   ``(d) Provision of Jobs.--The State shall 
     provide each participant in the program with a community 
     service job that meets the requirements of subsection (e) or 
     a subsidized job that meets the requirements of subsection 
     (f) or (g).
       ``(e) Community Service Jobs.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and 
     (3), each participant shall work for not fewer than 30 hours 
     per week (or, at the option of the State, 20 hours per week 
     during fiscal years 1997 and 1998, not fewer than 25 hours 
     per week during fiscal year 1999, not fewer than 30 hours per 
     week during fiscal years 2000 and 2001, and not fewer than 35 
     hours per week thereafter) in a community service job, and be 
     paid at a rate which is not greater than 75 percent (or, at 
     the option of the State, 100 percent) of the maximum amount 
     of aid payable under the State plan approved under part A to 
     a family of the same size and composition with no income.
       ``(2) Exception.--(A) If the participant has obtained 
     unsubsidized part-time employment in the private sector, the 
     State shall provide the participant with a part-time 
     community service job.
       ``(B) If the State provides a participant a part-time 
     community service job under subparagraph (A), the State shall 
     ensure that the participant works for not fewer than 30 hours 
     per week.
       ``(3) Wages not considered earned income.--Wages paid under 
     a workfare program shall not be considered to be earned 
     income for purposes of any provision of law.
       ``(4) Community service job defined.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `community service job' means--
       ``(A) a job provided to a participant by the State 
     administering the State plan under part A; or
       ``(B) a job provided to a participant by any other employer 
     for which all or part of the wages are paid by the State.
     A State may provide or subsidize under the program any job 
     which the State determines to be appropriate.

       ``(f) Temporary Subsidized Job Creation.--A State that 
     establishes a workfare program under this part may establish 
     a program similar to the program operated by the State of 
     Oregon, which is known as `JOBS Plus'.
       ``(g) Work Supplementation Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--A State that establishes a workfare 
     program under this part may institute a work supplementation 
     program under which the State, to the extent it considers 
     appropriate, may reserve the sums that would otherwise be 
     payable to participants in the program as a community service 
     minimum wage and use the sums instead for the purpose of 
     providing and subsidizing private sector jobs for the 
     participants.
       ``(2) Employer agreement.--An employer who provides a 
     private sector job to a participant under paragraph (1) shall 
     agree to provide to the participant an amount in wages equal 
     to the poverty threshold for a family of three.
       ``(h) Job Search Requirement.--The State shall require each 
     participant to spend a minimum of 5 hours per week on 
     activities related to securing unsubsidized full-time 
     employment in the private sector.
       ``(i) Duration of Participation.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), an 
     individual may not participate for more than 2 years in a 
     workfare program under this part.
       ``(2) Authority to allow repeated participation.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), a State may 
     allow an individual who, by reason of paragraph (1), would be 
     prohibited from participating in the State program 
     established under this part to participate in the program for 
     such additional period or periods as the State determines 
     appropriate.
       ``(B) Limitation on percentage of repeat participants.--
       ``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), the 
     number of individuals allowed under subparagraph (A) to 
     participate during a program year in a State program 
     established under this part shall not exceed 10 percent of 
     the total number of individuals who participated in the 
     program during the immediately preceding program year.
       ``(ii) Authority to increase limitation.--

       ``(I) Petition.--A State may request the Secretary to 
     increase the percentage limitation imposed by clause (i) to 
     not more than 15 percent.
       ``(II) Authority to grant request.--The Secretary may 
     approve a request made pursuant to subclause (I) if the 
     Secretary deems it appropriate. The Secretary shall develop 
     recommendations on the criteria that should be applied in 
     evaluating requests under subclause (I).

       ``(j) Use of Placement Companies.--A State that establishes 
     a workfare program under this part may enter into contracts 
     with private companies (whether operated for profit or not 
     for profit) for the placement of participants in the program 
     in positions of full-time employment, preferably in the 
     private sector, for wages sufficient to eliminate the need of 
     such participants for cash assistance in accordance with 
     section 493.
       ``(k) Maximum of 3 Community Service Jobs.--A program 
     participant may not receive more than 3 community service 
     jobs under the program.

                ``Part I--Job Placement Voucher Program

     ``SEC. 500B. JOB PLACEMENT VOUCHER PROGRAM.

       ``A State that is not operating a workfare program under 
     part H may establish a job placement voucher program that 
     meets the following requirements:
       ``(1) The program shall offer each program participant a 
     voucher which the participant may use to obtain employment in 
     the private sector.
       ``(2) An employer who receives a voucher issued under the 
     program from an individual may redeem the voucher at any time 
     after the individual has been employed by the employer for 6 
     months, unless another employee of the employer was displaced 
     by the employment of the individual.
       ``(3) Upon presentation of a voucher by an employer to the 
     State agency responsible for the administration of the 
     program, the State agency shall pay to the employer an amount 
     equal to 50 percent of the total amount of aid paid under the 
     State plan approved under part A to the family of which the 
     individual is a member for the most recent 12 months for 
     which the family was eligible for such aid.''.
       (c) Funding.--Section 403 (42 U.S.C. 603) is amended by 
     inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c)(1) Each State that is operating a program in 
     accordance with subpart 1 of part G (or in accordance with a 
     plan approved under subpart 2 of part G), and a program in 
     accordance with part H or I shall be entitled to payments 
     under subsection (d) for any fiscal year in an amount equal 
     to the sum of the applicable percentages (specified in such 
     subsection) of its expenditures to carry out such programs 
     (subject to limitations prescribed by or pursuant to such 
     parts or this section on expenditures that may be included 
     for purposes of determining payment under subsection (d)), 
     but such payments for any fiscal year in the case of any 
     State may not exceed the limitation determined under 
     paragraph (2) with respect to the State.
       ``(2) The limitation determined under this paragraph with 
     respect to a State for any fiscal year is the amount that 
     bears the same ratio to the amount specified in paragraph (3) 
     for such fiscal year as the average monthly number of adult 
     recipients (as defined in paragraph (4)) in the State in the 
     preceding fiscal year bears to the average monthly number of 
     such recipients in all the States for such preceding year.
       ``(3)(A) The amount specified in this paragraph is--
       ``(i) $1,500,000,000 for fiscal year 1997;
       ``(iii) $2,000,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
       ``(iv) $2,600,000,000 for fiscal year 1999;
       ``(v) $3,100,000,000 for fiscal year 2000; and
       ``(vi) the amount determined under subparagraph (B) for 
     fiscal year 2001 and each succeeding fiscal year.
       ``(B) The amount determined under this subparagraph for a 
     fiscal year is the product of the following:
       ``(i) The amount specified in this paragraph for the 
     immediately preceding fiscal year.
       ``(ii) 1.00 plus the percentage (if any) by which--
       ``(I) the average of the Consumer Price Index (as defined 
     in section 1(f)(5) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) for 
     the most recent 12-month period for which such information is 
     available; exceeds
       ``(II) the average of the Consumer Price Index (as so 
     defined) for the 12-month period ending on June 30 of the 2nd 
     preceding fiscal year.
       ``(iii) The amount that bears the same ratio to the amount 
     specified in this paragraph for the immediately preceding 
     fiscal year as the number of individuals whom the Secretary 
     estimates will participate in programs operated under part G, 
     H, or I during the fiscal year bears to the total number of 
     individuals who participated in such programs during such 
     preceding fiscal year.
       ``(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term `adult 
     recipient' in the case of any State means an individual other 
     than a dependent child (unless such child is the custodial 
     parent of another dependent child) whose needs are met (in 
     whole or in part) with payments of aid to families with 
     dependent children.
       ``(d)(1) In lieu of any payment under subsection (a), the 
     Secretary shall pay to each State that is operating a program 
     in accordance with subpart 1 of part G (or in accordance with 
     a plan approved under subpart 2 of part G), and a program in 
     accordance with part H or I, and to which section 1108 does 
     not apply, with respect to expenditures by the State to carry 
     out such programs, an amount equal to 70 percent, or the 
     Federal medical assistance percentage (as defined in section 
     1905(b)) increased by 10 percentage points, whichever is the 
     greater, of the total amount expended during the quarter for 
     the operation and administration of such programs.
       ``(2) In lieu of any payment under subsection (a), the 
     Secretary shall pay to each State that is operating a program 
     in accordance with subpart 1 of part G (or in accordance with 
     a plan approved under subpart 2 of part G), and a program in 
     accordance with part H or I, and to which section 1108 
     applies, with respect to expenditures by the State to carry 
     out such programs (including expenditures for child care 
     under section 402(g)(1)(A)), an amount equal to--
       ``(A) with respect to so much of such expenditures in a 
     fiscal year as do not exceed the State's expenditures in the 
     fiscal year 1987 with respect to which payments were made to 
     such State from its allotment for such fiscal year pursuant 
     to part C of this title as then in effect, 90 percent; and
     [[Page H3646]]   ``(B) with respect to so much of such 
     expenditures in a fiscal year as exceed the amount described 
     in subparagraph (A)--
       ``(i) 50 percent, in the case of expenditures for 
     administrative costs made by a State in operating such 
     programs for such fiscal year (other than the personnel costs 
     for staff employed full-time in the operation of such 
     program) and the costs of transportation and other work-
     related supportive services under section 402(g)(2); and
       ``(ii) 70 percent or the Federal medical assistance 
     percentage (as defined in the last sentence of section 1118) 
     increased by 10 percentage points, whichever is the greater, 
     in the case of expenditures made by a State in operating such 
     programs for such fiscal year (other than for costs described 
     in clause (i)).
       ``(3) With respect to the amount for which payment is made 
     to a State under paragraph (2)(A), the State's expenditures 
     for the costs of operating such programs may be in cash or in 
     kind, fairly evaluated.
       ``(4) Not more than 10 percent of the amount payable to a 
     State under this subsection for a quarter may be for 
     expenditures made during the quarter with respect to program 
     participants who are not eligible for aid under the State 
     plan approved under part A.''.
       (d) Secretary's Special Adjustment Fund.--Section 403 (42 
     U.S.C. 603) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(p)(1) There shall be available to the Secretary from the 
     amount appropriated for payments under subsection (c) for 
     States' programs under parts G and H for fiscal year 1996, 
     $300,000,000 for special adjustments to States' limitations 
     on Federal payments for such programs.
       ``(2) A State may, not later than March 1 and September 1 
     of each fiscal year, submit to the Secretary a
      request to adjust the limitation on payments under this 
     section with respect to its program under part G (and, in 
     fiscal years after 1997) its program under part H for the 
     following fiscal year. The Secretary shall only consider 
     such a request from a State which has, or which 
     demonstrates convincingly on the basis of estimates that 
     it will, submit allowable claims for Federal payment in 
     the full amount available to it under subsection (c) in 
     the current fiscal year and obligated 95 percent of its 
     full amount in the prior fiscal year. The Secretary shall 
     by regulation prescribe criteria for the equitable 
     allocation among the States of Federal payments pursuant 
     to adjustments of the limitations referred to in the 
     preceding sentence in the case where the requests of all 
     States that the Secretary finds reasonable exceed the 
     amount available, and, within 30 days following the dates 
     specified in this paragraph, will notify each State 
     whether one or more of its limitations will be adjusted in 
     accordance with the State's request and the amount of the 
     adjustment (which may be some or all of the amount 
     requested).
       ``(3) The Secretary may adjust the limitation on Federal 
     payments to a State for a fiscal year under subsection (c), 
     and upon a determination by the Secretary that (and the 
     amount by which) a State's limitation should be raised, the 
     amount specified in either such subsection, or both, shall be 
     considered to be so increased for the following fiscal year.
       ``(4) The amount made available under paragraph (1) for 
     special adjustments shall remain available to the Secretary 
     until expended. That amount shall be reduced by the sum of 
     the adjustments approved by the Secretary in any fiscal year, 
     and the amount shall be increased in a fiscal year by the 
     amount by which all States' limitations under subsection (c) 
     of this section and section 2008 for a fiscal year exceeded 
     the sum of the Federal payments under such provisions of law 
     for such fiscal year, but for fiscal years after 1997, such 
     amount at the end of such fiscal year shall not exceed 
     $400,000,000.''.
       (e) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 402(a) (42 U.S.C. 602(a)) is amended by 
     striking paragraph (19).
       (2) Section 403 (42 U.S.C. 603) is amended by striking 
     subsections (k) and (l).
       (3) Section 407(b)(1)(B) (42 U.S.C. 607(b)(1)(B)) is 
     amended--
       (A) by adding ``and'' at the end of clause (iii);
       (B) by striking ``; and'' at the end of clause (iv) and 
     inserting a period; and
       (C) by striking clause (v).
       (4) Section 407(b)(2)(B)(ii)(I) (42 U.S.C. 
     607(b)(2)(B)(ii)(I)) is amended by striking ``under section 
     402(a)(19) or''.
       (5) Section 407(b)(2)(C) (42 U.S.C. 607(b)(2)(C)) is 
     amended by striking ``section 402(a)(19) and''.
       (6) Section 1115(b)(2)(A) (42 U.S.C. 1315(b)(2)(A)) is 
     amended by striking ``, and 402(a)(19) (relating to the work 
     incentive program)''.
       (7) Section 1108 (42 U.S.C. 1308) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking ``or, in the case of 
     part A of title IV, section 403(k)''; and
       (B) in subsection (d), by striking ``(exclusive of any 
     amounts on account of services and items to which, in the 
     case of part A of such title, section 403(k) applies)''.
       (8) Section 1902(a)(19)(A)(i)(I) (42 U.S.C. 
     1396a(a)(19)(A)(i)(I)) is amended by striking ``482(e)(6)'' 
     and inserting ``486(f)''.
       (9) Section 1928(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 1396s(a)(1)) is amended 
     by striking ``482(e)(6)'' and inserting ``486(f)''.
       (f) Intent of the Congress.--The Congress intends for State 
     activities under section 494 of the Social Security Act (as 
     added by the amendment made by section 301(b) of this Act) to 
     emphasize the use of the funds that would otherwise be used 
     to provide individuals with aid to families with dependent 
     children under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act 
     and with food stamp benefits under the Food Stamp Act of 
     1977, to subsidize the wages of such individuals in temporary 
     jobs.
       (g) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that States should target individuals who have not attained 
     25 years of age for participation in the program established 
     by the State under part G of title IV of the Social Security 
     Act (as added by the amendment made by section 301(b) of this 
     section) in order to break the cycle of welfare dependency.

     SEC. 302. REGULATIONS.

       The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall prescribe 
     such regulations as may be necessary to implement the 
     amendments made by this title.

     SEC. 303. APPLICABILITY TO STATES.

       (a) State Option To Accelerate Applicability.--If a State 
     formally notifies the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     that the State desires to accelerate the applicability to the 
     State of the amendments made by
      this title, the amendments shall apply to the State on and 
     after such earlier date as the State may select.
       (b) State Option To Delay Applicability Until Waivers 
     Expire.--The amendments made by this title shall not apply to 
     a State with respect to which there is in effect a waiver 
     issued under section 1115 of the Social Security Act for the 
     State program established under part G of title IV of such 
     Act, until the waiver expires, if the State formally notifies 
     the Secretary of Health and Human Services that the State 
     desires to so delay such effective date.
       (c) Authority of the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     To Delay Applicability to a State.--If a State formally 
     notifies the Secretary of Health and Human Services that the 
     State desires to delay the applicability to the State of the 
     amendments made by this title, the amendments shall apply to 
     the State on and after any later date agreed upon by the 
     Secretary and the State.

     SEC. 304. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS RELATING TO AVAILABILITY OF 
                   WORK FIRST PROGRAM IN RURAL AREAS.

       It is the sense of the Congress that the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services and the States should consider the 
     needs of rural areas in designing State plans under part G of 
     title IV of the Social Security Act.

     SEC. 305. GRANTS TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATIONS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     may make grants in accordance with this section to community-
     based organizations that move recipients of aid to families 
     with dependent children under a State plan approved under 
     part A of title IV of the Social Security Act or under other 
     public assistance programs into private sector work.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $25,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 1996 and $50,000,000 for fiscal years 1997, 1998, 
     1999, and 2000.
       (c) Eligible Organizations.--The Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services shall award grants to community-based 
     organizations that--
       (1) receive at least 5 percent of their funding from local 
     government sources; and
       (2) move recipients referred to in subsection (a) in the 
     direction of unsubsidized private employment by integrating 
     and co-locating at least 5 of the following services--
       (A) case management;
       (B) job training;
       (C) child care;
       (D) housing;
       (E) health care services;
       (F) nutrition programs;
       (G) life skills training; and
       (H) parenting skills.
       (d) Awarding of Grants.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall award grants based on 
     the quality of applications, subject to paragraphs (2) and 
     (3).
       (2) Preference in awarding grants.--In awarding grants 
     under this section, the Secretary shall give preference to 
     organizations which receive more than 50 percent of their 
     funding from State government, local government or private 
     sources.
       (3) Distribution of grant.--The Secretary shall award at 
     least 1 grant to each State from which the Secretary received 
     an application.
       (4) Limitation on size of grant.--The Secretary shall not 
     award any grants under this section of more than $1,000,000.
       (e) Issuance of Regulations.--Not less than 6 months after 
     the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary 
     shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to 
     implement this section.
 TITLE IV--FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY AND IMPROVED CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
Subtitle A--Eligibility and Other Matters Concerning Title IV-D Program 
                                Clients

     SEC. 401. STATE OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE PATERNITY ESTABLISHMENT 
                   AND CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT SERVICES.

       (a) State Law Requirements.--Section 466(a) (42 U.S.C. 
     666(a)) is amended by inserting after paragraph (11) the 
     following:
     [[Page H3647]]   ``(12) Use of central case registry and 
     centralized collections unit.--Procedures under which--
       ``(A) every child support order established or modified in 
     the State on or after October 1, 1998, is recorded in the 
     central case registry established in accordance with section 
     454A(e); and
       ``(B) child support payments are collected through the 
     centralized collections unit established in accordance with 
     section 454B--
       ``(i) on and after October 1, 1998, under each order 
     subject to wage withholding under section 466(b); and
       ``(ii) on and after October 1, 1999, under each other order 
     required to be recorded in such central case registry under 
     this paragraph or section 454A(e), except as provided in 
     subparagraph (C); and
       ``(C)(i) parties subject to a child support order described 
     in subparagraph (B)(ii) may opt out of the procedure for 
     payment of support through the centralized collections unit 
     (but not the procedure for inclusion in the central case 
     registry) by filing with the State agency a written 
     agreement, signed by both parties, to an alternative payment 
     procedure; and
       ``(ii) an agreement described in clause (i) becomes void 
     whenever either party advises the State agency of an intent 
     to vacate the agreement.''.
       (b) State Plan Requirements.--Section 454 (42 U.S.C. 654) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
       ``(4) provide that such State will undertake--
       ``(A) to provide appropriate services under this part to--
       ``(i) each child with respect to whom an assignment is 
     effective under section 402(a)(26), 471(a)(17), or 1912 
     (except in cases where the State agency determines, in 
     accordance with paragraph (25), that it is against the best 
     interests of the child to do so); and
       ``(ii) each child not described in clause (i)--

       ``(I) with respect to whom an individual applies for such 
     services; and
       ``(II) (on and after October 1, 1998) each child with 
     respect to whom a support order is recorded in the central 
     State case registry established under section 454A, 
     regardless of whether application is made for services under 
     this part; and

       ``(B) to enforce the support obligation established with 
     respect to the custodial parent of a child described in 
     subparagraph (A) unless the parties to the order which 
     establishes the support obligation have opted, in accordance 
     with section 466(a)(12)(C), for an alternative payment 
     procedure.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (6)--
       (A) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) services under the State plan shall be made available 
     to nonresidents on the same terms as to residents;'';
       (B) in subparagraph (B)--
       (i) by inserting ``on individuals not receiving assistance 
     under part A'' after ``such services shall be imposed''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``but no fees or costs shall be imposed 
     on any absent or custodial parent or other individual for 
     inclusion in the central State registry maintained pursuant 
     to section 454A(e)''; and
       (C) in each of subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D)--
       (i) by indenting such subparagraph and aligning its left 
     margin with the left margin of subparagraph (A); and
       (ii) by striking the final comma and inserting a semicolon.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 452(g)(2)(A) (42 U.S.C. 652(g)(2)(A)) is 
     amended by striking ``454(6)'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``454(4)(A)(ii)''.
       (2) Section 454(23) (42 U.S.C. 654(23)) is amended, 
     effective October 1, 1998, by striking ``information as to 
     any application fees for such services and''.
       (3) Section 466(a)(3)(B) (42 U.S.C. 666(a)(3)(B)) is 
     amended by striking ``in the case of overdue support which a 
     State has agreed to collect under section 454(6)'' and 
     inserting ``in any other case''.
       (4) Section 466(e) (42 U.S.C. 666(e)) is amended by 
     striking ``or (6)''.

     SEC. 402. DISTRIBUTION OF PAYMENTS.

       (a) Distributions Through State Child Support Enforcement 
     Agency to Former Assistance Recipients.--Section 454(5) (42 
     U.S.C. 654(5)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)--
       (A) by inserting ``except as otherwise specifically 
     provided in section 464 or 466(a)(3),'' after ``is 
     effective,''; and
       (B) by striking ``except that'' and all that follows 
     through the semicolon; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``, except'' and all 
     that follows through ``medical assistance''.
       (b) Distribution to a Family Currently Receiving AFDC.--
     Section 457 (42 U.S.C. 657) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (a) and redesignating subsection 
     (b) as subsection (a);
       (2) in subsection (a), as redesignated--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (2), to read as 
     follows:
       ``(a) In the Case of a Family Receiving AFDC.--Amounts 
     collected under this part during any month as support of a 
     child who is receiving assistance under part A (or a parent 
     or caretaker relative of such a child) shall (except in the 
     case of a State exercising the option under subsection (b)) 
     be distributed as follows:
       ``(1) an amount equal to the amount that will be 
     disregarded pursuant to section 402(a)(8)(A)(vi) shall be 
     taken from each of--
       ``(A) amounts received in a month which represent payments 
     for that month; and
       ``(B) amounts received in a month which represent payments 
     for a prior month which were made by the absent parent in the 
     month when due;

     and shall be paid to the family without affecting its 
     eligibility for assistance or decreasing any amount otherwise 
     payable as assistance to such family during such month;'';
       (B) in paragraph (4), by striking ``or (B)'' and all that 
     follows and inserting ``; then (B) from any remainder, 
     amounts equal to arrearages of such support obligations 
     assigned, pursuant to part A, to any other State or States 
     shall be paid to such other State or States and used to pay 
     any
      such arrearages (with appropriate reimbursement of the 
     Federal Government to the extent of its participation in 
     the financing); and then (C) any remainder shall be paid 
     to the family.''.
       (3) by inserting after subsection (a), as redesignated, the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(b) Alternative Distribution in Case of Family Receiving 
     AFDC.--In the case of a State electing the option under this 
     subsection, amounts collected as described in subsection (a) 
     shall be distributed as follows:
       ``(1) an amount equal to the amount that will be 
     disregarded pursuant to section 402(a)(8)(A)(vi) shall be 
     taken from each of--
       ``(A) amounts received in a month which represent payments 
     for that month; and
       ``(B) amounts received in a month which represent payments 
     for a prior month which were made by the absent parent in the 
     month when due;
     and shall be paid to the family without affecting its 
     eligibility for assistance or decreasing any amount otherwise 
     payable as assistance to such family during such month;
       ``(2) second, from any remainder, amounts equal to the 
     balance of support owed for the current month shall be paid 
     to the family;
       ``(3) third, from any remainder, amounts equal to 
     arrearages of such support obligations assigned, pursuant to 
     part A, to the State making the collection shall be retained 
     and used by such State to pay any such arrearages (with 
     appropriate reimbursement of the Federal Government to the 
     extent of its participation in the financing);
       ``(4) fourth, from any remainder, amounts equal to 
     arrearages of such support obligations assigned, pursuant to 
     part A, to any other State or States shall be paid to such 
     other State or States and used to pay any such arrearages 
     (with appropriate reimbursement of the Federal Government to 
     the extent of its participation in the financing); and
       ``(5) fifth, any remainder shall be paid to the family.''.
       (c) Distribution to a Family Not Receiving AFDC.--
       (1) In general.--Section 457(c) (42 U.S.C. 657(c)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) In Case of Family Not Receiving AFDC.--Amounts 
     collected by a State agency under this part during any month 
     as support of a child who is not receiving assistance under 
     part A (or of a parent or caretaker relative of such a child) 
     shall (subject to the remaining provisions of this section) 
     be distributed as follows:
       ``(1) first, amounts equal to the total of such support 
     owed for such month shall be paid to the family;
       ``(2) second, from any remainder, amounts equal to 
     arrearages of such support obligations for months during 
     which such child did not receive assistance under part A 
     shall be paid to the family;
       ``(3) third, from any remainder, amounts equal to 
     arrearages of such support obligations assigned to the State 
     making the collection pursuant to part A shall be retained 
     and used by such State to pay any such arrearages (with 
     appropriate reimbursement of the Federal Government to the 
     extent of its participation in the financing);
       ``(4) fourth, from any remainder, amounts equal to 
     arrearages of such support obligations assigned to any other 
     State pursuant to part A shall be paid to such other State or 
     States, and used to pay such arrearages, in the order in 
     which such arrearages accrued (with appropriate reimbursement 
     of the Federal Government to the extent of its participation 
     in the financing).''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
     shall take effect on October 1, 1999.
       (d) Distribution to a Child Receiving Assistance Under Part 
     E.--Section 457(d) (42 U.S.C. 657(d)) is amended, in the 
     matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ``Notwithstanding 
     the preceding provisions of this section, amounts'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(d) In Case of a Child Receiving Assistance Under Part 
     E.--Amounts''.
       (e) Suspension or Cancellation of Debts Upon Marriage of 
     Parents.--Section 457 (42 U.S.C. 657) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(e) Suspension or Cancellation of Debts to State Upon 
     Marriage of Parents.--
       ``(1) Circumstances requiring suspension or cancellation.--
     In any case in which a State has been assigned rights to 
     support owed with respect to a child who is receiving or has 
     received assistance under part A and--
       ``(A) the parent owing such support marries (or remarries) 
     the parent with whom 
      [[Page H3648]] such child is living and to whom such support 
     is owed and applies to the State for relief under this 
     subsection;
       ``(B) the State determines (in accordance with procedures 
     and criteria established by the Secretary) that the marriage 
     is not a sham marriage entered into solely to satisfy this 
     subsection; and
       ``(C) the combined income of such parents is less than 
     twice the Federal poverty line,

     the State shall afford relief to the parent owing such 
     support in accordance with paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Suspension or cancellation.--In the case of a 
     marriage or remarriage described in paragraph (1), the State 
     shall either--
       ``(A) cancel all debts owed to the State pursuant to such 
     assignment; or
       ``(B) suspend collection of such debts for the duration of 
     such marriage, and cancel such debts if such duration extends 
     beyond the end of the period with respect to which support is 
     owed.
       ``(3) Notice required.--The State shall notify custodial 
     parents of children who are receiving aid under part A of the 
     relief available under this subsection to individuals who 
     marry (or remarry).''.
       (f) State Options To Pass Through and To Disregard Child 
     Support Amounts.--
       (1) State option to pass through child support.--Section 
     457(b)(1) (42 U.S.C. 657(b)(1)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(1) at State option, an amount determined by the State, 
     equal to all or a portion of the monthly support obligation, 
     may be paid to the family from each of--
       ``(A) amounts received in a month which represent payments 
     for that month; and
       ``(B) amounts received in a month which represent payments 
     for a prior month which were made by the absent parent in the 
     month when due;''.
       (2) State option to disregard child support.--Section 
     402(a)(8)(A)(vi) (42 U.S.C 602(a)(8)(A)(vi)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``shall disregard the first $50'' and 
     inserting ``may disregard all or any portion'';
       (B) by striking ``the first $50'' and inserting ``and all 
     or any portion''; and
       (C) by striking ``section 457(b)'' and inserting ``section 
     457(a)''.
       (g) Pass Through and Disregard of Support Collected on 
     Behalf of a Family Subject to the Family Cap.--
       (1) Pass through.--Section 457 (42 U.S.C. 657), as amended 
     by subsection (e) of this section, is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(f) Pass Through of Support Collected on Behalf of a 
     Family Subject to the Family Cap.--Amounts collected by a 
     State agency under this part during any month as support of a 
     child who is a member of a 1-parent family subject to section 
     402(a)(51) shall be distributed to the family.''.
       (2) Disregard.--Section 402(a)(8)(A)(vi) (42 U.S.C. 
     602(a)(8)(A)(vi)) is amended by inserting ``, except that, in 
     the case of a 1-parent family subject to paragraph (51), all 
     support payments collected and paid to the family under 
     section 457(f) shall be disregarded'' before the semicolon.
       (h) Regulations.--The Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services shall promulgate regulations--
       (1) under part D of title IV of the Social Security Act, 
     establishing a uniform nationwide standard for allocation of 
     child support collections from an obligor owing support to 
     more than one family; and
       (2) under part A of such title, establishing standards 
     applicable to States electing the alternative formula under 
     section 457(b) of such Act for distribution of collections on 
     behalf of families receiving Aid to Families with Dependent 
     Children, designed to minimize irregular monthly payments to 
     such families.
       (i) Clerical Amendment.--Section 454 (42 U.S.C. 654) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (11), by striking ``(11)'' and inserting 
     ``(11)(A)''; and
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (12) as subparagraph (B) of 
     paragraph (11).

     SEC. 403. DUE PROCESS RIGHTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 454 (42 U.S.C. 654), as amended by 
     section 402(f) of this Act, is amended by inserting after 
     paragraph (11) the following new paragraph:
       ``(12) provide for procedures to ensure that--
       ``(A) individuals who are applying for or receiving 
     services under this part, or are parties to cases in which 
     services are being provided under this part--
       ``(i) receive notice of all proceedings in which support 
     obligations might be established or modified; and
       ``(ii) receive a copy of any order establishing or 
     modifying a child support obligation, or (in the case of a 
     petition for modification) a notice of determination that 
     there should be no change in the amount of the child support 
     award, within 14 days after issuance of such order or 
     determination;
       ``(B) individuals applying for or receiving services under 
     this part have access to a fair hearing that meets standards 
     established by the Secretary and ensures prompt consideration 
     and resolution of complaints (but the resort to such 
     procedure shall not stay the enforcement of any support 
     order); and
       ``(C) individuals adversely affected by the establishment 
     or modification of (or, in the case of a petition for 
     modification, the determination that there should be no 
     change in) a child support order shall be afforded not less 
     than 30 days after the receipt of the order or determination 
     to initiate proceedings to challenge such order or 
     determination;''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall become effective on October 1, 1997.

     SEC. 404. PRIVACY SAFEGUARDS.

       (a) State Plan Requirement.--Section 454 (42 U.S.C. 454) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (23);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (24) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding after paragraph (24) the following:
       ``(25) will have in effect safeguards applicable to all 
     sensitive and confidential information handled by the State 
     agency designed to protect the privacy rights of the parties, 
     including--
       ``(A) safeguards against unauthorized use or disclosure of 
     information relating to proceedings or actions to establish 
     paternity, or to establish or enforce support;
       ``(B) prohibitions on the release of information on the 
     whereabouts of one party to another party against whom a 
     protective order with respect to the former party has been 
     entered; and
       ``(C) prohibitions on the release of information on the 
     whereabouts of one party to another party if the State has 
     reason to believe that the release of the information may 
     result in physical or emotional harm to the former party.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall become effective on October 1, 1997.
             Subtitle B--Program Administration and Funding

     SEC. 411. FEDERAL MATCHING PAYMENTS.

       (a) Increased Base Matching Rate.--Section 455(a)(2) (42 
     U.S.C. 655(a)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) The applicable percent for a quarter for purposes of 
     paragraph (1)(A) is--
       ``(A) for fiscal year 1997, 69 percent,
       ``(B) for fiscal year 1998, 72 percent, and
       ``(C) for fiscal year 1999 and succeeding fiscal years, 75 
     percent.''.
       (b) Maintenance of Effort.--Section 455 (42 U.S.C. 655) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), in the matter preceding 
     subparagraph (A), by striking ``From'' and inserting 
     ``Subject to subsection (c), from''; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(c) Maintenance of Effort.--Notwithstanding the 
     provisions of subsection (a), total expenditures for the 
     State program under this part for fiscal year 1997 and each 
     succeeding fiscal year, reduced by the percentage specified 
     for such fiscal year under subsection (a)(2)(A), (B), or 
     (C)(i), shall not be less than such total expenditures for 
     fiscal year 1996, reduced by 66 percent.''.

     SEC. 412. PERFORMANCE-BASED INCENTIVES AND PENALTIES.

       (a) Incentive Adjustments to Federal Matching Rate.--
     Section 458 (42 U.S.C. 658) is amended to read as follows:


                ``incentive adjustments to matching rate

       ``Sec. 458. (a) Incentive Adjustment.--(1) In General.--In 
     order to encourage and reward State child support enforcement 
     programs which perform in an effective manner, the Federal 
     matching rate for payments to a State under section 
     455(a)(1)(A), for each fiscal year beginning on or after 
     October 1, 1998, shall be increased by a factor reflecting 
     the sum of the applicable incentive adjustments (if any) 
     determined in accordance with regulations under this section 
     with respect to Statewide paternity establishment and to 
     overall performance in child support enforcement.
       ``(2) Standards.--(A) In General.--The Secretary shall 
     specify in regulations--
       ``(i) the levels of accomplishment, and rates of 
     improvement as alternatives to such levels, which States must 
     attain to qualify for incentive adjustments under this 
     section; and
       ``(ii) the amounts of incentive adjustment that shall be 
     awarded to States achieving specified accomplishment or 
     improvement levels, which amounts shall be graduated, ranging 
     up to--
       ``(I) 5 percentage points, in connection with Statewide 
     paternity establishment; and
       ``(II) 10 percentage points, in connection with overall 
     performance in child support enforcement.
       ``(B) Limitation.--In setting performance standards 
     pursuant to subparagraph (A)(i) and adjustment amounts 
     pursuant to subparagraph (A)(ii), the Secretary shall ensure 
     that the aggregate number of percentage point increases as 
     incentive adjustments to all States do not exceed such 
     aggregate increases as assumed by the Secretary in estimates 
     of the cost of this section as of June 1995, unless the 
     aggregate performance of all States exceeds the projected 
     aggregate performance of all States in such cost estimates.
       ``(3) Determination of Incentive Adjustment.--The Secretary 
     shall determine the amount (if any) of incentive adjustment 
     due each State on the basis of the data submitted by the 
     State pursuant to section 454(15)(B) concerning the levels of 
     accomplishment (and rates of improvement) with respect to 
     performance indicators specified by the Secretary pursuant to 
     this section.
       ``(4) Fiscal Year Subject to Incentive Adjustment.--The 
     total percentage point increase determined pursuant to this 
     section with respect to a State program in a fiscal 
      [[Page H3649]] year shall apply as an adjustment to the 
     applicable percent under section 455(a)(2) for payments to 
     such State for the succeeding fiscal year.
       ``(5) Recycling of Incentive Adjustment.--A State shall 
     expend in the State program under this part all funds paid to 
     the State by the Federal Government as a result of an 
     incentive adjustment under this section.
       ``(b) Meaning of Terms.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) the term `Statewide paternity establishment 
     percentage' means, with respect to a fiscal year, the ratio 
     (expressed as a percentage) of--
       ``(A) the total number of out-of-wedlock children in the 
     State under one year of age for whom paternity is established 
     or acknowledged during the fiscal year, to
       ``(B) the total number of children born out of wedlock in 
     the State during such fiscal year; and
       ``(2) the term `overall performance in child support 
     enforcement' means a measure or measures of the effectiveness 
     of the State agency in a fiscal year which takes into account 
     factors including--
       ``(A) the percentage of cases requiring a child support 
     order in which such an order was established;
       ``(B) the percentage of cases in which child support is 
     being paid;
       ``(C) the ratio of child support collected to child support 
     due; and
       ``(D) the cost-effectiveness of the State program, as 
     determined in accordance with standards established by the 
     Secretary in regulations.''.
       (b) Adjustment of Payments Under Part D of Title IV.--
     Section 455(a)(2) (42 U.S.C. 655(a)(2)), as amended by 
     section 411(a) of this Act, is amended--
       (1) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph 
     (C)(ii) and inserting a comma; and
       (2) by adding after and below subparagraph (C), flush with 
     the left margin of the subsection, the following:

     ``increased by the incentive adjustment factor (if any) 
     determined by the Secretary pursuant to section 458.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 454(22) (42 U.S.C. 
     654(22)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``incentive payments'' the first place it 
     appears and inserting ``incentive adjustments''; and
       (2) by striking ``any such incentive payments made to the 
     State for such period'' and inserting ``any increases in 
     Federal payments to the State resulting from such incentive 
     adjustments''.
       (d) Calculation of IV-D Paternity Establishment 
     Percentage.--(1) Section 452(g)(1) (42 U.S.C. 652(g)(1)) is 
     amended in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) by inserting 
     ``its overall performance in child support enforcement is 
     satisfactory (as defined in section 458(b) and regulations of 
     the Secretary), and'' after ``1994,''.
       (2) Section 452(g)(2) (42 U.S.C. 652(g)(2)) is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), in the matter preceding clause 
     (i)--
       (i) by striking ``paternity establishment percentage'' and 
     inserting ``IV-D paternity establishment percentage''; and
       (ii) by striking ``(or all States, as the case may be)'';
       (B) in subparagraph (A)(i), by striking ``during the fiscal 
     year'';
       (C) in subparagraph (A)(ii)(I), by striking ``as of the end 
     of the fiscal year'' and inserting ``in the fiscal year or, 
     at the option of the State, as of the end of such year'';
       (D) in subparagraph (A)(ii)(II), by striking ``or (E) as of 
     the end of the fiscal year'' and inserting ``in the fiscal 
     year or, at the option of the State, as of the end of such 
     year'';
       (E) in subparagraph (A)(iii)--
       (i) by striking ``during the fiscal year''; and
       (ii) by striking ``and'' at the end; and
       (F) in the matter following subparagraph (A)--
       (i) by striking ``who were born out of wedlock during the 
     immediately preceding fiscal year'' and inserting ``born out 
     of wedlock'';
       (ii) by striking ``such preceding fiscal year'' both places 
     it appears and inserting ``the preceding fiscal year''; and
       (iii) by striking ``or (E)'' the second place it appears.
       (3) Section 452(g)(3) (42 U.S.C. 652(g)(3)) is amended--
       (A) by striking subparagraph (A) and redesignating 
     subparagraphs (B) and (C) as subparagraphs (A) and (B), 
     respectively;
       (B) in subparagraph (A), as redesignated, by striking ``the 
     percentage of children born out-of-wedlock in the State'' and 
     inserting ``the percentage of children in the State who are 
     born out of wedlock or for whom support has not been 
     established''; and
       (C) in subparagraph (B), as redesignated--
       (i) by inserting ``and overall performance in child support 
     enforcement'' after ``paternity establishment percentages''; 
     and
       (ii) by inserting ``and securing support'' before the 
     period.
       (e) Reduction of Payments Under Part D of Title IV.--
       (1) New requirements.--Section 455 (42 U.S.C. 655) is 
     amended by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c)(1) If the Secretary finds, with respect to a State 
     program under this part in a fiscal year beginning on or 
     after October 1, 1997--
       ``(A)(i) on the basis of data submitted by a State pursuant 
     to section 454(15)(B), that the State program in such fiscal 
     year failed to achieve the IV-D paternity establishment 
     percentage (as defined in section 452(g)(2)(A)) or the 
     appropriate level of overall performance in child support 
     enforcement (as defined in section 458(b)(2)), or to meet 
     other performance measures that may be established by the 
     Secretary, or
       ``(ii) on the basis of an audit or audits of such State 
     data conducted pursuant to section 452(a)(4)(C), that the 
     State data submitted pursuant to section 454(15)(B) is 
     incomplete or unreliable; and
       ``(B) that, with respect to the succeeding fiscal year--
       ``(i) the State failed to take sufficient corrective action 
     to achieve the appropriate performance levels as described in 
     subparagraph (A)(i) of this paragraph, or
       ``(ii) the data submitted by the State pursuant to section 
     454(15)(B) is incomplete or unreliable,

     the amounts otherwise payable to the State under this part 
     for quarters following the end of such succeeding fiscal 
     year, prior to quarters following the end of the first 
     quarter throughout which the State program is in compliance 
     with such performance requirement, shall be reduced by the 
     percentage specified in paragraph (2).
       ``(2) The reductions required under paragraph (1) shall 
     be--
       ``(A) not less than 6 nor more than 8 percent, or
       ``(B) not less than 8 nor more than 12 percent, if the 
     finding is the second consecutive finding made pursuant to 
     paragraph (1), or
       ``(C) not less than 12 nor more than 15 percent, if the 
     finding is the third or a subsequent consecutive such 
     finding.
       ``(3) For purposes of this subsection, section 402(a)(27), 
     and section 452(a)(4), a State which is determined as a 
     result of an audit to have submitted incomplete or unreliable 
     data pursuant to section 454(15)(B), shall be determined to 
     have submitted adequate data if the Secretary determines that 
     the extent of the incompleteness or unreliability of the data 
     is of a technical nature which does not adversely affect the 
     determination of the level of the State's performance.''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Section 403 (42 U.S.C. 603) is amended by striking 
     subsection (h).
       (B) Section 452(a)(4) (42 U.S.C. 652(a)(4)) is amended by 
     striking ``403(h)'' each place such term appears and 
     inserting ``455(c)''.
       (C) Subsections (d)(3)(A), (g)(1), and (g)(3)(A) of section 
     452 (42 U.S.C. 652) are each amended by striking ``403(h)'' 
     and inserting ``455(c)''.
       (f) Effective Dates.--
       (1) Incentive adjustments.--(A) The amendments made by 
     subsections (a), (b), and (c) shall become effective October 
     1, 1997, except to the extent provided in subparagraph (B).
       (B) Section 458 of the Social Security Act, as in effect 
     prior to the enactment of this section, shall be effective 
     for purposes of incentive payments to States for fiscal years 
     prior to fiscal year 1999.
       (2) Penalty reductions.--(A) The amendments made by 
     subsection (d) shall become effective with respect to 
     calendar quarters beginning on and after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (B) The amendments made by subsection (e) shall become 
     effective with respect to calendar quarters beginning on and 
     after the date one year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.

     SEC. 413. FEDERAL AND STATE REVIEWS AND AUDITS.

       (a) State Agency Activities.--Section 454 (42 U.S.C. 654) 
     is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (14), by striking ``(14)'' and inserting 
     ``(14)(A)'';
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (15) as subparagraph (B) of 
     paragraph (14); and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (14) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(15) provide for--
       ``(A) a process for annual reviews of and reports to the 
     Secretary on the State program under this part, which shall 
     include such information as may be necessary to measure State 
     compliance with Federal requirements for expedited procedures 
     and timely case processing, using such standards and 
     procedures as are required by the Secretary, under which the 
     State agency will determine the extent to which such program 
     is in conformity with applicable requirements with respect to 
     the operation of State programs under this part (including 
     the status of complaints filed under the procedure required 
     under paragraph (12)(B)); and
       ``(B) a process of extracting from the State automated data 
     processing system and transmitting to the Secretary data and 
     calculations concerning the levels of accomplishment (and 
     rates of improvement) with respect to applicable performance 
     indicators (including IV-D paternity establishment 
     percentages and overall performance in child support 
     enforcement) to the extent necessary for purposes of sections 
     452(g) and 458.''.
       (b) Federal Activities.--Section 452(a)(4) (42 U.S.C. 
     652(a)(4)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(4)(A) review data and calculations transmitted by State 
     agencies pursuant to section 454(15)(B) on State program 
     accomplishments with respect to performance indicators for 
     purposes of section 452(g) and 458, and determine the amount 
     (if any) of penalty reductions pursuant to section 455(c) to 
     be applied to the State;
       ``(B) review annual reports by State agencies pursuant to 
     section 454(15)(A) on State 
      [[Page H3650]] program conformity with Federal requirements; 
     evaluate any elements of a State program in which significant 
     deficiencies are indicated by such report on the status of 
     complaints under the State procedure under section 
     454(12)(B); and, as appropriate, provide to the State agency 
     comments, recommendations for additional or alternative 
     corrective actions, and technical assistance; and
       ``(C) conduct audits, in accordance with the government 
     auditing standards of the United States Comptroller General--
       ``(i) at least once every 3 years (or more frequently, in 
     the case of a State which fails to meet requirements of this 
     part, or of regulations implementing such requirements, 
     concerning performance standards and reliability of program 
     data) to assess the completeness, reliability, and security 
     of the data, and the accuracy of the reporting systems, used 
     for the calculations of performance indicators specified in 
     subsection (g) and section 458;
       ``(ii) of the adequacy of financial management of the State 
     program, including assessments of--
       ``(I) whether Federal and other funds made available to 
     carry out the State program under this part are being 
     appropriately expended, and are properly and fully accounted 
     for; and
       ``(II) whether collections and disbursements of support 
     payments and program income are carried out correctly and are 
     properly and fully accounted for; and
       ``(iii) for such other purposes as the Secretary may find 
     necessary;''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall be effective with respect to calendar quarters 
     beginning on or after the date one year after enactment of 
     this section.
     SEC. 414. REQUIRED REPORTING PROCEDURES.

       (a) Establishment.--Section 452(a)(5) (42 U.S.C. 652(a)(5)) 
     is amended by inserting ``, and establish procedures to be 
     followed by States for collecting and reporting information 
     required to be provided under this part, and establish 
     uniform definitions (including those necessary to enable the 
     measurement of State compliance with the requirements of this 
     part relating to expedited processes and timely case 
     processing) to be applied in following such procedures'' 
     before the semicolon.
       (b) State Plan Requirement.--Section 454 (42 U.S.C. 654), 
     as amended by section 404(a) of this Act, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (24);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (25) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding after paragraph (25) the following:
       ``(26) provide that the State shall use the definitions 
     established under section 452(a)(5) in collecting and 
     reporting information as required under this part.''.

     SEC. 415. AUTOMATED DATA PROCESSING REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Revised Requirements.--(1) Section 454(16) (42 U.S.C. 
     654(16)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``, at the option of the State,'';
       (B) by inserting ``and operation by the State agency'' 
     after ``for the establishment'';
       (C) by inserting ``meeting the requirements of section 
     454A'' after ``information retrieval system'';
       (D) by striking ``in the State and localities thereof, so 
     as (A)'' and inserting ``so as'';
       (E) by striking ``(i)''; and
       (F) by striking ``(including'' and all that follows and 
     inserting a semicolon.
       (2) Part D of title IV (42 U.S.C. 651-669) is amended by 
     inserting after section 454 the following new section:


                      ``automated data processing

       ``Sec. 454A. (a) In General.--In order to meet the 
     requirements of this section, for purposes of the requirement 
     of section 454(16), a State agency shall have in operation a 
     single statewide automated data processing and information 
     retrieval system which has the capability to perform the 
     tasks specified in this section, and performs such tasks with 
     the frequency and in the manner specified in this part or in 
     regulations or guidelines of the Secretary.
       ``(b) Program Management.--The automated system required 
     under this section shall perform such functions as the 
     Secretary may specify relating to management of the program 
     under this part, including--
       ``(1) controlling and accounting for use of Federal, State, 
     and local funds to carry out such program; and
       ``(2) maintaining the data necessary to meet Federal 
     reporting requirements on a timely basis.
       ``(c) Calculation of Performance Indicators.--In order to 
     enable the Secretary to determine the incentive and penalty 
     adjustments required by sections 452(g) and 458, the State 
     agency shall--
       ``(1) use the automated system--
       ``(A) to maintain the requisite data on State performance 
     with respect to paternity establishment and child support 
     enforcement in the State; and
       ``(B) to calculate the IV-D paternity establishment 
     percentage and overall performance in child support 
     enforcement for the State for each fiscal year; and
       ``(2) have in place systems controls to ensure the 
     completeness, and reliability of, and ready access to, the 
     data described in paragraph (1)(A), and the accuracy of the 
     calculations described in paragraph (1)(B).
       ``(d) Information Integrity and Security.--The State agency 
     shall have in effect safeguards on the integrity, accuracy, 
     and completeness of, access to, and use of data in the 
     automated system required under this section, which shall 
     include the following (in addition to such other safeguards 
     as the Secretary specifies in regulations):
       ``(1) Policies restricting access.--Written policies 
     concerning access to data by State agency personnel, and 
     sharing of data with other persons, which--
       ``(A) permit access to and use of data only to the extent 
     necessary to carry out program responsibilities;
       ``(B) specify the data which may be used for particular 
     program purposes, and the personnel permitted access to such 
     data; and
       ``(C) ensure that data obtained or disclosed for a limited 
     program purpose is not used or redisclosed for another, 
     impermissible purpose.
       ``(2) Systems controls.--Systems controls (such as 
     passwords or blocking of fields) to ensure strict adherence 
     to the policies specified under paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Monitoring of access.--Routine monitoring of access 
     to and use of the automated system, through methods such as 
     audit trails and feedback mechanisms, to guard against and 
     promptly identify unauthorized access or use.
       ``(4) Training and information.--The State agency shall 
     have in effect procedures to ensure that all personnel 
     (including State and local agency staff and contractors) who 
     may have access to or be required to use sensitive or 
     confidential program data are fully informed of applicable 
     requirements and penalties, and are adequately trained in 
     security procedures.
       ``(5) Penalties.--The State agency shall have in effect 
     administrative penalties (up to and including dismissal from 
     employment) for unauthorized access to, or disclosure or use 
     of, confidential data.''.
       (3) Regulations.--Section 452 (42 U.S.C. 652) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(j) The Secretary shall prescribe final regulations for 
     implementation of the requirements of section 454A not later 
     than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this 
     subsection.''.
       (4) Implementation Timetable.--Section 454(24) (42 U.S.C. 
     654(24)), as amended by sections 404(a)(2) and 414(b)(1) of 
     this Act, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(24) provide that the State will have in effect an 
     automated data processing and information retrieval system--
       ``(A) by October 1, 1995, meeting all requirements of this 
     part which were enacted on or before the date of enactment of 
     the Family Support Act of 1988; and
       ``(B) by October 1, 1999, meeting all requirements of this 
     part enacted on or before the date of enactment of the 
     Individual Responsibility Act of 1995 (but this provision 
     shall not be construed to alter earlier deadlines specified 
     for elements of such system), except that such deadline shall 
     be extended by 1 day for each day (if any) by which the 
     Secretary fails to meet the deadline imposed by section 
     452(j);''.
       (b) Special Federal Matching Rate for Development Costs of 
     Automated Systems.--Section 455(a) (42 U.S.C. 655(a)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(B)--
       (A) by striking ``90 percent'' and inserting ``the percent 
     specified in paragraph (3)'';
       (B) by striking ``so much of''; and
       (C) by striking ``which the Secretary'' and all that 
     follows and inserting ``, and''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3)(A) The Secretary shall pay to each State, for each 
     quarter in fiscal year 1996, 90 percent of so much of State 
     expenditures described in subparagraph (1)(B) as the 
     Secretary finds are for a system meeting the requirements 
     specified in section 454(16), or meeting such requirements 
     without regard to clause (D) thereof.
       ``(B)(i) The Secretary shall pay to each State, for each 
     quarter in fiscal years 1997 through 2001, the percentage 
     specified in clause (ii) of so much of State expenditures 
     described in subparagraph (1)(B) as the Secretary finds are 
     for a system meeting the requirements specified in section 
     454(16) and 454A, subject to clause (iii).
       ``(ii) The percentage specified in this clause, for 
     purposes of clause (i), is the higher of--
       ``(I) 80 percent, or
       ``(II) the percentage otherwise applicable to Federal 
     payments to the State under subparagraph (A) (as adjusted 
     pursuant to section 458).''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 123(c) of the Family 
     Support Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 2352; Public Law 100-485) is 
     repealed.
       (d) Additional Provisions.--For additional provisions of 
     section 454A, as added by subsection (a) of this section, see 
     the amendments made by sections 421, 422(c), and 433(d) of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 416. DIRECTOR OF CSE PROGRAM; STAFFING STUDY.

       (a) Reporting to Secretary.--Section 452(a) (42 U.S.C. 
     652(a)) is amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by 
     striking ``directly''.
       (b) Staffing Studies.--
       (1) Scope.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     shall, directly or by contract, conduct studies of the 
     staffing of each State child support enforcement program 
     under part D of title IV of the Social Security Act. Such 
     studies shall include a review of the staffing needs created 
     by requirements for automated data processing, maintenance 
      [[Page H3651]] of a central case registry and centralized 
     collections of child support, and of changes in these needs 
     resulting from changes in such requirements. Such studies 
     shall examine and report on effective staffing practices used 
     by the States and on recommended staffing procedures.
       (2) Frequency of studies.--The Secretary shall complete the 
     first staffing study required under paragraph (1) by October 
     1, 1997, and may conduct additional studies subsequently at 
     appropriate intervals.
       (3) Report to the congress.--The Secretary shall submit a 
     report to the Congress stating the findings and conclusions 
     of each study conducted under this subsection.

     SEC. 417. FUNDING FOR SECRETARIAL ASSISTANCE TO STATE 
                   PROGRAMS.

       Section 452 (42 U.S.C. 652), as amended by section 
     415(a)(3) of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(k) Funding for Federal Activities Assisting State 
     Programs.--(1) There shall be available to the Secretary, 
     from amounts appropriated for fiscal year 1996 and each 
     succeeding fiscal year for payments to States under this 
     part, the amount specified in paragraph (2) for the costs to 
     the Secretary for--
       ``(A) information dissemination and technical assistance to 
     States, training of State and Federal staff, staffing 
     studies, and related activities needed to improve programs 
     (including technical assistance concerning State automated 
     systems);
       ``(B) research, demonstration, and special projects of 
     regional or national significance relating to the operation 
     of State programs under this part; and
       ``(C) operation of the Federal Parent Locator Service under 
     section 453, to the extent such costs are not recovered 
     through user fees.
       ``(2) The amount specified in this paragraph for a fiscal 
     year is the amount equal to a percentage of the reduction in 
     Federal payments to States under part A on account of child 
     support (including arrearages) collected in the preceding 
     fiscal year on behalf of children receiving aid under such 
     part A in such preceding fiscal year (as determined on the 
     basis of the most recent reliable data available to the 
     Secretary as of the end of the third calendar quarter 
     following the end of such preceding fiscal year), equal to--
       ``(A) 1 percent, for the activities specified in 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1); and
       ``(B) 2 percent, for the activities specified in 
     subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1).''.

     SEC. 418. REPORTS AND DATA COLLECTION BY THE SECRETARY.

       (a) Annual Report to Congress.--(1) Section 452(a)(10)(A) 
     (42 U.S.C. 652(a)(10)(A)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``this part;'' and inserting ``this part, 
     including--''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following indented clauses:
       ``(i) the total amount of child support payments collected 
     as a result of services furnished during such fiscal year to 
     individuals receiving services under this part;
       ``(ii) the cost to the States and to the Federal Government 
     of furnishing such services to those individuals; and
       ``(iii) the number of cases involving families--

       ``(I) who became ineligible for aid under part A during a 
     month in such fiscal year; and
       ``(II) with respect to whom a child support payment was 
     received in the same month;''.

       (2) Section 452(a)(10)(C) (42 U.S.C. 652(a)(10)(C)) is 
     amended--
       (A) in the matter preceding clause (i)--
       (i) by striking ``with the data required under each clause 
     being separately stated for cases'' and inserting 
     ``separately stated for (1) cases'';
       (ii) by striking ``cases where the child was formerly 
     receiving'' and inserting ``or formerly received'';
       (iii) by inserting ``or 1912'' after ``471(a)(17)''; and
       (iv) by inserting ``(2)'' before ``all other'';
       (B) in each of clauses (i) and (ii), by striking ``, and 
     the total amount of such obligations'';
       (C) in clause (iii), by striking ``described in'' and all 
     that follows and inserting ``in which support was collected 
     during the fiscal year;'';
       (D) by striking clause (iv); and
       (E) by redesignating clause (v) as clause (vii), and 
     inserting after clause (iii) the following new clauses:
       ``(iv) the total amount of support collected during such 
     fiscal year and distributed as current support;
       ``(v) the total amount of support collected during such 
     fiscal year and distributed as arrearages;
       ``(vi) the total amount of support due and unpaid for all 
     fiscal years; and''.
       (3) Section 452(a)(10)(G) (42 U.S.C. 652(a)(10)(G)) is 
     amended by striking ``on the use of Federal courts and''.
       (4) Section 452(a)(10) (42 U.S.C. 652(a)(10)) is amended by 
     striking all that follows subparagraph (I).
       (b) Data Collection and Reporting.--Section 469 (42 U.S.C. 
     669) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsections (a) and (b) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(a) The Secretary shall collect and maintain, on a fiscal 
     year basis, up-to-date statistics, by State, with respect to 
     services to establish paternity and services to establish 
     child support obligations, the data specified in subsection 
     (b), separately stated, in the case of each such service, 
     with respect to--
       ``(1) families (or dependent children) receiving aid under 
     plans approved under part A (or E); and
       ``(2) families not receiving such aid.
       ``(b) The data referred to in subsection (a) are--
       ``(1) the number of cases in the caseload of the State 
     agency administering the plan under this part in which such 
     service is needed; and
       ``(2) the number of such cases in which the service has 
     been provided.''; and
       (2) in subsection (c), by striking ``(a)(2)'' and inserting 
     ``(b)(2)''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall be effective with respect to fiscal year 1996 and 
     succeeding fiscal years.
                  Subtitle C--Locate and Case Tracking

     SEC. 421. CENTRAL STATE AND CASE REGISTRY.

       Section 454A, as added by section 415(a)(2) of this Act, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Central Case Registry.--(1) In General.--The 
     automated system required under this section shall perform 
     the functions, in accordance with the provisions of this 
     subsection, of a single central registry containing records 
     with respect to each case in which services are being 
     provided by the State agency (including, on and after October 
     1, 1998, each order specified in section 466(a)(12)), using 
     such standardized data elements (such as names, social 
     security numbers or other uniform identification numbers, 
     dates of birth, and case identification numbers), and 
     containing such other information (such as information on 
     case status) as the Secretary may require.
       ``(2) Payment Records.--Each case record in the central 
     registry shall include a record of--
       ``(A) the amount of monthly (or other periodic) support 
     owed under the support order, and other amounts due or 
     overdue (including arrears, interest or late payment 
     penalties, and fees);
       ``(B) the date on which or circumstances under which the 
     support obligation will terminate under such order;
       ``(C) all child support and related amounts collected 
     (including such amounts as fees, late payment penalties, and 
     interest on arrearages);
       ``(D) the distribution of such amounts collected; and
       ``(E) the birth date of the child for whom the child 
     support order is entered.
       ``(3) Updating and Monitoring.--The State agency shall 
     promptly establish and maintain, and regularly monitor, case 
     records in the registry required by this subsection, on the 
     basis of--
       ``(A) information on administrative actions and 
     administrative and judicial proceedings and orders relating 
     to paternity and support;
       ``(B) information obtained from matches with Federal, 
     State, or local data sources;
       ``(C) information on support collections and distributions; 
     and
       ``(D) any other relevant information.
       ``(f) Data Matches and Other Disclosures of Information.--
     The automated system required under this section shall have 
     the capacity, and be used by the State agency, to extract 
     data at such times, and in such standardized format or 
     formats, as may be required by the Secretary, and to share 
     and match data with, and receive data from, other data bases 
     and data matching services, in order to obtain (or provide) 
     information necessary to enable the State agency (or 
     Secretary or other State or Federal agencies) to carry out 
     responsibilities under this part. Data matching activities of 
     the State agency shall include at least the following:
       ``(1) Data bank of child support orders.--Furnish to the 
     Data Bank of Child Support Orders established under section 
     453(h) (and update as necessary, with information including 
     notice of expiration of orders) minimal information (to be 
     specified by the Secretary) on each child support case in the 
     central case registry.
       ``(2) Federal parent locator service.--Exchange data with 
     the Federal Parent Locator Service for the purposes specified 
     in section 453.
       ``(3) AFDC and medicaid agencies.--Exchange data with State 
     agencies (of the State and of other States) administering the 
     programs under part A and title XIX, as necessary for the 
     performance of State agency responsibilities under this part 
     and under such programs.
       ``(4) Intra- and interstate data matches.--Exchange data 
     with other agencies of the State, agencies of other States, 
     and interstate information networks, as necessary and 
     appropriate to carry out (or assist other States to carry 
     out) the purposes of this part.''.

     SEC. 422. CENTRALIZED COLLECTION AND DISBURSEMENT OF SUPPORT 
                   PAYMENTS.

       (a) State Plan Requirement.--Section 454 (42 U.S.C. 654), 
     as amended by sections 404(a) and 414(b) of this Act, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (25);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (26) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding after paragraph (26) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(27) provide that the State agency, on and after October 
     1, 1998--
     [[Page H3652]]   ``(A) will operate a centralized, automated 
     unit for the collection and disbursement of child support 
     under orders being enforced under this part, in accordance 
     with section 454B; and
       ``(B) will have sufficient State staff (consisting of State 
     employees), and (at State option) contractors reporting 
     directly to the State agency to monitor and enforce support 
     collections through such centralized unit, including carrying 
     out the automated data processing responsibilities specified 
     in section 454A(g) and to impose, as appropriate in 
     particular cases, the administrative enforcement remedies 
     specified in section 466(c)(1).''.
       (b) Establishment of Centralized Collection Unit.--Part D 
     of title IV (42 U.S.C. 651-669) is amended by adding after 
     section 454A the following new section:


     ``centralized collection and disbursement of support payments

       ``Sec. 454B. (a) In General.--In order to meet the 
     requirement of section 454(27), the State agency must operate 
     a single centralized, automated unit for the collection and 
     disbursement of support payments, coordinated with the 
     automated data system required under section 454A, in 
     accordance with the provisions of this section, which shall 
     be--
       ``(1) operated directly by the State agency (or by two or 
     more State agencies under a regional cooperative agreement), 
     or by a single contractor responsible directly to the State 
     agency; and
       ``(2) used for the collection and disbursement (including 
     interstate collection and disbursement) of
      payments under support orders in all cases being enforced by 
     the State pursuant to section 454(4).
       ``(b) Required Procedures.--The centralized collections 
     unit shall use automated procedures, electronic processes, 
     and computer-driven technology to the maximum extent 
     feasible, efficient, and economical, for the collection and 
     disbursement of support payments, including procedures--
       ``(1) for receipt of payments from parents, employers, and 
     other States, and for disbursements to custodial parents and 
     other obligees, the State agency, and the State agencies of 
     other States;
       ``(2) for accurate identification of payments;
       ``(3) to ensure prompt disbursement of the custodial 
     parent's share of any payment; and
       ``(4) to furnish to either parent, upon request, timely 
     information on the current status of support payments.''.
       (c) Use of Automated System.--Section 454A, as added by 
     section 415(a)(2) of this Act and as amended by section 421 
     of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(g) Centralized Collection and Distribution of Support 
     Payments.--The automated system required under this section 
     shall be used, to the maximum extent feasible, to assist and 
     facilitate collections and disbursement of support payments 
     through the centralized collections unit operated pursuant to 
     section 454B, through the performance of functions including 
     at a minimum--
       ``(1) generation of orders and notices to employers (and 
     other debtors) for the withholding of wages (and other 
     income)--
       ``(A) within two working days after receipt (from the 
     directory of New Hires established under section 453(i) or 
     any other source) of notice of and the income source subject 
     to such withholding; and
       ``(B) using uniform formats directed by the Secretary;
       ``(2) ongoing monitoring to promptly identify failures to 
     make timely payment; and
       ``(3) automatic use of enforcement mechanisms (including 
     mechanisms authorized pursuant to section 466(c)) where 
     payments are not timely made.''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall become effective on October 1, 1998.

     SEC. 423. AMENDMENTS CONCERNING INCOME WITHHOLDING.

       (a) Mandatory Income Withholding.--(1) Section 466(a)(1) 
     (42 U.S.C. 666(a)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) Income withholding.--(A) Under orders enforced under 
     the state plan.--Procedures described in subsection (b) for 
     the withholding from income of amounts payable as support in 
     cases subject to enforcement under the State plan.
       ``(B) Under certain orders predating change in 
     requirement.--Procedures under which all child support orders 
     issued (or modified) before October 1, 1996, and which are 
     not otherwise subject to withholding under subsection (b), 
     shall become subject to withholding from wages as provided in 
     subsection (b) if arrearages occur, without the need for a 
     judicial or administrative hearing.''.
       (2) Section 466(a)(8) (42 U.S.C. 666(a)(8)) is repealed.
       (3) Section 466(b) (42 U.S.C. 666(b)) is amended--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``subsection (a)(1)'' and inserting ``subsection (a)(1)(A)'';
       (B) in paragraph (5), by striking all that follows 
     ``administered by'' and inserting ``the State through the 
     centralized collections unit established pursuant to section 
     454B, in accordance with the requirements of such section 
     454B.'';
       (C) in paragraph (6)(A)(i)--
       (i) by inserting ``, in accordance with timetables 
     established by the Secretary,'' after ``must be required''; 
     and
       (ii) by striking ``to the appropriate agency'' and all that 
     follows and inserting ``to the State centralized collections 
     unit within 5 working days after the date such amount would 
     (but for this subsection) have been paid or credited to the 
     employee, for distribution in accordance with this part.'';
       (D) in paragraph (6)(A)(ii), by inserting ``be in a 
     standard format prescribed by the Secretary, and'' after 
     ``shall''; and
       (E) in paragraph (6)(D)--
       (i) by striking ``employer who discharges'' and inserting 
     ``employer who--(A) discharges'';
       (ii) by relocating subparagraph (A), as designated, as an 
     indented subparagraph after and below the introductory 
     matter;
       (iii) by striking the period at the end; and
       (iv) by adding after and below subparagraph (A) the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) fails to withhold support from wages, or to pay such 
     amounts to the State centralized collections unit in 
     accordance with this subsection.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 466(c) (42 U.S.C. 
     666(c)) is repealed.
       (c) Definition of Terms.--The Secretary shall promulgate 
     regulations providing definitions, for purposes of part D of 
     title IV of the Social Security Act, for the term ``income'' 
     and for such other terms relating to income withholding under 
     section 466(b) of such Act as the Secretary may find it 
     necessary or advisable to define.

     SEC. 424. LOCATOR INFORMATION FROM INTERSTATE NETWORKS.

       Section 466(a) (42 U.S.C. 666(a)), as amended by section 
     423(a)(2) of this Act, is amended by inserting after 
     paragraph (7) the following:
       ``(8) Locator information from interstate networks.--
     Procedures ensuring that the State will neither provide 
     funding for, nor use for any purpose (including any purpose 
     unrelated to the purposes of this part), any automated 
     interstate network or system used to locate individuals--
       ``(A) for purposes relating to the use of motor vehicles; 
     or
       ``(B) providing information for law enforcement purposes 
     (where child support enforcement agencies are otherwise 
     allowed access by State and Federal law),

     unless all Federal and State agencies administering programs 
     under this part (including the entities established under 
     section 453) have access to information in such system or 
     network to the same extent as any other user of such system 
     or network.''.

     SEC. 425. EXPANDED FEDERAL PARENT LOCATOR SERVICE.

       (a) Expanded Authority to Locate Individuals and Assets.--
     Section 453 (42 U.S.C. 653) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking all that follows 
     ``subsection (c))'' and inserting the following:
     ``, for the purpose of establishing parentage, establishing, 
     setting the amount of, modifying, or enforcing child support 
     obligations--
       ``(1) information on, or facilitating the discovery of, the 
     location of any individual--
       ``(A) who is under an obligation to pay child support;
       ``(B) against whom such an obligation is sought; or
       ``(C) to whom such an obligation is owed, including such 
     individual's social security number (or numbers), most recent 
     residential address, and the name, address, and employer 
     identification number of such individual's employer; and
       ``(2) information on the individual's wages (or other 
     income) from, and benefits of, employment (including rights 
     to or enrollment in group health care coverage); and
       ``(3) information on the type, status, location, and amount 
     of any assets of, or debts owed by or to, any such 
     individual.''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``social security'' and all that follows through ``absent 
     parent'' and inserting ``information specified in subsection 
     (a)''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting before the period ``, or 
     from any consumer reporting agency (as defined in section 
     603(f) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 
     1681a(f))'';
       (3) in subsection (e)(1), by inserting before the period 
     ``, or by consumer reporting agencies''.
       (b) Reimbursement for Data From Federal Agencies.--Section 
     453(e)(2) (42 U.S.C. 653(e)(2)) is amended in the fourth 
     sentence by inserting before the period ``in an amount which 
     the Secretary determines to be reasonable payment for the 
     data exchange (which amount shall not include payment for the 
     costs of obtaining, compiling, or maintaining the data)''.
       (c) Access to Consumer Reports Under Fair Credit Reporting 
     Act.--(1) Section 608 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 
     U.S.C. 1681f) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``, limited to'' and inserting ``to a 
     governmental agency (including the entire consumer report, in 
     the case of a Federal, State, or local agency administering a 
     program under part D of title IV of the Social Security Act, 
     and limited to''; and
       (B) by striking ``employment, to a governmental agency'' 
     and inserting ``employment, in the case of any other 
     governmental agency)''.
       (2) Reimbursement for Reports by State Agencies and Credit 
     Bureaus.--Section 453 (42 U.S.C. 653) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subsection:
     [[Page H3653]]   ``(g) The Secretary is authorized to 
     reimburse costs to State agencies and consumer credit 
     reporting agencies the costs incurred by such entities in 
     furnishing information requested by the Secretary pursuant to 
     this section in an amount which the Secretary determines to 
     be reasonable payment for the data exchange (which amount 
     shall not include payment for the costs of obtaining, 
     compiling, or maintaining the data).''.
       (d) Disclosure of Tax Return Information.--(1) Section 
     6103(1)(6)(A)(ii) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
     amended by striking ``, but only if'' and all that follows 
     and inserting a period.
       (2) Section 6103(1)(8)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended by inserting ``Federal,'' before ``State or 
     local''.
       (e) Technical Amendments.--
       (1) Sections 452(a)(9), 453(a), 453(b), 463(a), and 463(e) 
     (42 U.S.C. 652(a)(9), 653(a), 653(b), 663(a), and 663(e)) are 
     each amended by inserting ``Federal'' before ``Parent'' each 
     place it appears.
       (2) Section 453 (42 U.S.C. 653) is amended in the heading 
     by adding ``federal'' before ``parent''.
       (f) New Components.--Section 453 (42 U.S.C. 653), as 
     amended by subsection (c)(2) of this section, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Data Bank of Child Support Orders.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than October 1, 1998, in order 
     to assist States in administering their State plans under 
     this part and parts A, F, and G, and for the other purposes 
     specified in this section, the Secretary shall establish and 
     maintain in the Federal Parent Locator Service an automated 
     registry to be known as the Data Bank of Child Support 
     Orders, which shall contain abstracts of child support orders 
     and other information described in paragraph (2) on each case 
     in each State central case registry maintained pursuant to 
     section 454A(e), as furnished (and regularly updated), 
     pursuant to section 454A(f), by State agencies administering 
     programs under this part.
       ``(2) Case information.--The information referred to in 
     paragraph (1), as specified by the Secretary, shall include 
     sufficient information (including names, social security 
     numbers or other uniform identification numbers, and State 
     case identification numbers) to identify the individuals who 
     owe or are owed support (or with respect to or on behalf of 
     whom support obligations are sought to be established), and 
     the State or States which have established or modified, or 
     are enforcing or seeking to establish, such an order.
       ``(i) Directory of New Hires.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than October 1, 1998, In order 
     to assist States in administering their State plans under 
     this part and parts A, F, and G, and for the other purposes 
     specified in this section, the Secretary shall establish and 
     maintain in the Federal Parent Locator Service an automated 
     directory to be known as the directory of New Hires, 
     containing--
       ``(A) information supplied by employers on each newly hired 
     individual, in accordance with paragraph (2); and
       ``(B) information supplied by State agencies administering 
     State unemployment compensation laws, in accordance with 
     paragraph (3).
       ``(2) Employer information.--
       ``(A) Information required.--Subject to subparagraph (D), 
     each employer shall furnish to the Secretary, for inclusion 
     in the directory established under this subsection, not later 
     than 10 days after the date (on or after October 1, 1998) on 
     which the employer hires a new employee (as defined in 
     subparagraph (C)), a report containing the name, date of 
     birth, and social security number of such employee, and the 
     employer identification number of the employer.
       ``(B) Reporting method and format.--The Secretary shall 
     provide for transmission of the reports required under 
     subparagraph (A) using formats and methods which minimize the 
     burden on employers, which shall include--
       ``(i) automated or electronic transmission of such reports;
       ``(ii) transmission by regular mail; and
       ``(iii) transmission of a copy of the form required for 
     purposes of compliance with section 3402 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986.
       ``(C) Employee defined.--For purposes of this paragraph, 
     the term `employee' means any individual subject to the 
     requirement of section 3402(f)(2) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986.
       ``(D) Paperwork reduction requirement.--As required by the 
     information resources management policies published by the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to 
     section 3504(b)(1) of title 44, United States Code, the 
     Secretary, in order to minimize the cost and reporting burden 
     on employers, shall not require reporting pursuant to this 
     paragraph if an alternative reporting mechanism can be 
     developed that either relies on existing Federal or State 
     reporting or enables the Secretary to collect the needed 
     information in a more cost-effective and equally expeditious 
     manner, taking into account the reporting costs on employers.
       ``(E) Civil money penalty on noncomplying employers.--(i) 
     Any employer that fails to make a timely report in accordance 
     with this paragraph with respect to an individual shall be 
     subject to a civil money penalty, for each calendar year in 
     which the failure occurs, of the lesser of $500 or 1 percent 
     of the wages or other compensation paid by such employer to 
     such individual during such calendar year.
       ``(ii) Subject to clause (iii), the provisions of section 
     1128A (other than subsections (a) and (b) thereof) shall 
     apply to a civil money penalty under clause (i) in the same 
     manner as
      they apply to a civil money penalty or proceeding under 
     section 1128A(a).
       ``(iii) Any employer with respect to whom a penalty under 
     this subparagraph is upheld after an administrative hearing 
     shall be liable to pay all costs of the Secretary with 
     respect to such hearing.
       ``(3) Employment security information.--
       ``(A) Reporting requirement.--Each State agency 
     administering a State unemployment compensation law approved 
     by the Secretary of Labor under the Federal Unemployment Tax 
     Act shall furnish to the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services extracts of the reports to the Secretary of Labor 
     concerning the wages and unemployment compensation paid to 
     individuals required under section 303(a)(6), in accordance 
     with subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Manner of compliance.--The extracts required under 
     subparagraph (A) shall be furnished to the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services on a quarterly basis, with respect 
     to calendar quarters beginning on and after October 1, 1996, 
     by such dates, in such format, and containing such 
     information as required by that Secretary in regulations.
       ``(j) Data Matches and Other Disclosures.--
       ``(1) Verification by social security administration.--(A) 
     The Secretary shall transmit data on individuals and 
     employers maintained under this section to the Social 
     Security Administration to the extent necessary for 
     verification in accordance with subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) The Social Security Administration shall verify the 
     accuracy of, correct or supply to the extent necessary and 
     feasible, and report to the Secretary, the following 
     information in data supplied by the Secretary pursuant to 
     subparagraph (A):
       ``(i) the name, social security number, and birth date of 
     each individual; and
       ``(ii) the employer identification number of each employer.
       ``(2) Child support locator matches.--For the purpose of 
     locating individuals for purposes of paternity establishment 
     and establishment and enforcement of child support, the 
     Secretary shall--
       ``(A) match data in the directory of New Hires against the 
     child support order abstracts in the Data Bank of Child 
     Support Orders not less often than every 2 working days; and
       ``(B) report information obtained from such a match to 
     concerned State agencies operating programs under this part 
     not later than 2 working days after such match.
       ``(3) Data matches and disclosures of data in all 
     registries for title iv program purposes.--The Secretary 
     shall--
       ``(A) perform matches of data in each component of the 
     Federal Parent Locator Service maintained under this section 
     against data in each other such component (other than the 
     matches required pursuant to paragraph (1)), and report 
     information resulting from such matches to State agencies 
     operating programs under this part and parts A, F, and G; and
       ``(B) disclose data in such registries to such State 
     agencies,

     to the extent, and with the frequency, that the Secretary 
     determines to be effective in assisting such States to carry 
     out their responsibilities under such programs.
       ``(k) Fees.--
       ``(1) For ssa verification.--The Secretary shall reimburse 
     the Commissioner of Social Security, at a rate negotiated 
     between the Secretary and the Commissioner, the costs 
     incurred by the Commissioner in performing the verification 
     services specified in subsection (j).
       ``(2) For information from sesas.--The Secretary shall 
     reimburse costs incurred by State employment security 
     agencies in furnishing data as required by subsection (j)(3), 
     at rates which the Secretary determines to be reasonable 
     (which rates shall not include payment for the costs of 
     obtaining, compiling, or maintaining such data).
       ``(3) For information furnished to state and federal 
     agencies.--State and Federal agencies receiving data or 
     information from the Secretary pursuant to this section shall 
     reimburse the costs incurred by the Secretary in furnishing 
     such data or information, at rates which the Secretary 
     determines to be reasonable (which rates shall include 
     payment for the costs of obtaining, verifying, maintaining, 
     and matching such data or information).
       ``(l) Restriction on Disclosure and Use.--Data in the 
     Federal Parent Locator Service, and information resulting 
     from matches using such data, shall not be used or disclosed 
     except as specifically provided in this section.
       ``(m) Retention of Data.--Data in the Federal Parent 
     Locator Service, and data resulting from matches performed 
     pursuant to this section, shall be retained for such period 
     (determined by the Secretary) as appropriate for the data 
     uses specified in this section.
       ``(n) Information Integrity and Security.--The Secretary 
     shall establish and implement safeguards with respect to the 
     entities established under this section designed to--
     [[Page H3654]]   ``(1) ensure the accuracy and completeness 
     of information in the Federal Parent Locator Service; and
       ``(2) restrict access to confidential information in the 
     Federal Parent Locator Service to authorized persons, and 
     restrict use of such information to authorized purposes.
       ``(o) Limit on Liability.--The Secretary shall not be 
     liable to either a State or an individual for inaccurate 
     information provided to a component of the Federal Parent 
     Locator Service section and disclosed by the Secretary in 
     accordance with this section.''.
       (g) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) To part d of title iv of the social security act.--
     Section 454(8)(B) (42 U.S.C. 654(8)(B)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(B) the Federal Parent Locator Service established under 
     section 453;''.
       (2) To federal unemployment tax act.--Section 3304(16) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
       (A) by striking ``Secretary of Health, Education, and 
     Welfare'' each place such term appears and inserting 
     ``Secretary of Health and Human Services'';
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``such information'' 
     and all that follows and inserting ``information furnished 
     under subparagraph (A) or (B) is used only for the purposes 
     authorized under such subparagraph;'';
       (C) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
       (D) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C); 
     and
       (E) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(B) wage and unemployment compensation information 
     contained in the records of such agency shall be furnished to 
     the Secretary of Health and Human Services (in accordance 
     with regulations promulgated by such Secretary) as necessary 
     for the purposes of the directory of New Hires established 
     under section 453(i) of the Social Security Act, and''.
       (3) To state grant program under title iii of the social 
     security act.--Section 303(a) (42 U.S.C. 503(a)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (8);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (9) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding after paragraph (9) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(10) The making of quarterly electronic reports, at such 
     dates, in such format, and containing such information, as 
     required by the Secretary of Health and Human Services under 
     section 453(i)(3), and compliance with such provisions as 
     such Secretary may find necessary to ensure the correctness 
     and verification of such reports.''.

     SEC. 426. USE OF SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS.

       (a) State Law Requirement.--Section 466(a) (42 U.S.C. 
     666(a)), as amended by section 401(a) of this Act, is amended 
     by inserting after paragraph (12) the following:
       ``(13) Social security numbers required.--Procedures 
     requiring the recording of social security numbers--
       ``(A) of both parties on marriage licenses and divorce 
     decrees; and
       ``(B) of both parents, on birth records and child support 
     and paternity orders.''.
       (b) Clarification of Federal Policy.--Section 
     205(c)(2)(C)(ii) (42 U.S.C. 405(c)(2)(C)(ii)) is amended by 
     striking the third sentence and inserting ``This clause shall 
     not be considered to authorize disclosure of such numbers 
     except as provided in the preceding sentence.''.
         Subtitle D--Streamlining and Uniformity of Procedures

     SEC. 431. ADOPTION OF UNIFORM STATE LAWS.

       Section 466(a) (42 U.S.C. 666(a)), as amended by sections 
     401(a) and 426(a) of this Act, is amended inserting after 
     paragraph (13) the following:
       ``(14) Interstate enforcement.--(A) Adoption of uifsa.--
     Procedures under which the State adopts in its entirety (with 
     the modifications and additions specified in this paragraph) 
     not later than January 1, 1997, and uses on and after such 
     date, the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, as approved 
     by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State 
     Laws in August, 1992.
       ``(B) Expanded application of uifsa.--The State law adopted 
     pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be applied to any case--
       ``(i) involving an order established or modified in one 
     State and for which a subsequent modification is sought in 
     another State; or
       ``(ii) in which interstate activity is required to enforce 
     an order.
       ``(C) Jurisdiction to modify orders.--The State law adopted 
     pursuant to subparagraph (A) of this paragraph shall contain 
     the following provision in lieu of section 611(a)(1) of the 
     Uniform Interstate Family Support Act described in such 
     subparagraph (A):
       ```(1) the following requirements are met:
       ```(i) the child, the individual obligee, and the obligor--
       ```(I) do not reside in the issuing State; and
       ```(II) either reside in this State or are subject to the 
     jurisdiction of this State pursuant to section 201; and
       ```(ii) (in any case where another State is exercising or 
     seeks to exercise jurisdiction to modify the order) the 
     conditions of section 204 are met to the same extent as 
     required for proceedings to establish orders; or'.
       ``(D) Service of process.--The State law adopted pursuant 
     to subparagraph (A) shall recognize as valid, for purposes of 
     any proceeding subject to such State law, service of process 
     upon persons in the State (and proof of such service) by any 
     means acceptable in another State which is the initiating or 
     responding State in such proceeding.
       ``(E) Cooperation by employers.--The State law adopted 
     pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall provide for the use of 
     procedures (including sanctions for noncompliance) under 
     which all entities in the State (including for-profit, 
     nonprofit, and governmental employers) are required to 
     provide promptly, in response to a request by the State 
     agency of that or any other State administering a program 
     under this part, information on the employment, compensation, 
     and benefits of any individual employed by such entity as an 
     employee or contractor.''.

     SEC. 432. IMPROVEMENTS TO FULL FAITH AND CREDIT FOR CHILD 
                   SUPPORT ORDERS.

       Section 1738B of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(2), by striking ``subsection (e)'' 
     and inserting ``subsections (e), (f), and (i)'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by inserting after the 2nd 
     undesignated paragraph the following:
       ```child's home State' means the State in which a child 
     lived with a parent or a person acting as parent for at least 
     six consecutive months immediately preceding the time of 
     filing of a petition or comparable pleading for support and, 
     if a child is less than six months old, the State in which 
     the child lived from birth with any of them. A period of 
     temporary absence of any of them is counted as part of the 
     six-month period.'';
       (3) in subsection (c), by inserting ``by a court of a 
     State'' before ``is made'';
       (4) in subsection (c)(1), by inserting ``and subsections 
     (e), (f), and (g)'' after ``located'';
       (5) in subsection (d)--
       (A) by inserting ``individual'' before ``contestant''; and
       (B) by striking ``subsection (e)'' and inserting 
     ``subsections (e) and (f)'';
       (6) in subsection (e), by striking ``make a modification of 
     a child support order with respect to a child that is made'' 
     and inserting ``modify a child support order issued'';
       (7) in subsection (e)(1), by inserting ``pursuant to 
     subsection (i)'' before the semicolon;
       (8) in subsection (e)(2)--
       (A) by inserting ``individual'' before ``contestant'' each 
     place such term appears; and
       (B) by striking ``to that court's making the modification 
     and assuming'' and inserting ``with the State of continuing, 
     exclusive jurisdiction for a court of another State to modify 
     the order and assume'';
       (9) by redesignating subsections (f) and (g) as subsections 
     (g) and (h), respectively;
       (10) by inserting after subsection (e) the following:
       ``(f) Recognition of Child Support Orders.--If one or more 
     child support orders have been issued in this or another 
     State with regard to an obligor and a child, a court shall 
     apply the following rules in determining which order to 
     recognize for purposes of continuing, exclusive jurisdiction 
     and enforcement:
       ``(1) If only one court has issued a child support order, 
     the order of that court must be recognized.
       ``(2) If two or more courts have issued child support 
     orders for the same obligor and child, and only one of the 
     courts would have continuing, exclusive jurisdiction under 
     this section, the order of that court must be recognized.
       ``(3) If two or more courts have issued child support 
     orders for the same obligor and child, and only one of the 
     courts would have continuing, exclusive jurisdiction under 
     this section, an order issued by a court in the current home 
     State of the child must be recognized, but if an order has 
     not been issued in the current home State of the child, the 
     order most recently issued must be recognized.
       ``(4) If two or more courts have issued child support 
     orders for the same obligor and child, and none of the courts 
     would have continuing, exclusive jurisdiction under this 
     section, a court may issue a child support order, which must 
     be recognized.
       ``(5) The court that has issued an order recognized under 
     this subsection is the court having continuing, exclusive 
     jurisdiction.'';
       (11) in subsection (g) (as so redesignated)--
       (A) by striking ``Prior'' and inserting ``Modified''; and
       (B) by striking ``subsection (e)'' and inserting 
     ``subsections (e) and (f)'';
       (12) in subsection (h) (as so redesignated)--
       (A) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``including the duration 
     of current payments and other obligations of support'' before 
     the comma; and
       (B) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``arrears under'' after 
     ``enforce''; and
       (13) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Registration for Modification.--If there is no 
     individual contestant or child residing in the issuing State, 
     the party or support enforcement agency seeking to modify, or 
     to modify and enforce, a child support order issued in 
     another State shall register that order in a State with 
     jurisdiction over the nonmovant for the purpose of 
     modification.''.

     SEC. 433. STATE LAWS PROVIDING EXPEDITED PROCEDURES.

       (a) State Law Requirements.--Section 466 (42 U.S.C. 666) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(2), in the first sentence, to read as 
     follows: ``Expedited administrative and judicial procedures 
     (including the procedures specified in subsection (c)) for 
     establishing paternity and for establishing, 
      [[Page H3655]] modifying, and enforcing support 
     obligations.''; and
       (2) by adding after subsection (b) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(c) Expedited Procedures.--The procedures specified in 
     this subsection are the following:
       ``(1) Administrative action by state agency.--Procedures 
     which give the State agency the authority (and recognize and 
     enforce the authority of State agencies of other States), 
     without the necessity of obtaining an order from any other 
     judicial or administrative tribunal (but subject to due 
     process safeguards, including (as appropriate) requirements 
     for notice, opportunity to contest the action, and 
     opportunity for an appeal on the record to an independent 
     administrative or judicial tribunal), to take the following 
     actions relating to establishment or enforcement of orders:
       ``(A) Genetic testing.--To order genetic testing for the 
     purpose of paternity establishment as provided in section 
     466(a)(5).
       ``(B) Default orders.--To enter a default order, upon a 
     showing of service of process and any additional showing 
     required by State law--
       ``(i) establishing paternity, in the case of any putative 
     father who refuses to submit to genetic testing; and
       ``(ii) establishing or modifying a support obligation, in 
     the case of a parent (or other obligor or obligee) who fails 
     to respond to notice to appear at a proceeding for such 
     purpose.
       ``(C) Subpoenas.--To subpoena any financial or other 
     information needed to establish, modify, or enforce an order, 
     and to sanction failure to respond to any such subpoena.
       ``(D) Access to personal and financial information.--To 
     obtain access, subject to safeguards on privacy and 
     information security, to the following records (including 
     automated access, in the case of records maintained in 
     automated data bases):
       ``(i) records of other State and local government agencies, 
     including--

       ``(I) vital statistics (including records of marriage, 
     birth, and divorce);
       ``(II) State and local tax and revenue records (including 
     information on residence address, employer, income and 
     assets);
       ``(III) records concerning real and titled personal 
     property;
       ``(IV) records of occupational and professional licenses, 
     and records concerning the ownership and control of 
     corporations, partnerships, and other business entities;
       ``(V) employment security records;
       ``(VI) records of agencies administering public assistance 
     programs;
       ``(VII) records of the motor vehicle department; and
       ``(VIII) corrections records; and

       ``(ii) certain records held by private entities, 
     including--

       ``(I) customer records of public utilities and cable 
     television companies; and
       ``(II) information (including information on assets and 
     liabilities) on individuals who owe or are owed support (or 
     against or with respect to whom a support obligation is 
     sought) held by financial institutions (subject to 
     limitations on liability of such entities arising from 
     affording such access).

       ``(E) Income withholding.--To order income withholding in 
     accordance with subsection (a)(1) and (b) of section 466.
       ``(F) Change in payee.--(In cases where support is subject 
     to an assignment under section 402(a)(26), 471(a)(17), or 
     1912, or to a requirement to pay through the centralized 
     collections unit under section 454B) upon providing notice to 
     obligor and obligee, to direct the obligor or other payor to 
     change the payee to the appropriate government entity.
       ``(G) Secure assets to satisfy arrearages.--For the purpose 
     of securing overdue support--
       ``(i) to intercept and seize any periodic or lump-sum 
     payment to the obligor by or through a State or local 
     government agency, including--
       ``(I) unemployment compensation, workers' compensation, and 
     other benefits;
       ``(II) judgments and settlements in cases under the 
     jurisdiction of the State or local government; and
       ``(III) lottery winnings;

       ``(ii) to attach and seize assets of the obligor held by 
     financial institutions;
       ``(iii) to attach public and private retirement funds in 
     appropriate cases, as determined by the Secretary; and
       ``(iv) to impose liens in accordance with paragraph (a)(4) 
     and, in appropriate cases, to force sale of property and 
     distribution of proceeds.
       ``(H) Increase monthly payments.--For the purpose of 
     securing overdue support, to increase the amount of monthly 
     support payments to include amounts for arrearages (subject 
     to such conditions or restrictions as the State may provide).
       ``(I) Suspension of drivers' licenses.--To suspend drivers' 
     licenses of individuals owing past-due support, in accordance 
     with subsection (a)(16).
       ``(2) Substantive and procedural rules.--The expedited 
     procedures required under subsection (a)(2) shall include the 
     following rules and authority, applicable with respect to all 
     proceedings to establish paternity or to establish, modify, 
     or enforce support orders:
       ``(A) Locator information; presumptions concerning 
     notice.--Procedures under which--
       ``(i) the parties to any paternity or child support 
     proceedings are required (subject to privacy safeguards) to 
     file with the tribunal before entry of an order, and to 
     update as appropriate, information on location and identity 
     (including Social Security number, residential and mailing 
     addresses, telephone number, driver's license number, and 
     name, address, and telephone number of employer); and
       ``(ii) in any subsequent child support enforcement action 
     between the same parties, the tribunal shall be authorized, 
     upon sufficient showing that diligent effort has been made to 
     ascertain such party's current location, to deem due process 
     requirements for notice and service of process to be met, 
     with respect to such party, by delivery to the most recent 
     residential or employer address so filed pursuant to clause 
     (i).
       ``(B) Statewide jurisdiction.--Procedures under which--
       ``(i) the State agency and any administrative or judicial 
     tribunal with authority to hear child support and paternity 
     cases exerts statewide jurisdiction over the parties, and 
     orders issued in such cases have statewide effect; and
       ``(ii) (in the case of a State in which orders in such 
     cases are issued by local jurisdictions) a case may be 
     transferred between jurisdictions in the State without need 
     for any additional filing by the petitioner, or service of 
     process upon the respondent, to retain jurisdiction over the 
     parties.''.
       (c) Exceptions from State Law Requirements.--Section 466(d) 
     (42 U.S.C. 666(d)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(d) If'' and inserting the following:
       ``(d) Exemptions From Requirements.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), if''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Nonexempt requirements.--The Secretary shall not 
     grant an exemption from the requirements of--
       ``(A) subsection (a)(5) (concerning procedures for 
     paternity establishment);
       ``(B) subsection (a)(10) (concerning modification of 
     orders);
       ``(C) subsection (a)(12) (concerning recording of orders in 
     the central State case registry);
       ``(D) subsection (a)(13) (concerning recording of Social 
     Security numbers);
       ``(E) subsection (a)(14) (concerning interstate 
     enforcement); or
       ``(F) subsection (c) (concerning expedited procedures), 
     other than paragraph (1)(A) thereof (concerning establishment 
     or modification of support amount).''.
       (d) Automation of State Agency Functions.--Section 454A, as 
     added by section 415(a)(2) of this Act and as amended by 
     sections 421 and 422(c) of this Act, is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subsection:
       ``(h) Expedited Administrative Procedures.--The automated 
     system required under this section shall be used, to the 
     maximum extent feasible, to implement any expedited 
     administrative procedures required under section 466(c).''.
                  Subtitle E--Paternity Establishment

     SEC. 441. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of the Congress that social services should 
     be provided in hospitals to women who have become pregnant as 
     a result of rape or incest.

     SEC. 442. AVAILABILITY OF PARENTING SOCIAL SERVICES FOR NEW 
                   FATHERS.

       Section 466(a) (42 U.S.C. 666(a)), as amended by sections 
     401(a), 426(a), and 431 of this Act, is amended by inserting 
     after paragraph (14) the following:
       ``(15) Procedures for providing new fathers with positive 
     parenting counseling that stresses the importance of paying 
     child support in a timely manner, in accordance with 
     regulations prescribed by the Secretary.''.

     SEC. 443. COOPERATION REQUIREMENT AND GOOD CAUSE EXCEPTION.

       (a) Child Support Enforcement Requirements.--Section 454 
     (42 U.S.C. 654) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (23);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (24) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (24) the following:
       ``(25) provide that the State agency administering the plan 
     under this part--
       ``(A) will make the determination specified under paragraph 
     (4), as to whether an individual is cooperating with efforts 
     to establish paternity and secure support (or has good cause 
     not to cooperate with such efforts) for purposes of the 
     requirements of sections 402(a)(26) and 1912;
       ``(B) will advise individuals, both orally and in writing, 
     of the grounds for good cause exceptions to the requirement 
     to cooperate with such efforts;
       ``(C) will take the best interests of the child into 
     consideration in making the determination whether such 
     individual has good cause not to cooperate with such efforts;
       ``(D)(i) will make the initial determination as to whether 
     an individual is cooperating (or has good cause not to 
     cooperate) with efforts to establish paternity within 10 days 
     after such individual is referred to such State agency by the 
     State agency administering the program under part A of title 
     XIX;
     [[Page H3656]]   ``(ii) will make redeterminations as to 
     cooperation or good cause at appropriate intervals; and
       ``(iii) will promptly notify the individual, and the State 
     agencies administering such programs, of each such 
     determination and redetermination;
       ``(E) with respect to any child born on or after the date 
     10 months after enactment of this provision, will not 
     determine (or redetermine) the mother (or other custodial 
     relative) of such child to be cooperating with efforts to 
     establish paternity unless such individual furnishes--
       ``(i) the name of the putative father (or fathers); and
       ``(ii) sufficient additional information to enable the 
     State agency, if reasonable efforts were made, to verify the 
     identity of the person named as the putative father 
     (including such information as the putative father's present 
     address, telephone number, date of birth, past or present 
     place of employment, school previously or currently attended, 
     and names and addresses of parents, friends, or relatives 
     able to provide location information, or other information 
     that could enable service of process on such person), and
       ``(F)(i) (where a custodial parent who was initially 
     determined not to be cooperating (or to have good cause not 
     to cooperate) is later determined to be cooperating or to 
     have good cause not to cooperate) will immediately notify the 
     State agencies administering the programs
      under part A of title XIX that this eligibility condition 
     has been met; and
       ``(ii) (where a custodial parent was initially determined 
     to be cooperating (or to have good cause not to cooperate)) 
     will not later determine such individual not to be 
     cooperating (or not to have good cause not to cooperate) 
     until such individual has been afforded an opportunity for a 
     hearing.''.
       (b) AFDC Amendments.--
       (1) Section 402(a)(11) (42 U.S.C. 602(a)(11)) is amended by 
     striking ``furnishing of'' and inserting ``application for''.
       (2) Section 402(a)(26) (42 U.S.C. 602(a)(26)) is amended--
       (A) in each of subparagraphs (A) and (B), by redesignating 
     clauses (i) and (ii) as subclauses (I) and (II);
       (B) by indenting and redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), 
     and (C) as clauses (i), (ii), and (iv), respectively;
       (C) in clause (ii), as redesignated--
       (i) by striking ``is claimed, or in obtaining any other 
     payments or property due such applicant or such child,'' and 
     inserting ``is claimed;''; and
       (ii) by striking ``unless'' and all that follows through 
     ``aid is claimed; and'';
       (D) by adding after clause (ii) the following new clause:
       ``(iii) to cooperate with the State in obtaining any other 
     payments or property due such applicant or such child; and'';
       (E) in the matter preceding clause (i) (as so redesignated) 
     to read as follows:
       ``(26) provide--
       ``(A) that, as a condition of eligibility for aid, each 
     applicant or recipient will be required (subject to 
     subparagraph (C))--'';
       (F) in subparagraph (A)(iv), as redesignated, by striking 
     ``, unless such individual'' and all that follows through 
     ``individuals involved'';
       (G) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
       ``(B) that the State agency will immediately refer each 
     applicant requiring paternity establishment services to the 
     State agency administering the program under part D;
       ``(C) that an individual will not be required to cooperate 
     with the State, as provided under subparagraph (A), if the 
     individual is found to have good cause for refusing to 
     cooperate, as determined in accordance with standards 
     prescribed by the Secretary, which standards shall take into 
     consideration the best interests of the child on whose behalf 
     aid is claimed--
       ``(i) to the satisfaction of the State agency administering 
     the program under part D, as determined in accordance with 
     section 454(25), with respect to the requirements under 
     clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (A); and
       ``(ii) to the satisfaction of the State agency 
     administering the program under this part, with respect to 
     the requirements under clauses (iii) and (iv) of subparagraph 
     (A);
       ``(D) that (except as provided in subparagraph (E)) an 
     applicant requiring paternity establishment services (other 
     than an individual eligible for emergency assistance as 
     defined in section 406(e)) shall not be eligible for any aid 
     under a State plan approved under this part until such 
     applicant--
       ``(i) has furnished to the agency administering the State 
     plan under part D the information specified in section 
     454(25)(E); or
       ``(ii) has been determined by such agency to have good 
     cause not to cooperate;
       ``(E) that the provisions of subparagraph (D) shall not 
     apply--
       ``(i) if the State agency specified in such subparagraph 
     has not, within 10 days after such individual was referred to 
     such agency, provided the notification required by section 
     454(25)(D)(iii), until such notification is received; and
       ``(ii) if such individual appeals a determination that the 
     individual lacks good cause for noncooperation, until after 
     such determination is affirmed after notice and opportunity 
     for a hearing; and''; and
       (H)(i) by relocating and redesignating as subparagraph (F) 
     the text at the end of subparagraph (A)(ii) beginning with 
     ``that, if the
      relative'' and all that follows through the semicolon;
       (ii) in subparagraph (F), as so redesignated and relocated, 
     by striking ``subparagraphs (A) and (B) of this paragraph'' 
     and inserting ``subparagraph (A)''; and
       (iii) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph 
     (a)(ii).
       (c) Medicaid Amendments.--Section 1912(a) (42 U.S.C. 
     1396k(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(B), by inserting ``(except as provided 
     in paragraph (2))'' after ``to cooperate with the State'';
       (2) in subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (1) by 
     striking ``, unless'' and all that follows and inserting a 
     semicolon; and
       (3) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (5), and 
     inserting after paragraph (1) the following new paragraphs:
       ``(2) provide that the State agency will immediately refer 
     each applicant or recipient requiring paternity establishment 
     services to the State agency administering the program under 
     part D of title IV;
       ``(3) provide that an individual will not be required to 
     cooperate with the State, as provided under paragraph (1), if 
     the individual is found to have good cause for refusing to 
     cooperate, as determined in accordance with standards 
     prescribed by the Secretary, which standards shall take into 
     consideration the best interests of the individuals 
     involved--
       ``(A) to the satisfaction of the State agency administering 
     the program under part D, as determined in accordance with 
     section 454(25), with respect to the requirements to 
     cooperate with efforts to establish paternity and to obtain 
     support (including medical support) from a parent; and
       ``(B) to the satisfaction of the State agency administering 
     the program under this title, with respect to other 
     requirements to cooperate under paragraph (1);
       ``(4) provide that (except as provided in paragraph (5)) an 
     applicant requiring paternity establishment services (other 
     than an individual eligible for emergency assistance as 
     defined in section 406(e), or presumptively eligible pursuant 
     to section 1920) shall not be eligible for medical assistance 
     under this title until such applicant--
       ``(i) has furnished to the agency administering the State 
     plan under part D of title IV the information specified in 
     section 454(25)(E); or
       ``(ii) has been determined by such agency to have good 
     cause not to cooperate; and
       ``(5) provide that the provisions of paragraph (4) shall 
     not apply with respect to an applicant--
       ``(i) if such agency has not, within 10 days after such 
     individual was referred to such agency, provided the 
     notification required by section 454(25)(D)(iii), until such 
     notification is received); and
       ``(ii) if such individual appeals a determination that the 
     individual lacks good cause for noncooperation, until after 
     such determination is affirmed after notice and opportunity 
     for a hearing.''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall be effective with respect to applications filed in or 
     after the first calendar quarter beginning 10 months or more 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act (or such earlier 
     quarter as the State may select) for aid under a State plan 
     approved under part A of title IV or for medical assistance 
     under a State plan approved under title XIX.

     SEC. 444. FEDERAL MATCHING PAYMENTS.

       (a) Increased Base Matching Rate.--Section 455(a)(2) (42 
     U.S.C. 655(a)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) The applicable percent for a quarter for purposes of 
     paragraph (1)(A) is--
       ``(A) for fiscal year 1996, 69 percent;
       ``(B) for fiscal year 1997, 72 percent; and
       ``(C) for fiscal year 1998 and succeeding fiscal years, 75 
     percent.''.
       (b) Maintenance of Effort.--Section 455 (42 U.S.C. 655) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), in the matter preceding 
     subparagraph (A), by striking ``From'' and inserting 
     ``Subject to subsection (c), from''; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) Maintenance of Effort.--Notwithstanding subsection 
     (a), total expenditures for the State program under this part 
     for fiscal year 1996 and each succeeding fiscal year, reduced 
     by the percentage specified for such fiscal year under 
     subparagraph (A), (B), or (C)(i) of paragraph (2), shall not 
     be less than such total expenditures for fiscal year 1995, 
     reduced by 66 percent.''.

     SEC. 445. PERFORMANCE-BASED INCENTIVES AND PENALTIES.

       (a) Incentive Adjustments to Federal Matching Rate.--
     Section 458 (42 U.S.C. 658) is amended to read as follows:


                ``incentive adjustments to matching rate

       ``Sec. 458. (a) Incentive Adjustment.--
       ``(1) In general.--In order to encourage and reward State 
     child support enforcement programs which perform in an 
     effective manner, the Federal matching rate for payments to a 
     State under section 455(a)(1)(A), for each fiscal year 
     beginning on or after October 1, 1997, shall be increased by 
     a factor reflecting the sum of the applicable incentive 
     adjustments (if any) determined in accordance with 
     regulations under this section with respect to Statewide 
     paternity establishment and the overall performance of the 
     State in child support enforcement.
       ``(2) Standards.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall specify in 
     regulations--
     [[Page H3657]]   ``(i) the levels of accomplishment, and 
     rates of improvement as alternatives to such levels, which 
     States must attain to
      qualify for incentive adjustments under this section; and
       ``(ii) the amounts of incentive adjustment that shall be 
     awarded to States achieving specified accomplishment or 
     improvement levels, which amounts shall be graduated, ranging 
     up to--

       ``(I) 5 percentage points, in connection with Statewide 
     paternity establishment; and
       ``(II) 10 percentage points, in connection with overall 
     performance in child support enforcement.

       ``(B) Limitation.--In setting performance standards 
     pursuant to subparagraph (A)(i) and adjustment amounts 
     pursuant to subparagraph (A)(ii), the Secretary shall ensure 
     that the aggregate number of percentage point increases as 
     incentive adjustments to all States do not exceed such 
     aggregate increases as assumed by the Secretary in estimates 
     of the cost of this section as of June 1994, unless the 
     aggregate performance of all States exceeds the projected 
     aggregate performance of all States in such cost estimates.
       ``(3) Determination of incentive adjustment.--
       ``(A) Use of performance indicators.--The Secretary shall, 
     for fiscal year 1998 and each succeeding fiscal year, 
     determine the amount (if any) of incentive adjustment for 
     each State on the basis of the data submitted by the State 
     pursuant to section 454(15)(B) with respect to performance 
     indicators established by the Secretary.
       ``(B) Minimum performance required.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall not determine an 
     incentive adjustment for a State for a fiscal year if the 
     level of performance of the State for the fiscal year with 
     respect to such performance indicators is below the 
     performance threshold established by the Secretary for the 
     State for the fiscal year.
       ``(ii) Establishment of state performance threshold.--The 
     performance threshold with respect to such performance 
     indicators for a State and a fiscal year shall be at or above 
     the greater of--

       ``(I) the national average level of performance with 
     respect to such indicators, as of the date of the enactment 
     of this section; or
       ``(II) the level of performance of the State with respect 
     to such indicators for the immediately preceding fiscal year.

       ``(C) Deadline for issuance of regulations.--Within 90 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this section, the 
     Secretary shall issue regulations setting forth the criteria 
     for awarding incentive adjustments.
       ``(4) Fiscal year subject to incentive adjustment.--The 
     total percentage point increase determined pursuant to this 
     section with respect to a State program in a fiscal year 
     shall apply as an adjustment to the percent applicable under 
     section 455(a)(2) for payments to such State for the 
     succeeding fiscal year.
       ``(b) Definitions.--As used in subsection (a):
       ``(1) Statewide paternity establishment percentage.--The 
     term `Statewide paternity establishment percentage' means, 
     with respect to a fiscal year, the ratio (expressed as a 
     percentage) of--
       ``(A) the total number of out-of-wedlock children in the 
     State under one year of age for whom paternity is established 
     or acknowledged during the fiscal year, to
       ``(B) the total number of children born out of wedlock in 
     the State during such fiscal year.
       ``(2) Overall performance of the state in child support 
     enforcement.--The term `overall performance of the State in 
     child support enforcement' means a measure or measures of the 
     effectiveness of the State agency in a fiscal year which 
     takes into account factors including--
       ``(A) the percentage of cases requiring a child support 
     order in which such an order was established;
       ``(B) the percentage of cases in which child support is 
     being paid;
       ``(C) the ratio of child support collected to child support 
     due; and
       ``(D) the cost-effectiveness of the State program, as 
     determined in accordance with standards established by the 
     Secretary in regulations.''.
       (b) Title IV-D Payment Adjustment.--Section 455(a)(2) (42 
     U.S.C. 655(a)(2)), as amended by section 415(a) of this Act, 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (C) 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (2) by adding after and below subparagraph (C), flush with 
     the left margin of the subsection, the following:

     ``increased by the incentive adjustment factor (if any) 
     determined by the Secretary pursuant to section 458.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 454(22) (42 U.S.C. 
     654(22)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``incentive payments'' the 1st place such 
     term appears and inserting ``incentive adjustments''; and
       (2) by striking ``any such incentive payments made to the 
     State for such period'' and inserting ``any increases in 
     Federal payments to the State resulting from such incentive 
     adjustments''.
       (d) Calculation of IV-D Paternity Establishment 
     Percentage.--
       (1) Section 452(g)(1) (42 U.S.C. 652(g)(1)) is amended in 
     the matter preceding subparagraph (A) by inserting ``its 
     overall performance in child support enforcement is 
     satisfactory (as defined in section 458(b) and regulations of 
     the Secretary), and'' after ``1994,''.
       (2) Section 452(g)(2)(A) (42 U.S.C. 652(g)(2)(A)) is 
     amended in the matter preceding clause (i)--
       (A) by striking ``paternity establishment percentage'' and 
     inserting ``IV-D paternity establishment percentage''; and
       (B) by striking ``(or all States, as the case may be)''.
       (3) Section 452(g)(3) (42 U.S.C. 652(g)(3)) is amended--
       (A) by striking subparagraph (A) and redesignating 
     subparagraphs (B) and (C) as subparagraphs (A) and (B), 
     respectively;
       (B) in subparagraph (A) (as so redesignated), by striking 
     ``the percentage of children born out-of-wedlock in a State'' 
     and inserting ``the percentage of children in a State who are 
     born out of wedlock or for whom support has not been 
     established''; and
       (C) in subparagraph (B) (as so redesignated)--
       (i) by inserting ``and overall performance in child support 
     enforcement'' after ``paternity establishment percentages''; 
     and
       (ii) by inserting ``and securing support'' before the 
     period.
       (e) Title IV-A Payment Reduction.--Section 403 (42 U.S.C. 
     603) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``1958--'' and inserting 
     ``1958--'' (subject to subsection (h))--'';
       (2) in subsection (h), by striking all that precedes 
     paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
       ``(h)(1) If the Secretary finds, with respect to a State 
     program under this part in a fiscal year beginning on or 
     after October 1, 1996--
       ``(A)(i) on the basis of data submitted by a State pursuant 
     to section 454(15)(B), that the State program in such fiscal 
     year failed to achieve the IV-D paternity establishment 
     percentage (as defined in section 452(g)(2)(A)) or the 
     appropriate level of overall performance in child support 
     enforcement (as defined in section 458(b)(2)), or to meet 
     other performance measures that may be established by the 
     Secretary, or
       ``(ii) on the basis of an audit or audits of such State 
     data conducted pursuant to section 452(a)(4)(C), that the 
     State data submitted pursuant to section 454(15)(B) is 
     incomplete or unreliable; and
       ``(B) that, with respect to the succeeding fiscal year--
       ``(i) the State failed to take sufficient corrective action 
     to achieve the appropriate performance levels as described in 
     subparagraph (A)(i), or
       ``(ii) the data submitted by the State pursuant to section 
     454(15)(B) is incomplete or unreliable,

     the amounts otherwise payable to the State under this part 
     for quarters following the end of such succeeding fiscal 
     year, prior to quarters following the end of the first 
     quarter throughout which the State program is in compliance 
     with such performance requirement, shall be reduced by the 
     percentage specified in paragraph (2).
       ``(2) The reductions required under paragraph (1) shall 
     be--
       ``(A) not less than 1 nor more than 2 percent, or
       ``(B) not less than 2 nor more than 3 percent, if the 
     finding is the 2nd consecutive finding made pursuant to 
     paragraph (1), or
       ``(C) not less than 3 nor more than 5 percent, if the 
     finding is the 3rd or a subsequent consecutive such 
     finding.''; and
       (3) in subsection (h)(3), by striking ``not in full 
     compliance'' and all that follows and inserting ``determined 
     as a result of an audit to have submitted incomplete or 
     unreliable data pursuant to section 454(15)(B), shall be 
     determined to have submitted adequate data if the Secretary 
     determines that the extent of the incompleteness or 
     unreliability of the data is of a technical nature which does 
     not adversely affect the determination of the level of the 
     State's performance.''.
       (f) Effective Dates.--
       (1) Incentive adjustments.--(A) The amendments made by 
     subsections (a), (b), and (c) shall become effective October 
     1, 1996, except to the extent provided in subparagraph (B).
       (B) Section 458 of the Social Security Act, as in effect 
     immediately before the date of the enactment of this section, 
     shall be effective for purposes of incentive payments to 
     States for fiscal years before fiscal year 1998.
       (2) Penalty reductions.--(A) The amendments made by 
     subsection (d) shall become effective with respect to 
     calendar quarters beginning on and after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (B) The amendments made by subsection (e) shall become 
     effective with respect to calendar quarters beginning on and 
     after the date that is 1 year after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 446. STATE LAWS CONCERNING PATERNITY ESTABLISHMENT.

       (a) State Laws Required.--Section 466(a)(5) (42 U.S.C. 
     666(a)(5)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(5)'' and inserting the following:
       ``(5) Procedures concerning paternity establishment.--'';
       (2) in subparagraph (A)--
       (A) by striking ``(A)(i)'' and inserting the following:
       ``(A) Establishment process available from birth until age 
     eighteen.--(i)''; and
       (B) by indenting clauses (i) and (ii) so that the left 
     margin of such clauses is 2 ems to the right of the left 
     margin of paragraph (4);
       (3) in subparagraph (B)--
       (A) by striking ``(B)'' and inserting the following:
     [[Page H3658]]   ``(B) Procedures concerning genetic 
     testing.--(i)'';
       (B) in clause (i), as redesignated, by inserting before the 
     period ``, where such request is supported by a sworn 
     statement (I) by such party alleging paternity setting forth 
     facts establishing a reasonable possibility of the requisite 
     sexual contact of the parties, or (II) by such party denying 
     paternity setting forth facts establishing a reasonable 
     possibility of the nonexistence of sexual contact of the 
     parties;'';
       (C) by inserting after and below clause (i) (as 
     redesignated) the following new clause:
       ``(ii) Procedures which require the State agency, in any 
     case in which such agency orders genetic testing--
       ``(I) to pay costs of such tests, subject to recoupment 
     (where the State so elects) from the putative father if 
     paternity is established; and
       ``(II) to obtain additional testing in any case where an 
     original test result is disputed, upon request and advance 
     payment by the disputing party.'';
       (4) by striking subparagraphs (C) and (D) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(C) Paternity acknowledgment.--(i) Procedures for a 
     simple civil process for voluntarily acknowledging paternity 
     under which the State must provide that, before a mother and 
     a putative father can sign an acknowledgment of paternity, 
     the putative father and the mother must be given notice, 
     orally, in writing, and in a language that each can 
     understand, of the alternatives to, the legal consequences 
     of, and the rights (including, if 1 parent is a minor, any 
     rights afforded due to minority status) and responsibilities 
     that arise from, signing the acknowledgment.
       ``(ii) Such procedures must include a hospital-based 
     program for the voluntary acknowledgment of paternity 
     focusing on the period immediately before or after the birth 
     of a child.
       ``(iii) Such procedures must require the State agency 
     responsible for maintaining birth records to offer voluntary 
     paternity establishment services.
       ``(iv) The Secretary shall prescribe regulations governing 
     voluntary paternity establishment services offered by 
     hospitals and birth record agencies. The Secretary shall 
     prescribe regulations specifying the types of other entities 
     that may offer voluntary paternity establishment services, 
     and governing the provision of such services, which shall 
     include a requirement that such an entity must use the same 
     notice provisions used by, the same materials used by, 
     provide the personnel providing such services with the same 
     training provided by, and evaluate the provision of such 
     services in the same manner as, voluntary paternity 
     establishment programs of hospitals and birth record 
     agencies.
       ``(v) Such procedures must require the State and those 
     required to establish paternity to use only the affidavit 
     developed under section 452(a)(7) for the voluntary 
     acknowledgment of paternity, and to give full faith and 
     credit to such an affidavit signed in any other State.
       ``(D) Status of signed paternity acknowledgment.--(i) 
     Procedures under which a signed acknowledgment of paternity 
     is considered a legal finding of paternity, subject to the 
     right of any signatory to rescind the acknowledgment within 
     60 days.
       ``(ii)(I) Procedures under which, after the 60-day period 
     referred to in clause (i), a signed acknowledgment of 
     paternity may be challenged in court only on the basis of 
     fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact, with the burden 
     of proof upon the challenger, and under which the legal 
     responsibilities (including child support obligations) of any 
     signatory arising from the acknowledgment may not be 
     suspended during the challenge, except for good cause shown.
       ``(II) Procedures under which, after the 60-day period 
     referred to in clause (i), a minor who signs an 
     acknowledgment of paternity other than in the presence of a 
     parent or court-appointed guardian ad litem may rescind the 
     acknowledgment in a judicial or administrative proceeding, 
     until the earlier of--
       ``(aa) attaining the age of majority; or
       ``(bb) the date of the first judicial or administrative 
     proceeding brought (after the signing) to establish a child 
     support obligation, visitation rights, or custody rights with 
     respect to the child whose paternity is the subject of the 
     acknowledgment, and at which the minor is represented by a 
     parent, guardian ad litem, or attorney.'';
       (5) by striking subparagraph (E) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(E) Bar on acknowledgment ratification proceedings.--
     Procedures under which no judicial or administrative 
     proceedings are required or permitted to ratify an 
     unchallenged acknowledgment of paternity.'';
       (6) by striking subparagraph (F) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(F) Admissibility of genetic testing results.--
     Procedures--
       ``(i) requiring that the State admit into evidence, for 
     purposes of establishing paternity, results of any genetic 
     test that is--

       ``(I) of a type generally acknowledged, by accreditation 
     bodies designated by the Secretary, as reliable evidence of 
     paternity; and
       ``(II) performed by a laboratory approved by such an 
     accreditation body;

       ``(ii) that any objection to genetic testing results must 
     be made in writing not later than a specified number of days 
     before any hearing at which such results may be introduced 
     into evidence (or, at State option, not later than a 
     specified number of days after receipt of such results); and
       ``(iii) that, if no objection is made, the test results are 
     admissible as evidence of paternity without the need for 
     foundation testimony or other proof of authenticity or 
     accuracy.''; and
       (7) by adding after subparagraph (H) the following new 
     subparagraphs:
       ``(I) No right to jury trial.--Procedures providing that 
     the parties to an action to establish paternity are not 
     entitled to jury trial.
       ``(J) Temporary support order based on probable paternity 
     in contested cases.--Procedures which require that a 
     temporary order be issued, upon motion by a party, requiring 
     the provision of child support pending
      an administrative or judicial determination of parentage, 
     where there is clear and convincing evidence of paternity 
     (on the basis of genetic tests or other evidence).
       ``(K) Proof of certain support and paternity establishment 
     costs.--Procedures under which bills for pregnancy, 
     childbirth, and genetic testing are admissible as evidence 
     without requiring third-party foundation testimony, and shall 
     constitute prima facie evidence of amounts incurred for such 
     services and testing on behalf of the child.
       ``(L) Waiver of state debts for cooperation.--At the option 
     of the State, procedures under which the tribunal 
     establishing paternity and support has discretion to waive 
     rights to all or part of amounts owed to the State (but not 
     to the mother) for costs related to pregnancy, childbirth, 
     and genetic testing and for public assistance paid to the 
     family where the father cooperates or acknowledges paternity 
     before or after genetic testing.
       ``(M) Standing of putative fathers.--Procedures ensuring 
     that the putative father has a reasonable opportunity to 
     initiate a paternity action.''.
       (b) National Paternity Acknowledgment Affidavit.--Section 
     452(a)(7) (42 U.S.C. 652(a)(7)) is amended by inserting ``, 
     and develop an affidavit to be used for the voluntary 
     acknowledgment of paternity which shall include the social 
     security account number of each parent'' before the 
     semicolon.
       (c) Technical Amendment.--Section 468 (42 U.S.C. 668) is 
     amended by striking ``a simple civil process for voluntarily 
     acknowledging paternity and''.

     SEC. 447. OUTREACH FOR VOLUNTARY PATERNITY ESTABLISHMENT.

       (a) State Plan Requirement.--Section 454(23) (42 U.S.C. 
     654(23)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(C) publicize the availability and encourage the use of 
     procedures for voluntary establishment of paternity and child 
     support through a variety of means, which--
       ``(i) include distribution of written materials at health 
     care facilities (including hospitals and clinics), and other 
     locations such as schools;
       ``(ii) may include pre-natal programs to educate expectant 
     couples on individual and joint rights and responsibilities 
     with respect to paternity (and may require all expectant 
     recipients of assistance under part A to participate in such 
     pre-natal programs, as an element of cooperation with efforts 
     to establish paternity and child support);
       ``(iii) include, with respect to each child discharged from 
     a hospital after birth for whom paternity or child support 
     has not been established, reasonable follow-up efforts 
     (including at least one contact of each parent whose 
     whereabouts are known, except where there is reason to 
     believe such follow-up efforts would put mother or child at 
     risk), providing--

       ``(I) in the case of a child for whom paternity has not 
     been established, information on the benefits of and 
     procedures for establishing paternity; and
       ``(II) in the case of a child for whom paternity has been 
     established but child support has not been established, 
     information on the benefits of and procedures for 
     establishing a child support order, and an application for 
     child support services;''.

       (b) Enhanced Federal Matching.--Section 455(a)(1)(C) (42 
     U.S.C. 655(a)(1)(C)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(i)'' before ``laboratory costs'', and
       (2) by inserting before the semicolon ``, and (ii) costs of 
     outreach programs designed to encourage voluntary 
     acknowledgment of paternity''.
       (c) Effective Dates.--(1) The amendments made by subsection 
     (a) shall become effective October 1, 1997.
       (2) The amendments made by subsection (b) shall be 
     effective with respect to calendar quarters beginning on and 
     after October 1, 1996.
      Subtitle F--Establishment and Modification of Support Orders

     SEC. 451. NATIONAL CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES COMMISSION.

       (a) Establishment.--There is hereby established a 
     commission to be known as the ``National Child Support 
     Guidelines Commission'' (in this section referred to as the 
     ``Commission'').
       (b) General Duties.--The Commission shall develop a 
     national child support guideline for consideration by the 
     Congress that is based on a study of various guideline 
     models, the benefits and deficiencies of such models, and any 
     needed improvements.
       (c) Membership.--
       (1) Number; appointment.--
     [[Page H3659]]   (A) In general.--The Commission shall be 
     composed of 12 individuals appointed jointly by the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services and the Congress, not later than 
     January 15, 1997, of which--
       (i) 2 shall be appointed by the Chairman of the Committee 
     on Finance of the Senate, and 1 shall be appointed by the 
     ranking minority member of the Committee;
       (ii) 2 shall be appointed by the Chairman of the Committee 
     on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, and 1 
     shall be appointed by the ranking minority member of the 
     Committee; and
       (iii) 6 shall be appointed by the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services.
       (B) Qualifications of members.--Members of the Commission 
     shall have expertise and experience in the evaluation and 
     development of child support guidelines. At least 1 member 
     shall represent advocacy groups for custodial parents, at 
     least 1 member shall represent advocacy groups for 
     noncustodial parents, and at least 1 member shall be the 
     director of a State program under part D of title IV of the 
     Social Security Act.
       (2) Terms of office.--Each member shall be appointed for a 
     term of 2 years. A vacancy in the Commission shall be filled 
     in the manner in which the original appointment was made.
       (d) Commission Powers, Compensation, Access to Information, 
     and Supervision.--The first sentence of subparagraph (C), the 
     first and third sentences of subparagraph (D), subparagraph 
     (F) (except with respect to the conduct of medical studies), 
     clauses (ii) and (iii) of subparagraph (G), and subparagraph 
     (H) of section 1886(e)(6) of the Social Security Act shall 
     apply to the Commission in the same manner in which such 
     provisions apply to the Prospective Payment Assessment 
     Commission.
       (e) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the appointment 
     of members, the Commission shall submit to the President, the 
     Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, 
     and the Committee on Finance of the Senate, a recommended 
     national child support guideline and a final assessment of 
     issues relating to such a proposed national child support 
     guideline.
       (f) Termination.--The Commission shall terminate 6 months 
     after the submission of the report described in subsection 
     (e).

     SEC. 452. SIMPLIFIED PROCESS FOR REVIEW AND ADJUSTMENT OF 
                   CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS.

       (a) In General.--Section 466(a)(10) (42 U.S.C. 666(a)(10)) 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(10) Procedures for modification of support orders.--
       ``(A)(i) Procedures under which--
       ``(I) every 3 years, at the request of either parent 
     subject to a child support order, the State shall review and, 
     as appropriate, adjust the order in accordance with the 
     guidelines established under section 467(a) if the amount of 
     the child support award under the order differs from the 
     amount that would be awarded in accordance with such 
     guidelines, without a requirement for any other change in 
     circumstances; and
       ``(II) upon request at any time of either parent subject to 
     a child support order, the State shall review and, as 
     appropriate, adjust the order in accordance with the 
     guidelines established under section 467(a) based on a 
     substantial change in the circumstances of either such 
     parent.
       ``(ii) Such procedures shall require both parents subject 
     to a child support order to be notified of their rights and 
     responsibilities provided for under clause (i) at the time 
     the order is issued and in the annual information exchange 
     form provided under subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Procedures under which each child support order 
     issued or modified in the State after the effective date of 
     this subparagraph shall require the parents subject to the 
     order to provide each other with a complete statement of 
     their respective financial condition annually on a form which 
     shall be established by the Secretary and provided by the 
     State. The Secretary shall establish regulations for the 
     enforcement of such exchange of information.''.
               Subtitle G--Enforcement of Support Orders

     SEC. 461. FEDERAL INCOME TAX REFUND OFFSET.

       (a) Changed Order of Refund Distribution Under Internal 
     Revenue Code.--Section 6402(c) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 is amended by striking the 3rd sentence.
       (b) Elimination of Disparities in Treatment of Assigned and 
     Non-Assigned Arrearages.--(1) Section 464(a) (42 U.S.C. 
     664(a)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``(a)'' and inserting ``(a) Offset 
     Authorized.--'';
       (B) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in the first sentence, by striking ``which has been 
     assigned to such State pursuant to section 402(a)(26) or 
     section 471(a)(17)''; and
       (ii) in the second sentence, by striking ``in accordance 
     with section 457 (b)(4) or (d)(3)'' and inserting ``as 
     provided in paragraph (2)'';
       (C) in paragraph (2), to read as follows:
       ``(2) The State agency shall distribute amounts paid by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) in accordance with section 457 (a)(4) or (d)(3), in 
     the case of past-due support assigned to a State pursuant to 
     section 402(a)(26) or section 471(a)(17); and
       ``(B) to or on behalf of the child to whom the support was 
     owed, in the case of past-due support not so assigned.'';
       (D) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) by striking ``or (2)'' each place it appears; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``under paragraph 
     (2)'' and inserting ``on account of past-due support 
     described in paragraph (2)(B)''.
       (2) Section 464(b) (42 U.S.C. 664(b)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``(b)(1)'' and inserting ``(b) 
     Regulations.--''; and
       (B) by striking paragraph (2).
       (3) Section 464(c) (42 U.S.C. 664(c)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``(c)(1) Except as provided in paragraph 
     (2), as'' and inserting ``(c) Definition.--As''; and
       (B) by striking paragraphs (2) and (3).
       (c) Treatment of Lump-Sum Tax Refund Under AFDC.--
       (1) Exemption from lump-sum rule.--Section 402(a)(17) (42 
     U.S.C. 602(a)(17)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following: ``but this paragraph shall not apply to income 
     received by a family that is attributable to a child support 
     obligation owed with respect to a member of the family and 
     that is paid to the family from amounts withheld from a 
     Federal income tax refund otherwise payable to the person 
     owing such obligation, to the extent that such income is 
     placed in a qualified asset account (as defined in section 
     406(j)) the total amounts in which, after such placement, 
     does not exceed $10,000;''.
       (2) Qualified asset account defined.--Section 406 (42 
     U.S.C. 606), as amended by section 402(g)(2) of this Act, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(j)(1) The term `qualified asset account' means a 
     mechanism approved by the State (such as individual 
     retirement accounts, escrow accounts, or savings bonds) that 
     allows savings of a family receiving aid to families with 
     dependent children to be used for qualified distributions.
       ``(2) The term `qualified distribution' means a 
     distribution from a qualified asset account for expenses 
     directly related to 1 or more of the following purposes:
       ``(A) The attendance of a member of the family at any 
     education or training program.
       ``(B) The improvement of the employability (including self-
     employment) of a member of the family (such as through the 
     purchase of an automobile).
       ``(C) The purchase of a home for the family.
       ``(D) A change of the family residence.''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall become effective October 1, 1999.

     SEC. 462. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE COLLECTION OF ARREARS.

       (a) Amendment to Internal Revenue Code.--Section 6305(a) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``except as provided in 
     paragraph (5)'' after ``collected'';
       (2) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (3);
       (3) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (4) and 
     inserting a comma;
       (4) by adding after paragraph (4) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(5) no additional fee may be assessed for adjustments to 
     an amount previously certified pursuant to such section 
     452(b) with respect to the same obligor.''; and
       (5) by striking ``Secretary of Health, Education, and 
     Welfare'' each place it appears and inserting ``Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall become effective October 1, 1997.

     SEC. 463. AUTHORITY TO COLLECT SUPPORT FROM FEDERAL 
                   EMPLOYEES.

       (a) Consolidation and Streamlining of Authorities.--
       (1) Section 459 (42 U.S.C. 659) is amended in the caption 
     by inserting ``income withholding,'' before ``garnishment''.
       (2) Section 459(a) (42 U.S.C. 659(a)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``(a)'' and inserting ``(a) Consent To 
     Support Enforcement.--
       (B) by striking ``section 207'' and inserting ``section 207 
     of this Act and 38 U.S.C. 5301''; and
       (C) by striking all that follows ``a private person,'' and 
     inserting ``to withholding in accordance with State law 
     pursuant to subsections (a)(1) and (b) of section 466 and 
     regulations of the Secretary thereunder, and to any other 
     legal process brought, by a State agency administering a 
     program under this part or by an individual obligee, to 
     enforce the legal obligation of such individual to provide 
     child support or alimony.''.
       (3) Section 459(b) (42 U.S.C. 659(b)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(b) Consent to Requirements Applicable to Private 
     Person.-- Except as otherwise provided herein, each entity 
     specified in subsection (a) shall be subject, with respect to 
     notice to withhold income pursuant to subsection (a)(1) or 
     (b) of section 466, or to any other order or process to 
     enforce support obligations against an individual (if such 
     order or process contains or is accompanied by sufficient 
     data to permit prompt identification of the individual and 
     the moneys involved), to the same requirements as would apply 
     if such entity were a private person.''.
       (4) Section 459(c) (42 U.S.C. 659(c)) is redesignated and 
     relocated as paragraph (2) of subsection (f), and is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``responding to interrogatories pursuant to 
     requirements imposed by section 461(b)(3)'' and inserting 
     ``taking actions necessary to comply with the requirements of 
     subsection (A) with regard to any individual''; and
     [[Page H3660]]   (B) by striking ``any of his duties'' and 
     all that follows and inserting ``such duties.''.
       (5) Section 461 (42 U.S.C. 661) is amended by striking 
     subsection (b), and section 459 (42 U.S.C. 659) is amended by 
     inserting after subsection (b) (as added by paragraph (3) of 
     this subsection) the following:
       ``(c) Designation of Agent; Response to Notice or 
     Process.--(1) The head of each agency subject to the 
     requirements of this section shall--
       ``(A) designate an agent or agents to receive orders and 
     accept service of process; and
       ``(B) publish (i) in the appendix of such regulations, (ii) 
     in each subsequent republication of such regulations, and 
     (iii) annually in the Federal Register, the designation of 
     such agent or agents, identified by title of position, 
     mailing address, and telephone number.''.
       (6) Section 459 (42 U.S.C. 659) is amended by striking 
     subsection (d) and by inserting after subsection (c)(1) (as 
     added by paragraph (5) of this subsection) the following:
       ``(2) Whenever an agent designated pursuant to paragraph 
     (1) receives notice pursuant to subsection (a)(1) or (b) of 
     section 466, or is effectively served with any order, 
     process, or interrogatories, with respect to an individual's 
     child support or alimony payment obligations, such agent 
     shall--
       ``(A) as soon as possible (but not later than fifteen days) 
     thereafter, send written notice of such notice or service 
     (together with a copy thereof) to such individual at his duty 
     station or last-known home address;
       ``(B) within 30 days (or such longer period as may be 
     prescribed by applicable State law) after receipt of a notice 
     pursuant to subsection (a)(1) or (b) of section 466, comply 
     with all applicable provisions of such section 466; and
       ``(C) within 30 days (or such longer period as may be 
     prescribed by applicable State law) after effective service 
     of any other such order, process, or interrogatories, respond 
     thereto.''.
       (7) Section 461 (42 U.S.C. 661) is amended by striking 
     subsection (c), and section 459 (42 U.S.C. 659) is amended by 
     inserting after subsection (c) (as added by paragraph (5) and 
     amended by paragraph (6) of this subsection) the following:
       ``(d) Priority of Claims.--In the event that a governmental 
     entity receives notice or is served with process, as provided 
     in this section, concerning amounts owed by an individual to 
     more than one person--
       ``(1) support collection under section 466(b) must be given 
     priority over any other process, as provided in section 
     466(b)(7);
       ``(2) allocation of moneys due or payable to an individual 
     among claimants under section 466(b) shall be governed by the 
     provisions of such section 466(b) and regulations thereunder; 
     and
       ``(3) such moneys as remain after compliance with 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall be available to satisfy any 
     other such processes on a first-come, first-served basis, 
     with any such process being satisfied out of such moneys as 
     remain after the satisfaction of all such processes which 
     have been previously served.''.
       (8) Section 459(e) (42 U.S.C. 659(e)) is amended by 
     striking ``(e)'' and inserting the following:
       ``(e) No Requirement To Vary Pay Cycles.--''.
       (9) Section 459(f) (42 U.S.C. 659(f)) is amended by 
     striking ``(f)'' and inserting the following:
       ``(f) Relief From Liability.--(1)''.
       (10) Section 461(a) (42 U.S.C. 661(a)) is redesignated and 
     relocated as section 459(g), and is amended--
       (A) by striking ``(g)'' and inserting the following:
       ``(g) Regulations.--''; and
       (B) by striking ``section 459'' and inserting ``this 
     section''.
       (11) Section 462 (42 U.S.C. 662) is amended by striking 
     subsection (f), and section 459 (42 U.S.C. 659) is amended by 
     inserting the following after subsection (g) (as added by 
     paragraph (10) of this subsection):
       ``(h) Moneys Subject to Process.--(1) Subject to subsection 
     (i), moneys paid or payable to an individual which are 
     considered to be based upon remuneration for employment, for 
     purposes of this section--
       ``(A) consist of--
       ``(i) compensation paid or payable for personal services of 
     such individual, whether such compensation is denominated as 
     wages, salary, commission, bonus, pay, allowances, or 
     otherwise (including severance pay, sick pay, and incentive 
     pay);
       ``(ii) periodic benefits (including a periodic benefit as 
     defined in section 228(h)(3)) or other payments--
       ``(I) under the insurance system established by title II;
       ``(II) under any other system or fund established by the 
     United States which provides for the payment of pensions, 
     retirement or retired pay, annuities, dependents' or 
     survivors' benefits, or similar amounts payable on account of 
     personal services performed by the individual or any other 
     individual;
       ``(III) as compensation for death under any Federal 
     program;
       ``(IV) under any Federal program established to provide 
     `black lung' benefits; or
       ``(V) by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs as pension, or 
     as compensation for a service-connected disability or death 
     (except any compensation paid by such Secretary to a former 
     member of the Armed Forces who is in receipt of retired or 
     retainer pay if such former member has waived a portion of 
     his retired pay in order to receive such compensation); and
       ``(iii) worker's compensation benefits paid under Federal 
     or State law; but
       ``(B) do not include any payment--
       ``(i) by way of reimbursement or otherwise, to defray 
     expenses incurred by such individual in carrying out duties 
     associated with his employment; or
       ``(ii) as allowances for members of the uniformed services 
     payable pursuant to chapter 7 of title 37, United States 
     Code, as prescribed by the Secretaries concerned (defined by 
     section 101(5) of such title) as necessary for the efficient 
     performance of duty.''.
       (12) Section 462(g) (42 U.S.C. 662(g)) is redesignated and 
     relocated as section 459(i) (42 U.S.C. 659(i)).
       (13)(A) Section 462 (42 U.S.C. 662) is amended--
       (i) in subsection (e)(1), by redesignating subparagraphs 
     (A), (B), and (C) as clauses (i), (ii), and (iii); and
       (ii) in subsection (e), by redesignating paragraphs (1) and 
     (2) as subparagraphs (A) and (B).
       (B) Section 459 (42 U.S.C. 659) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(j) Definitions.--For purposes of this sec- tion--''.
       (C) Subsections (a) through (e) of section 462 (42 U.S.C. 
     662), as amended by subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, are 
     relocated and redesignated as paragraphs (1) through (4), 
     respectively of section 459(j) (as added by subparagraph (B) 
     of this paragraph, (42 U.S.C. 659(j)), and the left margin of 
     each of such paragraphs (1) through (4) is indented 2 ems to 
     the right of the left margin of subsection (i) (as added by 
     paragraph (12) of this subsection).
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) To part d of title iv.--Sections 461 and 462 (42 U.S.C. 
     661), as amended by subsection (a) of this section, are 
     repealed.
       (2) To title 5, united states code.--Section 5520a of title 
     5, United States Code, is amended, in subsections (h)(2) and 
     (i), by striking ``sections 459, 461, and 462 of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 659, 661, and 662)'' and inserting 
     ``section 459 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 659)''.
       (c) Military Retired and Retainer Pay.--(1) Definition of 
     Court.--Section 1408(a)(1) of title 10, United States Code, 
     is amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (B);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (C) 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding after subparagraph (C) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(D) any administrative or judicial tribunal of a State 
     competent to enter orders for support or maintenance 
     (including a State agency administering a State program under 
     part D of title IV of the Social Security Act).'';
       (2) Definition of Court Order.--Section 1408(a)(2) of such 
     title is amended by inserting ``or a court order for the 
     payment of child support not included in or accompanied by 
     such a decree or settlement,'' before ``which--''.
       (3) Public Payee.--Section 1408(d) of such title is 
     amended--
       (A) in the heading, by striking ``to spouse'' and inserting 
     ``to (or for benefit of)''; and
       (B) in paragraph (1), in the first sentence, by inserting 
     ``(or for the benefit of such spouse or former spouse to a 
     State central collections unit or other public payee 
     designated by a State, in accordance with part D of title IV 
     of the Social Security Act, as directed by court order, or as 
     otherwise directed in accordance with such part D)'' before 
     ``in an amount sufficient''.
       (4) Relationship to Part D of Title IV.--Section 1408 of 
     such title is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(j) Relationship to Other Laws.--In any case involving a 
     child support order against a member who has never been 
     married to the other parent of the child, the provisions of 
     this section shall not apply, and the case shall be subject 
     to the provisions of section 459 of the Social Security 
     Act.''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall become effective 6 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 464. ENFORCEMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATIONS OF MEMBERS 
                   OF THE ARMED FORCES.

       (a) Availability of Locator Information.--
       (1) Maintenance of address information.--The Secretary of 
     Defense shall establish a centralized personnel locator 
     service that includes the address of each member of the Armed 
     Forces under the jurisdiction of the Secretary. Upon request 
     of the Secretary of Transportation, addresses for members of 
     the Coast Guard shall be included in the centralized 
     personnel locator service.
       (2) Type of address.--
       (A) Residential address.--Except as provided in 
     subparagraph (B), the address for a member of the Armed 
     Forces shown in the locator service shall be the residential 
     address of that member.
       (B) Duty address.--The address for a member of the Armed 
     Forces shown in the locator service shall be the duty address 
     of that member in the case of a member--
       (i) who is permanently assigned overseas, to a vessel, or 
     to a routinely deployable unit; or
       (ii) with respect to whom the Secretary concerned makes a 
     determination that the member's residential address should 
     not be 
      [[Page H3661]] disclosed due to national security or safety 
     concerns.
       (3) Updating of locator information.--Within 30 days after 
     a member listed in the locator service establishes a new 
     residential address (or a new duty address, in the case of a 
     member covered by paragraph (2)(B)), the Secretary concerned 
     shall update the locator service to indicate the new address 
     of the member.
       (4) Availability of information.--The Secretary of Defense 
     shall make information regarding the address of a member of 
     the Armed Forces listed in the locator service available, on 
     request, to the Federal Parent Locator Service.
       (b) Facilitating Granting of Leave for Attendance at 
     Hearings.--
       (1) Regulations.--The Secretary of each military 
     department, and the Secretary of Transportation with respect 
     to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in 
     the Navy, shall prescribe regulations to facilitate the 
     granting of leave to a member of the Armed Forces under the 
     jurisdiction of that Secretary in a case in which--
       (A) the leave is needed for the member to attend a hearing 
     described in paragraph (2);
       (B) the member is not serving in or with a unit deployed in 
     a contingency operation (as defined in section 101 of title 
     10, United States Code); and
       (C) the exigencies of military service (as determined by 
     the Secretary concerned) do not otherwise require that such 
     leave not be granted.
       (2) Covered hearings.--Paragraph (1) applies to a hearing 
     that is conducted by a court or pursuant to an administrative 
     process established under State law, in connection with a 
     civil action--
       (A) to determine whether a member of the Armed Forces is a 
     natural parent of a child; or
       (B) to determine an obligation of a member of the Armed 
     Forces to provide child support.
       (3) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection:
       (A) The term ``court'' has the meaning given that term in 
     section 1408(a) of title 10, United States Code.
       (B) The term ``child support'' has the meaning given such 
     term in section 462 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     662).
       (c) Payment of Military Retired Pay in Compliance With 
     Child Support Orders.--
       (1) Date of certification of court order.--Section 1408 of 
     title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) by redesignating subsection (i) as subsection (j); and
       (B) by inserting after subsection (h) the following new 
     subsection (i):
       ``(i) Certification Date.--It is not necessary that the 
     date of a certification of the authenticity or completeness 
     of a copy of a court order or an order of an administrative 
     process established under State law for child support 
     received by the Secretary concerned for the purposes of this 
     section be recent in relation to the date of receipt by the 
     Secretary.''.
       (2) Payments consistent with assignments of rights to 
     states.--Section 1408(d)(1) of such title is amended by 
     inserting after the first
      sentence the following: ``In the case of a spouse or former 
     spouse who, pursuant to section 402(a)(26) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 602(26)), assigns to a State the 
     rights of the spouse or former spouse to receive support, 
     the Secretary concerned may make the child support 
     payments referred to in the preceding sentence to that 
     State in amounts consistent with that assignment of 
     rights.''.
       (3) Arrearages owed by members of the uniformed services.--
     Section 1408(d) of such title is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) In the case of a court order or an order of an 
     administrative process established under State law for which 
     effective service is made on the Secretary concerned on or 
     after the date of the enactment of this paragraph and which 
     provides for payments from the disposable retired pay of a 
     member to satisfy the amount of child support set forth in 
     the order, the authority provided in paragraph (1) to make 
     payments from the disposable retired pay of a member to 
     satisfy the amount of child support set forth in a court 
     order or an order of an administrative process established 
     under State law shall apply to payment of any amount of child 
     support arrearages set forth in that order as well as to 
     amounts of child support that currently become due.''.

     SEC. 465. MOTOR VEHICLE LIENS.

       Section 466(a)(4) (42 U.S.C. 666(a)(4)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(4) Procedures'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(4) Liens.--
       ``(A) In general.--Procedures''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) Motor vehicle liens.--Procedures for placing liens 
     for arrears of child support on motor vehicle titles of 
     individuals owing such arrears equal to or exceeding two 
     months of support, under which--
       ``(i) any person owed such arrears may place such a lien;
       ``(ii) the State agency administering the program under 
     this part shall systematically place such liens;
       ``(iii) expedited methods are provided for--

       ``(I) ascertaining the amount of arrears;
       ``(II) affording the person owing the arrears or other 
     titleholder to contest the amount of arrears or to obtain a 
     release upon fulfilling the support obligation;

       ``(iv) such a lien has precedence over all other 
     encumbrances on a vehicle title other than a purchase money 
     security interest; and
       ``(v) the individual or State agency owed the arrears may 
     execute on, seize, and sell the property in accordance with 
     State law.''.

     SEC. 466. VOIDING OF FRAUDULENT TRANSFERS.

       Section 466(a) (42 U.S.C. 666(a)), as amended by sections 
     401(a), 426(a), 431, and 442 of this Act, is amended by 
     inserting after paragraph (15) the following:
       ``(16) Fraudulent transfers.--Procedures under which--
       ``(A) the State has in effect--
       ``(i) the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act of 1981,
       ``(ii) the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act of 1984, or
       ``(iii) another law, specifying indicia of fraud which 
     create a prima facie case that a debtor transferred income or 
     property to avoid payment to a child support creditor, which 
     the Secretary finds affords comparable rights to child 
     support creditors; and
       ``(B) in any case in which the State knows of a transfer by 
     a child support debtor with respect to which such a prima 
     facie case is established, the State must--
       ``(i) seek to void such transfer; or
       ``(ii) obtain a settlement in the best interests of the 
     child support creditor.''.

     SEC. 467. STATE LAW AUTHORIZING SUSPENSION OF LICENSES.

       Section 466(a) (42 U.S.C. 666(a)), as amended by sections 
     401(a), 426(a), 431, 442, and 466 of this Act, is amended by 
     inserting after paragraph (16) the following:
       ``(17) Authority to withhold or suspend licenses.--
     Procedures under which the State has (and uses in appropriate 
     cases) authority (subject to appropriate due process 
     safeguards) to withhold or suspend, or to restrict the use of 
     driver's licenses, and professional and occupational licenses 
     of individuals owing overdue child support or failing, after 
     receiving appropriate notice, to comply with subpoenas or 
     warrants relating to paternity or child support 
     proceedings.''.

     SEC. 468. REPORTING ARREARAGES TO CREDIT BUREAUS.

       Section 466(a)(7) (42 U.S.C. 666(a)(7)) is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(7) Reporting arrearages to credit bureaus.--(A) 
     Procedures (subject to safeguards pursuant to subparagraph 
     (B)) requiring the State to report periodically to consumer 
     reporting agencies (as defined in section 603(f) of the Fair 
     Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681a(f)) the name of any 
     absent parent who is delinquent by 90 days or more in the 
     payment of support, and the amount of overdue support owed by 
     such parent.
       ``(B) Procedures ensuring that, in carrying out 
     subparagraph (A), information with respect to an absent 
     parent is reported--
       ``(i) only after such parent has been afforded all due 
     process required under State law, including notice and a 
     reasonable opportunity to contest the accuracy of such 
     information; and
       ``(ii) only to an entity that has furnished evidence 
     satisfactory to the State that the entity is a consumer 
     reporting agency.''.

     SEC. 469. EXTENDED STATUTE OF LIMITATION FOR COLLECTION OF 
                   ARREARAGES.

       (a) Amendments.--Section 466(a)(9) (42 U.S.C. 666(a)(9)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``(9) Procedures'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(9) Legal treatment of arrears.--
       ``(A) Finality.--Procedures'';
       (2) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) as 
     clauses (i), (ii), and (iii), respectively, and by indenting 
     each of such clauses 2 additional ems to the right; and
       (3) by adding after and below subparagraph (A), as 
     redesignated, the following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) Statute of limitations.--Procedures under which the 
     statute of limitations on any arrearages of child support 
     extends at least until the child owed such support is 30 
     years of age.''.
       (b) Application of Requirement.--The amendment made by this 
     section shall not be read to require any State law to revive 
     any payment obligation which had lapsed prior to the 
     effective date of such State law.

     SEC. 470. CHARGES FOR ARREARAGES.

       (a) State Law Requirement.--Section 466(a) (42 U.S.C. 
     666(a)), as amended by sections 401(a), 426(a), 431, 442, 
     466, and 467 of this Act, is amended by inserting after 
     paragraph (17) the following:
       ``(18) Charges for arrearages.--Procedures providing for 
     the calculation and collection of interest or penalties for 
     arrearages of child support, and for distribution of such 
     interest or penalties collected for the benefit of the child 
     (except where the right to support has been assigned to the 
     State).''.
       (b) Regulations.--The Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services shall establish by regulation a rule to resolve 
     choice of law conflicts arising in the implementation of the 
     amendment made by subsection (a).
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 454(21) (42 U.S.C. 
     654(21)) is repealed.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall be effective with respect to arrearages accruing on or 
     after October 1, 1998.

     SEC. 471. DENIAL OF PASSPORTS FOR NONPAYMENT OF CHILD 
                   SUPPORT.

       (a) HHS Certification Procedure.--
       (1) Secretarial responsibility.--Section 452 (42 U.S.C. 
     652), as amended by sections 
      [[Page H3662]] 415(a)(3) and 417 of this Act, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(l) Certifications for Purposes of Passport 
     Restrictions.--
       ``(1) In general.--Where the Secretary receives a 
     certification by a State agency in accordance with the 
     requirements of section 454(28) that an individual owes 
     arrearages of child support in an amount exceeding $5,000 or 
     in an amount exceeding 24 months' worth of child support, the 
     Secretary shall transmit such certification to the Secretary 
     of State for action (with respect to denial, revocation, or 
     limitation of passports) pursuant to section 471(b) of the 
     Individual Responsibility Act of 1995.
       ``(2) Limit on liability.--The Secretary shall not be 
     liable to an individual for any action with respect to a 
     certification by a State agency under this section.''.
       (2) State cse agency responsibility.--Section 454 (42 
     U.S.C. 654), as amended by sections 404(a), 414(b), and 
     422(a) of this Act, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (26);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (27) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding after paragraph (27) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(28) provide that the State agency will have in effect a 
     procedure (which may be combined with the procedure for tax 
     refund offset under section 464) for certifying to the 
     Secretary, for purposes of the procedure under section 452(l) 
     (concerning denial of passports) determinations that 
     individuals owe arrearages of child support in an amount 
     exceeding $5,000 or in an amount exceeding 24 months' worth 
     of child support, under which procedure--
       ``(A) each individual concerned is afforded notice of such 
     determination and the consequences thereof, and an 
     opportunity to contest the determination; and
       ``(B) the certification by the State agency is furnished to 
     the Secretary in such format, and accompanied by such 
     supporting documentation, as the Secretary may require.''.
       (b) State Department Procedure for Denial of Passports.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of State, upon certification 
     by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in accordance 
     with section 452(l) of the Social Security Act, that an 
     individual owes arrearages of child support in excess of 
     $5,000, shall refuse to issue a passport to such individual, 
     and may revoke, restrict, or limit a passport issued 
     previously to such individual.
       (2) Limit on liability.--The Secretary of State shall not 
     be liable to an individual for any action with respect to a 
     certification by a State agency under this section.
       (c) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made 
     by this section shall become effective October 1, 1996.

     SEC. 472. INTERNATIONAL CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Sense of the Congress That the United States Should 
     Ratify the United Nations Convention of 1956.--It is the 
     sense of the Congress that the United States should ratify 
     the United Nations Convention of 1956.
       (b) Treatment of International Child Support Cases as 
     Interstate Cases.--Section 454 (42 U.S.C. 654), as amended by 
     sections 404(a), 414(b), 422(a), and 471(a)(2) of this Act, 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (27);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (28) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (28) the following:
       ``(29) provide that the State must treat international 
     child support cases in the same manner as the State treats 
     interstate child support cases.''.

     SEC. 473. SEIZURE OF LOTTERY WINNINGS, SETTLEMENTS, PAYOUTS, 
                   AWARDS, AND BEQUESTS, AND SALE OF FORFEITED 
                   PROPERTY, TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGES.

       Section 466(a) (42 U.S.C. 666(a)), as amended by sections 
     401(a), 426(a), 431, 442, 466, 467, and 470(a) of this Act, 
     is amended by inserting after paragraph (18) the following:
       ``(19) Procedures, in addition to other income withholding 
     procedures, under which a lien is imposed against property 
     with the following effect:
       ``(A) The distributor of the winnings from a State lottery 
     or State-sanctioned or tribal-sanctioned gambling house or 
     casino shall--
       ``(i) suspend payment of the winnings from the person 
     otherwise entitled to the payment until an inquiry is made to 
     and a response is received from the State child support 
     enforcement agency as to whether the person owes a child 
     support arrearage; and
       ``(ii) if there is such an arrearage, withhold from the 
     payment the lesser of the amount of the payment or the amount 
     of the arrearage, and pay the amount withheld to the agency 
     for distribution.
       ``(B) The person required to make a payment under a policy 
     of insurance or a settlement of a claim made with respect to 
     the policy shall--
       ``(i) suspend the payment until an inquiry is made to and a 
     response received from the agency as to whether the person 
     otherwise entitled to the payment owes a child support 
     arrearage; and
       ``(ii) if there is such an arrearage, withhold from the 
     payment the lesser of the amount of the payment or the amount 
     of the arrearage, and pay the amount withheld to the agency 
     for distribution.
       ``(C) The payor of any amount pursuant to an award, 
     judgment, or settlement in any action brought in Federal or 
     State court shall--
       ``(i) suspend the payment of the amount until an inquiry is 
     made to and a response is received from the agency as to 
     whether the person otherwise entitled to the payment owes a 
     child support arrearage; and
       ``(ii) if there is such an arrearage, withhold from the 
     payment the lesser of the amount of the payment or the amount 
     of the arrearage, and pay the amount withheld to the agency 
     for distribution.
       ``(D) If the State seizes property forfeited to the State 
     by an individual by reason of a criminal conviction, the 
     State shall--
       ``(i) hold the property until an inquiry is made to and a 
     response is received from the agency as to whether the 
     individual owes a child support arrearage; and
       ``(ii) if there is such an arrearage, sell the property 
     and, after satisfying the
      claims of all other private or public claimants to the 
     property and deducting from the proceeds of the sale the 
     attendant costs (such as for towing, storage, and the 
     sale), pay the lesser of the remaining proceeds or the 
     amount of the arrearage directly to the agency for 
     distribution.
       ``(E) Any person required to make a payment in respect of a 
     decedent shall--
       ``(i) suspend the payment until an inquiry is made to and a 
     response received from the agency as to whether the person 
     otherwise entitled to the payment owes a child support 
     arrearage; and
       ``(ii) if there is such an arrearage, withhold from the 
     payment the lesser of the amount of the payment or the amount 
     of the arrearage, and pay the amount withheld to the agency 
     for distribution.''.

     SEC. 474. LIABILITY OF GRANDPARENTS FOR FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF 
                   CHILDREN OF THEIR MINOR CHILDREN.

       Section 466(a) (42 U.S.C. 666(a)), as amended by sections 
     401(a), 426(a), 431, 442, 466, 467, 470(a), and 473 of this 
     Act, is amended by inserting after paragraph (19) the 
     following:
       ``(20) Procedures under which each parent of an individual 
     who has not attained 18 years of age is liable for the 
     financial support of any child of the individual to the 
     extent that the individual is unable to provide such support. 
     The preceding sentence shall not apply to the State if the 
     State plan explicitly provides for such inapplicability.''.

     SEC. 475. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING PROGRAMS FOR 
                   NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS UNABLE TO MEET CHILD 
                   SUPPORT OBLIGATIONS.

       It is the sense of the Congress that the States should 
     develop programs, such as the program of the State of 
     Wisconsin known as the ``Children's First Program'', that are 
     designed to work with noncustodial parents who are unable to 
     meet their child support obligations.
                      Subtitle H--Medical Support

     SEC. 481. TECHNICAL CORRECTION TO ERISA DEFINITION OF MEDICAL 
                   CHILD SUPPORT ORDER.

       (a) In General.--Section 609(a)(2)(B) of the Employee 
     Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 
     1169(a)(2)(B)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``issued by a court of competent 
     jurisdiction'';
       (2) by striking the period at the end of clause (ii) and 
     inserting a comma; and
       (3) by adding, after and below clause (ii), the following:

     ``if such judgment, decree, or order (I) is issued by a court 
     of competent jurisdiction or (II) is issued by an 
     administrative adjudicator and has the force and effect of 
     law under applicable State law.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Plan amendments not required until january 1, 1996.--
     Any amendment to a plan required to be made by an amendment 
     made by this section shall not be required to be made before 
     the first plan year beginning on or after January 1, 1996, 
     if--
       (A) during the period after the date before the date of the 
     enactment of this Act and before such first plan year, the 
     plan is operated in accordance with the requirements of the 
     amendments made by this section, and
       (B) such plan amendment applies retroactively to the period 
     after the date before the date of the enactment of this Act 
     and before such first plan year.

     A plan shall not be treated as failing to be operated in 
     accordance with the provisions of the plan merely because it 
     operates in accordance with this paragraph.

     SEC. 482. EXTENSION OF MEDICAID ELIGIBILITY FOR FAMILIES 
                   LOSING AFDC DUE TO INCREASED CHILD SUPPORT 
                   COLLECTIONS.

       Section 402(a) (42 U.S.C. 602(a)), as amended by the other 
     provisions of this Act, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (55);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (56) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (56) the following:
       ``(57) provide that each member of a family which would be 
     eligible for aid under the State plan but for the receipt of 
     child support payments shall be considered to be receiving 
     such aid for purposes
      of eligibility for medical assistance under the State plan 
     approved under title XIX for so long as the 
      [[Page H3663]] family would (but for such receipt) be 
     eligible for such aid.''.
                    Subtitle I--Effect of Enactment

     SEC. 491. EFFECTIVE DATES.

       (a) In General.--Except as otherwise specifically provided 
     (but subject to subsections (b) and (c))--
       (1) provisions of this title requiring enactment or 
     amendment of State laws under section 466 of the Social 
     Security Act, or revision of State plans under section 454 of 
     such Act, shall be effective with respect to periods 
     beginning on and after October 1, 1996; and
       (2) all other provisions of this title shall become 
     effective upon enactment.
       (b) Grace Period for State Law Changes.--The provisions of 
     this title shall become effective with respect to a State on 
     the later of--
       (1) the date specified in this title, or
       (2) the effective date of laws enacted by the legislature 
     of such State implementing such provisions,

     but in no event later than the first day of the first 
     calendar quarter beginning after the close of the first 
     regular session of the State legislature that begins after 
     the date of enactment of this Act. For purposes of the 
     previous sentence, in the case of a State that has a 2-year 
     legislative session, each year of such session shall be 
     deemed to be a separate regular session of the State 
     legislature.
       (c) Grace Period for State Constitutional Amendment.--A 
     State shall not be found out of compliance with any 
     requirement enacted by this title if it is unable to comply 
     without amending the State constitution until the earlier 
     of--
       (1) the date one year after the effective date of the 
     necessary State constitutional amendment, or
       (2) the date five years after enactment of this title.

     SEC. 492. SEVERABILITY.

       If any provision of this title or the application thereof 
     to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity 
     shall not affect other provisions or applications of this 
     title which can be given effect without regard to the invalid 
     provision or application, and to this end the provisions of 
     this title shall be severable.
              TITLE V--TEEN PREGNANCY AND FAMILY STABILITY
                        Subtitle A--Federal Role

     SEC. 501. STATE OPTION TO DENY AFDC FOR ADDITIONAL CHILDREN.

       (a) In General.--Section 402(a) (42 U.S.C. 602(a)), as 
     amended by sections 101, 102, 211(a), 232, and 301(a) of this 
     Act, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (49);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (50) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (50) the following:
       ``(51) at the option of the State, provide that--
       ``(A)(i) notwithstanding paragraph (7)(A), the needs of a 
     child will not be taken into account in making the 
     determination under paragraph (7) with respect to the family 
     of the child if the child was born (other than as a result of 
     rape or incest) to a member of the family--
       ``(I) while the family was a recipient of aid under the 
     State plan; or
       ``(II) during the 6-month period ending with the date the 
     family applied for such aid; and
       ``(ii) if the amount of aid payable to a family under the 
     State plan is reduced by reason of subparagraph (A), each 
     member of the family shall be considered to be receiving such 
     aid for purposes of eligibility for medical assistance under 
     the State plan approved under title XIX for so long as such 
     aid would otherwise not be so reduced; and
       ``(B) if the State exercises the option, the State may 
     provide the family with vouchers, in amounts not exceeding 
     the amount of any such reduction in aid, that may be used 
     only to pay for particular goods and services specified by 
     the State as suitable for the care of the child of the parent 
     (such as diapers, clothing, or school supplies).''.
       (b) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to payments under a State plan approved under 
     part A of title IV of the Social Security Act for months 
     beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act, and to 
     payments to States under such part for quarters beginning 
     after such date.
     SEC. 502. MINORS RECEIVING AFDC REQUIRED TO LIVE UNDER 
                   RESPONSIBLE ADULT SUPERVISION.

       Section 402(a)(43) (42 U.S.C. 602(a)(43)) is amended by 
     striking ``at the option of the State,''.

     SEC. 503. NATIONAL CLEARINGHOUSE ON ADOLESCENT PREGNANCY.

       (a) In General.--Title XX (42 U.S.C. 1397-1397f), as 
     amended by section 222(b) of this Act, is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 2010. NATIONAL CLEARINGHOUSE ON ADOLESCENT PREGNANCY.

       ``(a) National Clearinghouse on Adolescent Pregnancy.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--The responsible Federal officials 
     shall establish, through grant or contract, a national center 
     for the collection and provision of programmatic information 
     and technical assistance that relates to adolescent pregnancy 
     prevention programs, to be known as the `National 
     Clearinghouse on Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention Programs'.
       ``(2) Functions.--The national center established under 
     paragraph (1) shall serve as a national information and data 
     clearinghouse, and as a training, technical assistance, and 
     material development source for adolescent pregnancy 
     prevention programs. Such center shall--
       ``(A) develop and maintain a system for disseminating 
     information on all types of adolescent pregnancy prevention 
     program and on the state of adolescent pregnancy prevention 
     program development, including information concerning the 
     most effective model programs;
       ``(B) develop and sponsor a variety of training institutes 
     and curricula for adolescent pregnancy prevention program 
     staff;
       ``(C) identify model programs representing the various 
     types of adolescent pregnancy prevention programs;
       ``(D) develop technical assistance materials and activities 
     to assist other entities in establishing and improving 
     adolescent pregnancy prevention programs;
       ``(E) develop networks of adolescent pregnancy prevention 
     programs for the purpose of sharing and disseminating 
     information; and
       ``(F) conduct such other activities as the responsible 
     Federal officials find will assist in developing and carrying 
     out programs or activities to reduce adolescent pregnancy.
       ``(b) Funding.--The responsible Federal officials shall 
     make grants to eligible entities for the establishment and 
     operation of a National Clearinghouse on Adolescent Pregnancy 
     Prevention Programs under subsection (a) so that in the 
     aggregate the expenditures for such grants do not exceed 
     $2,000,000 for fiscal year 1996, $4,000,000 for fiscal year 
     1997, $8,000,000 for fiscal year 1998, and $10,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 1999 and each subsequent fiscal year.
       ``(c) Definitions.--As used in this section:
       ``(1) Adolescents.--The term `adolescents' means youth who 
     are ages 10 through 19.
       ``(2) Eligible entity.--The term `eligible entity' means a 
     partnership that includes--
       ``(A) a local education agency, acting on behalf of one or 
     more schools, together with
       ``(B) one or more community-based organizations, 
     institutions of higher education, or public or private 
     agencies or organizations.
       ``(3) Eligible area.--The term `eligible area' means a 
     school attendance area in which--
       ``(A) at least 75 percent of the children are from low-
     income families as that term is used in part A of title I of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965; or
       ``(B) the number of children receiving Aid to Families with 
     Dependent Children under part A of title IV is substantial as 
     determined by the responsible Federal officials; or
       ``(C) the unmarried adolescent birth rate is high, as 
     determined by the responsible Federal officials.
       ``(4) School.--The term `school' means a public elementary, 
     middle, or secondary school.
       ``(5) Responsible federal officials.--The term `responsible 
     Federal officials' means the Secretary of Education, the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Chief 
     Executive Officer of the Corporation for National and 
     Community Service.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall become effective October 1, 1994.

     SEC. 504. INCENTIVE FOR TEEN PARENTS TO ATTEND SCHOOL.

       Section 402(a) (42 U.S.C. 602(a)), as amended by sections 
     101, 102, 211(a), 232, 301(a), and 501(a) of this Act, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (50);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (51) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (51) the following:
       ``(52) provide that the amount of aid otherwise payable 
     under the plan for a month to a family that includes a parent 
     who has not attained 20 years of age and has not completed 
     secondary school (or received a certificate of high school 
     equivalency) may be reduced by 25 percent if, during the 
     immediately preceding month, the parent has failed without 
     good cause (as defined by the State in consultation with the 
     Secretary) to maintain minimum attendance (as defined by the 
     State in consultation with the Secretary) at an educational 
     institution.''.

     SEC. 505. STATE OPTION TO DISREGARD 100-HOUR RULE UNDER AFDC-
                   UP PROGRAM.

       Section 407(a) (42 U.S.C. 607(a)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(a)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) A standard prescribed pursuant to paragraph (1) that 
     imposes a limit on the amount of time during which a parent 
     who is the principal earner in a family in which both parents 
     are married may be employed during a month shall not apply to 
     a State if the State plan under this part explicitly provides 
     for such inapplicability.''.

     SEC. 506. STATE OPTION TO DISREGARD 6-MONTH LIMITATION ON 
                   AFDC-UP BENEFITS.

       Section 407(b)(2)(B) (42 U.S.C. 607(b)(2)(B)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(iv) A regulation prescribed by the Secretary that limits 
     the length of time with respect to which a family of a 
     dependent child in which both parents are married may receive 
     aid to families with dependent children by reason of this 
     section shall not apply to a 
      [[Page H3664]] State if the State plan under this part 
     explicitly provides for such inapplicability.''.

     SEC. 507. ELIMINATION OF QUARTERS OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT 
                   UNDER AFDC-UP PROGRAM FOR FAMILIES IN WHICH 
                   BOTH PARENTS ARE TEENS.

       Section 407(b)(1)(A)(iii) (42 U.S.C. 607(b)(1)(A)(iii)) is 
     amended by striking ``(iii)(I)'' and inserting ``(iii) 
     neither of the child's parents have attained 20 years of age, 
     and (I)''.

     SEC. 508. DENIAL OF FEDERAL HOUSING BENEFITS TO MINORS WHO 
                   BEAR CHILDREN OUT-OF-WEDLOCK.

       (a) Prohibition of Assistance.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, a household whose head of household is an 
     individual who has borne a child out-of-wedlock before 
     attaining 18 years of age may not be provided Federal housing 
     assistance for a dwelling unit until attaining such age, 
     unless--
       (1) after the birth of the child--
       (A) the individual marries an individual who has been 
     determined by the relevant State to be the biological father 
     of the child; or
       (B) the biological parent of the child has legal custody of 
     the child and marries an individual who legally adopts the 
     child;
       (2) the individual is a biological and custodial parent of 
     another child who was not born out-of-wedlock; or
       (3) eligibility for such Federal housing assistance is 
     based in whole or in part on any disability or handicap of a 
     member of the household.
       (b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the 
     following definitions shall apply:
       (1) Covered program.--The term ``covered program'' means--
       (A) the program of rental assistance on behalf of low-
     income families provided under section 8 of the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f);
       (B) the public housing program under title I of the United 
     States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437 et seq.);
       (C) the program of rent supplement payments on behalf of 
     qualified tenants pursuant to contracts entered into under 
     section 101 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 
     (12 U.S.C. 1701s);
       (D) the program of interest reduction payments pursuant to 
     contracts entered into by the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development under section 236 of the National Housing Act (12 
     U.S.C. 1715z-1);
       (E) the program for mortgage insurance provided pursuant to 
     sections 221(d) (3) or (4) of the National Housing Act (12 
     U.S.C. 1715l(d)) for multifamily housing for low- and 
     moderate-income families;
       (F) the rural housing loan program under section 502 of the 
     Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1472);
       (G) the rural housing loan guarantee program under section 
     502(h) of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1472(h));
       (H) the loan and grant programs under section 504 of the 
     Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1474) for repairs and 
     improvements to rural dwellings;
       (I) the program of loans for rental and cooperative rural 
     housing under section 515 of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 
     U.S.C. 1485);
       (J) the program of rental assistance payments pursuant to 
     contracts entered into under section 521(a)(2)(A) of the 
     Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1490a(a)(2)(A));
       (K) the loan and assistance programs under sections 514 and 
     516 of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1484, 1486) for 
     housing for farm labor;
       (L) the program of grants and loans for mutual and self-
     help housing and technical assistance under section 523 of 
     the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1490c);
       (M) the program of grants for preservation and 
     rehabilitation of housing under section 533 of the Housing 
     Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1490m); and
       (N) the program of site loans under section 524 of the 
     Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1490d).
       (2) Covered project.--The term ``covered project'' means 
     any housing for which Federal housing assistance is provided 
     that is attached to the project or specific dwelling units in 
     the project.
       (3) Federal housing assistance.--The term ``Federal housing 
     assistance'' means--
       (A) assistance provided under a covered program in the form 
     of any contract, grant, loan, subsidy, cooperative agreement, 
     loan or mortgage guarantee or insurance, or other financial 
     assistance; or
       (B) occupancy in a dwelling unit that is--
       (i) provided assistance under a covered program; or
       (ii) located in a covered project and subject to occupancy 
     limitations under a covered program that are based on income.
       (4) State.--The term ``State'' means the States of the 
     United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of 
     Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
     Islands, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and any 
     other territory or possession of the United States.
       (c) Limitations on Applicability.--Subsection (a) shall not 
     apply to Federal housing assistance provided for a household 
     pursuant to an application or request for such assistance 
     made by such household before the effective date of this Act 
     if the household was receiving such assistance on the 
     effective date of this Act.

     SEC. 509. STATE OPTION TO DENY AFDC TO MINOR PARENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 402(a) (42 U.S.C. 602(a)), as 
     amended by sections 101, 102, 211(a), 232, 301(a), 501(a), 
     and 504 of this Act, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (51);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (52) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (52) the following:
       ``(53)(A) at the option of the State, provide that--
       ``(i) in making the determination under paragraph (7) with 
     respect to a family, the State may disregard the needs of any 
     family member who is a parent and has not attained 18 years 
     of age or such lesser age as the State may prescribe; and
       ``(ii) if the amount of aid payable to a family under the 
     State plan is reduced by reason of subparagraph (A), each 
     member of the family shall be considered to be receiving such 
     aid for purposes of eligibility for medical assistance under 
     the State plan approved under title XIX for so long as such 
     aid would otherwise not be so reduced; and
       ``(B) if the State exercises the option, the State may 
     provide the family with vouchers, in amounts not exceeding 
     the amount of any such reduction in aid, that may be used 
     only to pay for--
       ``(i) particular goods and services specified by the State 
     as suitable for the care of the child of the parent (such as 
     diapers, clothing, or cribs); and
       ``(ii) the costs associated with a maternity home, foster 
     home, or other adult-supervised supportive living arrangement 
     in which the parent and the child live.''.
       (b) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to payments under a State plan approved under 
     part A of title IV of the Social Security Act for months 
     beginning on or after January 1, 1998, and to payments to 
     States under such part for quarters beginning after such 
     date.
                         Subtitle B--State Role

     SEC. 511. TEENAGE PREGNANCY PREVENTION AND FAMILY STABILITY.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) long-term welfare dependency is increasing driven by 
     illegitimate births;
       (2) too many teens are becoming parents and too few are 
     able to responsibly care for and nurture their children;
       (3) new research has shown that spending time in a single-
     parent family puts children at substantially increased risk 
     of dropping out of high school, having a child out-of-
     wedlock, or being neither in school nor at work; and
       (4) between 1986 and 1991, the rate of births to teens aged 
     15 to 19 rose 24 percent, from 50.2 to 62.1 births per 1,000 
     females.
       (b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that--
       (1) children should be educated about the risks involved in 
     choosing parenthood at an early age;
       (2) reproductive family planning and education should be 
     made available to every potential parent so as to give such 
     parents the opportunity to avoid unintended births;
       (3) States should use funds provided under title XX of the 
     Social Security Act to provide comprehensive services to 
     youth in high risk neighborhoods, through community 
     organizations, churches, and schools; and
       (4) States should work with schools for the early 
     identification and referral of children at risk for 
     parenthood at an early age.

     SEC. 512. AVAILABILITY OF FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES.

       Section 402(a)(15)(A) (42 U.S.C. 602(a)(15)(A)) is amended 
     by striking ``out of wedlock''.
                    TITLE VI--PROGRAM SIMPLIFICATION
                Subtitle A--Increased State Flexibility

     SEC. 601. STATE OPTION TO PROVIDE AFDC THROUGH ELECTRONIC 
                   BENEFIT TRANSFER SYSTEMS.

       Section 402(a) (42 U.S.C. 602(a)), as amended by sections 
     101, 102, 211(a), 232, 301(a), 501(a), 504, and 509(a) of 
     this Act, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (52);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (53) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (53) the following:
       ``(54) at the option of the State, provide for the payment 
     of aid under the State plan through the use of electronic 
     benefit transfer systems.''.

     SEC. 602. DEADLINE FOR ACTION ON APPLICATION FOR WAIVER OF 
                   REQUIREMENT APPLICABLE TO PROGRAM OF AID TO 
                   FAMILIES WITH DEPENDENT CHILDREN.

       Section 1115 (42 U.S.C. 1315) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(e) The Secretary shall approve or deny an application 
     for a waiver under this section with respect to a requirement 
     of section 402, not later than 90 days after the Secretary 
     receives the application, unless otherwise agreed upon by the 
     Secretary and the applicant.''.
        Subtitle B--Coordination of AFDC and Food Stamp Programs

     SEC. 611. AMENDMENTS TO PART A OF TITLE IV OF THE SOCIAL 
                   SECURITY ACT.

       (a) State Option to Use Income and Eligibility Verification 
     System.--Section 1137(b) (42 U.S.C. 1320b-7(b)) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraphs (1) and (4), and redesignating 
     paragraphs (2), (3), and (5) as paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), 
     respectively; and
       (2) in paragraph (2) (as so redesignated), by adding ``or'' 
     at the end.
     [[Page H3665]]   (b) State Option To Use Retrospective 
     Budgeting Without Monthly Reporting.--Section 402(a)(13) (42 
     U.S.C. 602(a)(13)) is amended--
       (1) by striking all that precedes subparagraph (A) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(13) provide, at the option of the State and with respect 
     to such category or categories as the State may select and 
     identify in the State plan, that--''; and
       (2) in each of subparagraphs (A) and (B), by striking ``, 
     in the case of families who are required to report monthly to 
     the State agency pursuant to paragraph (14)''.
       (c) Exclusion From Income of All Income of Dependent Child 
     Who is a Student.--Section 402(a)(8)(A)(i) (42 U.S.C. 
     602(a)(8)(A)(i)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``earned''; and
       (2) by inserting ``applying for or'' before ``receiving''.
       (d) Exclusion From Income of Certain Energy Assistance 
     Payments Based on Need.--
       (1) In general.--Section 402(a)(8)(A) (42 U.S.C. 
     602(a)(8)(A)), as amended by sections 231 and 242(b)(1) of 
     this Act, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (ix); and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(xi) shall disregard any energy or utility-cost 
     assistance payment based on need, that is paid to any member 
     of the family under--
       ``(I) a State or local general assistance program; or
       ``(II) another basic assistance program comparable to 
     general assistance (as determined by the Secretary); and''.
       (2) Inclusion of energy assistance provided under the 
     liheap program.--Section 402(a)(8)(B) (42 U.S.C. 
     602(a)(8)(B)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (i); and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) shall not disregard any assistance provided 
     directly to, or indirectly for the benefit of, any person 
     described in subparagraph (A)(ii) under the Low-Income Home 
     Energy Assistance Act of 1981, notwithstanding section 
     2605(f)(1) of such Act; and''.
       (e) Applicability to AFDC of Future Income Exclusions Under 
     Food Stamp Program.--Section 402(a)(8)(A) (42 U.S.C. 
     602(a)(8)(A)), as amended by sections 231, 242(b)(1) of this 
     Act and by subsection (d)(1) of this section, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (x); and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(xii) shall disregard from the income of any child, 
     relative, or other individual described in clause (ii) 
     applying for aid under the State plan, any child, relative, 
     or other individual so described receiving such aid, or both, 
     any funds
      that a Federal statute (enacted after the date of the 
     enactment of this clause) excludes from income for 
     purposes of determining eligibility for benefits under the 
     food stamp program under the Food Stamp Act of 1977, the 
     level of benefits under the program, or both, 
     respectively.''.
       (f) Periodic Reviews.--Section 402(a) (42 U.S.C. 602(a)), 
     as amended by sections 101, 102, 211(a), 232, 301(a), 501(a), 
     504, 509(a), and 601 of this Act, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (53);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (54) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (54) the following:
       ``(55) provide that the State shall, not less frequently 
     than annually review each determination made under the State 
     plan with respect to the eligibility of each recipient of aid 
     under the State plan;''.
       (g) Exclusion From Resources of Es- sential Employment-
     Related Property.--Section 402(a)(7)(B) (42 U.S.C. 
     602(a)(7)(B)), as amended by section 242(a) of this Act, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (iv); and
       (2) by inserting ``, or (vi) the value of real and tangible 
     personal property (other than currency, commercial paper, and 
     similar property) of a family member that is essential to the 
     employment or self-employment of the member, until the 
     expiration of the 1-year period beginning on the date the 
     member ceases to be so employed or so self-employed'' before 
     the semicolon.
       (h) Exclusion From Resources of Equity in Certain Income-
     Producing Real Property.--Section 402(a)(7)(B) (42 U.S.C. 
     602(a)(7)(B)), as amended by section 242(a) of this Act and 
     by subsection (g) of this section, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (v); and
       (2) by inserting ``, or (vii) the equity of any member of 
     the family in real property to which 1 or more members of the 
     family have sole and clear title, that the State agency 
     determines is producing income consistent with the fair 
     market value of the property'' before the semicolon.
       (i) Exclusion From Resources of Life Insurance Policies.--
     Section 402(a)(7)(B) (42 U.S.C. 602(a)(7)(B)), as amended by 
     section 242(a) of this Act and by subsections (g) and (h) of 
     this section, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (vi); and
       (2) by inserting ``, or (viii) any life insurance policy'' 
     before the semicolon.
       (j) Exclusion From Resources of Real Property That the 
     Family Is Making a Good Faith Effort to Sell.--Section 
     402(a)(7)(B)(iii) (42 U.S.C. 602(a)(7)(B)(iii)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``for such period or periods of time as the 
     Secretary may prescribe''; and
       (2) by striking ``any such period'' and inserting ``any 
     period during which the family is making such an effort''.
       (k) Prompt Restoration of Benefits Wrongfully Denied.--
     Section 402(a) (42 U.S.C. 602(a)), as amended by sections 
     101, 102, 211(a), 232, 301(a), 501(a), 504, 509(a), and 601 
     of this Act and by subsection (f) of this section, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (54);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (55) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (55) the following:
       ``(56) provide that, upon receipt of a request from a 
     family for the payment of any amount of aid under the State 
     plan the payment of which to the family has been wrongfully 
     denied or terminated, the State shall promptly pay the amount 
     to the family if the wrongful denial or termination occurred 
     not more than 1 year before the date of the request or the 
     date the State agency is notified or otherwise discovers the 
     wrongful denial or termination.''.

     SEC. 612. AMENDMENTS TO THE FOOD STAMP ACT OF 1977.

       (a) Certification Period.--(1) Section 3(c) of the Food 
     Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2012(c)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(c) `Certification period' means the period specified by 
     the State agency for which households shall be eligible to 
     receive authorization cards, except that such period shall 
     be--
       ``(1) 24 months for households in which all adult members 
     are elderly or disabled; and
       ``(2) not more than 12 months for all other households.''.
       (2) Section 6(c)(1)(C) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 
     U.S.C. 2015(c)(1)(C)) is amended--
       (A) in clause (ii) by adding ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in clause (iii) by striking ``; and'' at the end and 
     inserting a period; and
       (C) by striking clause (iv).
       (b) Inclusion of Energy Assistance in Income.--
       (1) Amendments to the Food Stamp Act of 1977.--Section 5 of 
     the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2014) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (d)--
       (i) by striking paragraph (11); and
       (ii) by redesignating paragraphs (12) through (16) as 
     paragraphs (11) through (15), respectively; and
       (B) in subsection (k)--
       (i) in paragraph (1)(B) by striking ``, not including 
     energy or utility-cost assistance,''; and
       (ii) in paragraph (2)--
       (I) by striking subparagraph (C); and
       (II) by redesignating subparagraphs (D) through (H) as 
     subparagraphs (C) through (J), respectively.
       (2) Amendments to the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act 
     of 1981.--Section 2605(f) of the Low-Income Home Energy 
     Assistance Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8624(f)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1) by striking ``food stamps,''; and
       (B) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
       ``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply for any purpose under 
     the Food Stamp Act of 1977.''.
       (c) Exclusion of Certain JTPA Income.--Section 5(d) of the 
     Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2014(d)), as amended by 
     subsection (b), is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and (15)'' and inserting ``(15)''; and
       (2) by inserting before the period the following:

     ``, and (16) income received under the Job Training 
     Partnership Act by a household member who is less than 19 
     years of age''.
       (d) Exclusion of Educational Assistance From Income.--
     Section 5(d) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2014(d)) 
     is amended--
       (1) by amending paragraph (3) to read as follows: ``(3) all 
     educational loans on which payment is deferred (including any 
     loan origination fees or insurance premiums associated with 
     such loans), grants, scholarships, fellowships, veterans' 
     educational benefits, and the like awarded to a household 
     member enrolled at a recognized institution of post-secondary 
     education, at a school for the handicapped, in a vocational 
     education program, or in a program that provides for 
     completion of a secondary school diploma or obtaining the 
     equivalent thereof,''; and
       (2) in paragraph (5) by striking ``and no portion'' and all 
     that follows through ``reimbursement''.
       (e) Limitation on Additional Earned Income Deduction.--The 
     3rd sentence of section 5(e) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 
     U.S.C. 2014(e)) is amended by striking ``earned income that'' 
     and all that follows through ``report'', and inserting 
     ``determining an overissuance due to the failure of a 
     household to report earned income''.
       (f) Exclusion of Essential Employment-Related Property.--
     Section 5(g)(3) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 
     2014(g)(3)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) The value of real and tangible personal property 
     (other than currency, commercial paper, and similar property) 
     of a household member that is essential to the employment or 
     self-employment of such member shall be 
      [[Page H3666]] excluded by the Secretary from financial 
     resources until the expiration of the 1-year period beginning 
     on the date such member ceases to be so employed or so self-
     employed.''.
       (g) Exclusion of Life Insurance Policies.--Section 5(g) of 
     the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2014(g)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) The Secretary shall exclude from financial resources 
     the cash value of any life insurance policy owned by a member 
     of a household.''.
       (h) In-Tandem Exclusions From Income.--Section 5 of the 
     Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2014) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(n) Whenever a Federal statute enacted after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act excludes funds from income for 
     purposes of determining eligibility, benefit levels, or both 
     under State plans approved under part A of title IV of the 
     Social Security Act, then such funds shall be excluded from 
     income for purposes of determining eligibility, benefit 
     levels, or both, respectively, under the food stamp program 
     of households all of whose members receive benefits under a 
     State plan approved under part A of title IV of the Social 
     Security Act.''.
       (i) Application of Amendments.--The amendments made by this 
     section shall not apply with respect to certification periods 
     beginning before the effective date of this section.
                      Subtitle C--Fraud Reduction

     SEC. 631. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS IN SUPPORT OF THE EFFORTS OF 
                   THE ADMINISTRATION TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS OF 
                   FRAUD AND ABUSE IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY 
                   INCOME PROGRAM.

       The Congress hereby expresses support for the efforts of 
     the Social Security Administration to reduce fraud and abuse 
     in the supplemental security income program under title XVI 
     of the Social Security Act by implementing a structured 
     approach to disability decisionmaking that takes into 
     consideration the large number of disability claims received 
     while providing a basis for consistent, equitable 
     decisionmaking by claims adjudicators at each level, that 
     provides for the following:
       (1) A simplification of the monetary guidelines for 
     determining whether an individual (except those filing for 
     benefits based on blindness) is engaging in substantial 
     gainful activity.
       (2) The replacement of a threshold severity requirement for 
     determining whether a claimant has a medically determinable 
     impairment with a threshold inquiry as to whether the 
     claimant has a medically determinable physical or mental 
     impairment that can be demonstrated by acceptable clinical 
     and laboratory diagnostic techniques.
       (3) The comparison of an impairment referred to in 
     paragraph (2) with an index of disabling impairments that 
     contains fewer impairments, has less detail and complexity, 
     and does not rely on the concept of ``medical equivalence''.
       (4)(A) The consideration of whether an individual has the 
     ability to perform substantial gainful activity despite any 
     functional loss caused by a medically determinable physical 
     or mental impairment.
       (B) The definition of the physical and mental requirements 
     of substantial gainful activity.
       (C) The objective measurement, to the extent possible, of 
     whether an individual meets such requirements.
       (D) The development, with the assistance of the medical 
     community and other outside experts from disability programs, 
     of standardized criteria which can be used to measure an 
     individual's functional ability.
       (E) The assumption by the Social Security Administration of 
     primary responsibility for documenting functional ability 
     using the standardized measurement criteria, with the goal of 
     developing functional assessment instruments that are 
     standardized, accurately measure an individual's functional 
     abilities, and are universally accepted by the public, the 
     advocacy community, and health care professionals.
       (F) The use of the results of the standardized functional 
     measurement with a new standard to describe basic physical 
     and mental demands of a baseline of work that represents 
     substantial gainful activity and that exists in significant 
     numbers in the national economy.
       (5)(A) An evaluation of whether a child is engaging in 
     substantial gainful activity, whether a child has a medically 
     determinable physical or mental impairment that will meet the 
     duration requirement, and whether a child has an impairment 
     that meets the criteria in the index of disabling 
     impairments.
       (B) The development, with the assistance of the medical 
     community and educational experts, of standardized criteria 
     which can be used to measure a child's functional ability to 
     perform a baseline of functions that are comparable to the 
     baseline of occupational demands for an adult.
       (C) The conduct of research to specifically identify a 
     skill acquisition threshold to measure broad areas required 
     to develop the ability to perform substantial gainful 
     activity.

     SEC. 632. STUDY ON FEASIBILITY OF SINGLE TAMPER-PROOF 
                   IDENTIFICATION CARD TO SERVE PROGRAMS UNDER 
                   BOTH THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT AND HEALTH REFORM 
                   LEGISLATION.

       (a) Study.--As soon as practicable after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of Social Security 
     shall conduct a study of the feasibility of issuing, in 
     counterfeit-resistant form, a single identification card 
     which would combine the features of the social security card 
     now issued pursuant to section 205 of the Social Security Act 
     and any health security card which may be provided for in 
     health reform legislation enacted in the 104th Congress. In 
     such study, the Commissioner shall devote particular 
     consideration to--
       (1) employment in such card of finger-print identification, 
     bar code validation, a photograph, a hologram, or any other 
     identifiable feature,
       (2) the efficiencies and economies which may be achieved by 
     combining the features of the social security card as 
     currently issued and the features of any health security card 
     which might be issued under health reform legislation, and
       (3) any costs and risks which might result from combining 
     such features in a single identification card and possible 
     means of alleviating any such costs and risks.
       (b) Report.--The Commissioner of Social Security shall, not 
     later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, transmit a report to each House of the Congress setting 
     forth the Commissioner's findings from the study conducted 
     pursuant to subsection (a). Such report may include such 
     recommendations for administrative or legislative changes as 
     the Commissioner considers appropriate.
                   Subtitle D--Additional Provisions

     SEC. 641. STATE OPTIONS REGARDING UNEMPLOYED PARENT PROGRAM.

       (a) Duration of Unemployment and Recency-of-Work Tests.--
     Section 407(b)(1)(A) (42 U.S.C. 607(b)(1)(A)), as amended by 
     section 507 of this Act, is amended--
       (1) by striking the matter preceding clause (i) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(A) subject to paragraph (2), shall provide for the 
     payment of aid to families with dependent children with 
     respect to a dependent child within the meaning of subsection 
     (a)--''.
       (2) in clause (i), by striking ``whichever'' and inserting 
     ``when, if the State chooses to so require (and specifies in 
     its State plan), whichever'';
       (3) in clause (ii), by inserting ``when'' before such 
     parent; and
       (4) in clause (iii), by inserting ``when, if the State 
     chooses to so require (and so specifies in its State plan)'' 
     after ``(iii)''.
       (b) State Option To Expand Program.--Section 407(a) (42 
     U.S.C. 607(a)) is amended by inserting ``or the unemployment 
     (as defined (if at all) by the State in the State plan 
     approved under section 402)'' before ``of the parent''.
       (c) Effective Date.--Subsection (b) and the amendments made 
     by subsection (a) shall become effective October 1, 1996.

     SEC. 642. DEFINITION OF ESSENTIAL PERSON.

       (a) General Requirement.--Section 402 (42 U.S.C. 602), as 
     amended by section 222(a)(1)(A) of this Act, is amended by 
     inserting after subsection (f) the following:
       ``(g) In order that the State may include the needs of an 
     individual in determining the needs of the dependent child 
     and relative with whom the child is living, such individual 
     must be living in the same home as such child and relative, 
     and--
       ``(1) furnishing personal services required because of the 
     relative's physical or mental inability to provide care 
     necessary for herself or himself or for the dependent child 
     (which, for purposes of this subsection only, includes a 
     child receiving supplemental security income benefits under 
     title XVI); or
       ``(2) furnishing child care services, or care for an 
     incapacitated member of the family, that is necessary to 
     permit the caretaker relative--
       ``(A) to engage in full or part-time employment outside the 
     home, or
       ``(B) to attend a course of education designed to lead to a 
     high school diploma (or its equivalent) or a course of 
     training on a full or part-time basis, or to participate in 
     the program under part G on a full or part-time basis.''.

     SEC. 643. ``FILL-THE-GAP'' BUDGETING.

       (a) In General.--Section 402(a)(8)(A) (42 U.S.C. 
     602(a)(8)(A)), as amended by sections 231, 242(b)(1), and 
     611(d)(1) of this Act, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (xi); and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(xiii) in addition to any other amounts required or 
     permitted by this paragraph to be disregarded in a month, may 
     exempt countable income identified in the State plan by type 
     or source and by amount, but in an amount not exceeding the 
     difference between the State's standard of need applicable to 
     the family and the amount from which all remaining nonexempt 
     income is subtracted to determine the amount of aid payable 
     under the State plan to a family of the same size with no 
     other income;''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on October 1, 1997.

     SEC. 644. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT TO MAKE CERTAIN SUPPLEMENTAL 
                   PAYMENTS IN STATES PAYING LESS THAN THEIR NEEDS 
                   STANDARDS.

       Section 402(a)(28) (42 U.S.C. 602(a)(28)) is hereby 
     repealed.
     [[Page H3667]] SEC. 645. COLLECTION OF AFDC OVERPAYMENTS FROM 
                   FEDERAL TAX REFUNDS.

       (a) Authority To Intercept Tax Refund.--(1) Part A of title 
     IV (42 U.S.C. 601-617) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
         ``collection of overpayments from federal tax refunds

       ``Sec. 418. (a) Upon receiving notice from a State agency 
     administering a plan approved under this part that a named 
     individual has been overpaid under the State plan approved 
     under this part, the Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     determine whether any amounts as refunds of Federal taxes 
     paid are payable to such individual, regardless of whether 
     such individual filed a tax return as a married or unmarried 
     individual. If the Secretary of the Treasury finds that any 
     such amount is payable, he shall withhold from such refunds 
     an amount equal to the overpayment sought to be collected by 
     the State and pay such amount to the State agency.
       ``(b) The Secretary of the Treasury shall issue 
     regulations, approved by the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services, that provide--
       ``(1) that a State may only submit under subsection (a) 
     requests for collection of overpayments with respect to 
     individuals (A) who are no longer receiving aid under the 
     State plan approved under this part, (B) with respect to whom 
     the State has already taken appropriate action under State 
     law against the income or resources of the individuals or 
     families involved as required under section 402(a)(22) (B), 
     and (C) to whom the State agency has given notice of its 
     intent to request withholding by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury from their income tax refunds;
       ``(2) that the Secretary of the Treasury will give a timely 
     and appropriate notice to any other person filing a joint 
     return with the individual whose refund is subject to 
     withholding under subsection (a); and
       ``(3) the procedures that the State and the Secretary of 
     the Treasury will follow in carrying out this section which, 
     to the maximum extent feasible and consistent with the 
     specific provisions of this section, will be the same as 
     those issued pursuant to section 464(b) applicable to 
     collection of past-due child support.''.
       (2) Section 6402 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as 
     amended by section 443(a) of this Act) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking ``(c) and (d)'' and 
     inserting ``(c), (d), and (e)'';
       (B) by redesignating subsections (e) through (i) as 
     subsections (f) through (j), respectively; and
       (C) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
       ``(g) Collection of Overpayments Under Title IV-A of the 
     Social Security Act.--The amount of any overpayment to be 
     refunded to the person making the overpayment shall be 
     reduced (after reductions pursuant to subsections (c) and 
     (d), but before a credit against future liability for an 
     internal revenue tax) in accordance with section 418 of the 
     Social Security Act (concerning recovery of overpayments to 
     individuals under State plans approved under part A of title 
     IV of such Act).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 552a(a)(8)(B)(iv)(III) 
     of title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``section 464 or 1137 of the Social Security Act'' and 
     inserting ``section 419, 464, or 1137 of the Social Security 
     Act.''

     SEC. 646. TERRITORIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 1108(a) (42 U.S.C. 1308(a)) is 
     amended by striking paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(1) for payment to Puerto Rico shall not exceed--
       ``(A) $82,000,000 with respect to fiscal years 1994, 1995, 
     and 1996, and
       ``(B) $102,500,000 or, if greater, such amount adjusted by 
     the CPI (as prescribed in subsection (f)) for fiscal year 
     1997 and each fiscal year thereafter;
       ``(2) for payment to the Virgin Islands shall not exceed--
       ``(A) $2,800,000 with respect to fiscal years 1994, 1995, 
     and 1996, and
       ``(B) $3,500,000 or, if greater, such amount adjusted by 
     the CPI (as prescribed in subsection (f)) for fiscal year 
     1997 and each fiscal year thereafter; and
       ``(3) for payment to Guam shall not exceed--
       ``(A) $3,800,000 with respect to fiscal year 1994, 1995, 
     and 1996, and
       ``(B) $4,750,000 or, if greater, such amount adjusted by 
     the CPI (as prescribed in subsection (f)), for fiscal year 
     1997 and each fiscal year thereafter.''.
       (b) CPI Adjustment.--Section 1108 (42 U.S.C. 1308) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) For purposes of subsection (a), an amount is 
     `adjusted by the CPI' for months in calendar year by 
     multiplying that amount by the ratio of the Consumer Price 
     Index as prepared by the Department of Labor for--
       ``(1) the third quarter of the preceding calendar year, to
       ``(2) the third quarter of calendar year 1996, and rounding 
     the product, if not a multiple of $10,000, to the nearer 
     multiple of $10,000.''.

     SEC. 647. DISREGARD OF STUDENT INCOME.

       (a) In General.--Section 402(a)(8)(A)(i) (42 U.S.C. 
     602(a)(8)(A)(i)) is amended by striking ``dependent child'' 
     and all that follows and inserting ``individual who has not 
     attained 19 years of age and is an elementary or secondary 
     school student''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 402(a) (42 U.S.C. 
     602(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (8)(A)(vii)--
       (A) by striking ``a dependent child who is a full-time 
     student'' and inserting ``an individual who has not attained 
     19 years of age and is an elementary or secondary school 
     student''; and
       (B) by striking ``such child'' and inserting ``such 
     individual''; and
       (2) in paragraph (18), by striking ``of a dependent child'' 
     and inserting ``of an individual under age 19''.
     SEC. 648. LUMP-SUM INCOME.

       Section 402(a)(8)(A) (42 U.S.C. 602(a)(8)(A)), as amended 
     by sections 231, 242(b)(1), 611(d)(1), and 643(a) of this 
     Act, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (xii); and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(xiv) shall disregard from the income of any family 
     member any amounts of income received in the form of 
     nonrecurring lump-sum payments other than payments made 
     pursuant to an order for child or spousal support being 
     enforced by the agency administering the State plan approved 
     under part D;''.
            TITLE VII--CHILD PROTECTION BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM

     SEC. 701. ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAMS.

       Part B of title IV (42 U.S.C. 620-635) is amended to read 
     as follows:

              PART B--CHILD PROTECTION BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM

     ``SEC. 420. PURPOSES; AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``The purpose of this part is to enable States to carry out 
     a program of child welfare and child protection services 
     which includes--
       ``(1) child protection services for children who are, or 
     are suspected of being or at risk of becoming, victims of 
     abuse or neglect;
       ``(2) preventive services and activities, including 
     community-based family support services, designed to 
     strengthen and preserve families and to prevent child abuse 
     and neglect; and
       ``(3) permanency planning services and activities to 
     achieve planned, permanent living arrangements (including 
     family reunification, adoption, and independent living) for 
     children who have been removed from their families.

     ``SEC. 421. STATE PLANS.

       ``(a) In General.--In order to be eligible for payment 
     under this part, a State must have an approved plan 
     (developed jointly by the Secretary and the State agency, 
     after consultation with persons and entities specified in 
     subsection (b)) for the provision of services to children and 
     families which meet the requirements of subsection (c).
       ``(b) Consultation With Appropriate Entities.--A State, in 
     developing its plan for approval under this part, shall 
     consult with concerned persons and entities, including--
       ``(1) public and nonprofit private agencies and community-
     based organizations with experience in administering programs 
     of child welfare services for children and families; and
       ``(2) representatives of and advocates for children and 
     families.
       ``(c) State Plan Requirements.--A State plan under this 
     part shall--
       ``(1) describe the services and activities to be performed, 
     and the service delivery mechanisms (including service 
     providers and statewide distribution of services) to be used, 
     to provide--
       ``(A) child protection services described in section 420(1) 
     (including such services provided under this part and part 
     E);
       ``(B) preventive services described in section 420(2) (and 
     shall provide for delivery of such services through a 
     statewide network of local nonprofit community-based family 
     support programs, in collaboration with existing health, 
     mental health, education, employment, training, child 
     welfare, and other social services agencies); and
       ``(C) permanency planning services described in section 
     420(3) (including family reunification, adoption, and 
     independent living);
       ``(2)(A)(i) declare the State's goals for accomplishments 
     under the plan is in operation in the State, and (ii) be 
     updated periodically to declare the State's goals for 
     accomplishments under the plan by the end of each fifth 
     fiscal year thereafter;
       ``(B) describe the methods to be used in measuring progress 
     toward accomplishment of the goals; and
       ``(C) contain a commitment that the State--
       ``(i) will perform an interim review of its progress toward 
     accomplishment of the goals after the end of each of the 
     first 4 fiscal years covered by the goals, and on the basis 
     of such interim review will revise the statement of goals in 
     the plan, if necessary, to reflect changed circumstances or 
     other relevant factors; and
       ``(ii) will perform, after the end of the last fiscal year 
     covered by the goals, a final review of its progress toward 
     accomplishment of the goals and prepare a report to the 
     Secretary on the basis of such final review;
       ``(3) provide assurances that reasonable amounts will be 
     expended under this part to carry out each of the purposes 
     specified in paragraphs (1) through (3) of section 420; and
       ``(4) provide assurances that the State has in effect a 
     program of foster care safeguards meeting the requirements of 
     section 425.
       ``(d) Secretarial Approval.--The Secretary shall approve a 
     State plan that meets the requirements of this section.
     [[Page H3668]] ``SEC. 422. RESERVATIONS; ALLOTMENTS TO 
                   STATES.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall allot the amount 
     specified in subsection (b) for each fiscal year in 
     accordance with subsections (c) through (f).
       ``(b) Federal Funding.--The amount specified for purposes 
     of this section shall be--
       ``(1) $653,000,000 for fiscal year 1996;
       ``(1) $682,000,000 for fiscal year 1997;
       ``(1) $713,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
       ``(1) $737,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
       ``(1) $763,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.
       ``(c) Projects of National Significance.--Two percent of 
     the amount specified under subsection (b) for each fiscal 
     year shall be reserved for expenditure by the Secretary for 
     projects of national significance related to the purposes of 
     this part.
       ``(d) Training and Technical Assistance.--Two percent of 
     the amount specified under subsection (b) for each fiscal 
     year shall be reserved for expenditure by the Secretary for 
     training and technical assistance to State and local public 
     and nonprofit private entities related to the program under 
     this part.
       ``(e) Indian Tribes.--One percent of the amount specified 
     under subsection (b) for each fiscal year shall be reserved 
     for allotment to Indian tribes in accordance with section 
     424.
       ``(f) States.--From the balance of the amount specified for 
     each fiscal year under subsection (b) remaining after the 
     application of subsections (c), (d), and (e), the Secretary 
     shall allot to each State an amount which bears the same 
     ratio to the amount specified as the total amount that would 
     have been allotted to the State for such fiscal year under 
     this part, as in effect on September 30, 1995, bears to the 
     total amount that would have been so allotted to all States 
     for such fiscal year.

     ``SEC. 423. PAYMENTS TO STATES.

       ``(a) Entitlement to Payment; Federal Share of Costs.--Each 
     State which has a plan approved under this part shall be 
     entitled to payment, equal to its allotment under section 422 
     for a fiscal year, for use in payment by the State of 75 
     percent of the costs of activities under the State plan 
     during such fiscal year. The remaining 25 percent of such 
     costs shall be paid by the State with funds from non-Federal 
     sources.
       ``(b) Payment Installments.--The Secretary shall make 
     payments in accordance with section 6503 of title 31, United 
     States Code, to each State from its allotment for use under 
     this part.

     ``SEC. 424. PAYMENTS TO INDIAN TRIBES.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall make payments under 
     this part for a fiscal year directly to the tribal 
     organization of an Indian tribe with a plan approved under 
     this part, except that such plan need not meet any 
     requirement under such section that the Secretary determines 
     is inappropriate with respect to such Indian tribe.
       ``(b) Allotment.--From the amount reserved pursuant to 
     section 422(e) for any fiscal year, the Secretary shall allot 
     to each Indian tribe meeting the conditions specified in 
     subsection (a), an amount bearing the same ratio to such 
     reserved amount as the number of children in all Indian 
     tribes with State plans so approved, as determined by the 
     Secretary on the basis of the most current and reliable 
     information available to the Secretary.

     ``SEC. 425. FOSTER CARE PROTECTION.

       ``In order to meet the requirements of this section, for 
     purposes of section 421(c)(4), a State shall--
       ``(1) since June 17, 1980, have completed an inventory of 
     all children who, before the inventory, had been in foster 
     care under the responsibility of the State for 6 months or 
     more, which determined--
       ``(A) the appropriateness of, and necessity for, the foster 
     care placement;
       ``(B) whether the child could or should be returned to the 
     parents of the child or should be freed for adoption or other 
     permanent placement; and
       ``(C) the services necessary to facilitate the return of 
     the child or the placement of the child for adoption or legal 
     guardianship;
       ``(2) be operating, to the satisfaction of the Secretary--
       ``(A) a statewide information system from which can be 
     readily determined the status, demographic characteristics, 
     location, and goals for the placement of every child who is 
     (or, within the immediately preceding 12 months, has been) in 
     foster care;
       ``(B) a case review system (as defined in section 475(5)) 
     for each child receiving foster care under the supervision of 
     the State;
       ``(C) a service program designed to help children--
       ``(i) where appropriate, return to families from which they 
     have been removed; or
       ``(ii) be placed for adoption, with a legal guardian, or, 
     if adoption or legal guardianship is determined not to be 
     appropriate for a child, in some other planned, permanent 
     living arrangement; and
       ``(D) a replacement preventive services program designed to 
     help children at risk of foster care placement remain with 
     their families; and
       ``(3)(A) have reviewed (or by October 31, 1995 will have 
     reviewed) State policies and administrative and judicial 
     procedures in effect for children abandoned at or shortly 
     after birth (including policies and procedures providing for 
     legal representation of such children); and
       ``(B) be implementing (or by October 31, 1996, will be 
     implementing) such policies and procedures as the State 
     determines, on the basis of the review described in clause 
     (i), to be necessary to enable permanent decisions to be made 
     expeditiously with respect to the placement of such children.
     SEC. 702. REPEALS AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Abandoned Infants Assistance.--
       (1) Repeal.--The Abandoned Infants Assistance Act of 1988 
     (42 U.S.C. 670 note) is repealed.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 421(7) of the Domestic 
     Violence Service Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 5061(7)) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(7) the term `boarder baby' means an infant who is 
     medically cleared for discharge from an acute-care hospital 
     setting, but remains hospitalized because of a lack of 
     appropriate out-of-hospital placement alternatives.''.
       (b) Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment.--
       (1) Repeal.--The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.) is repealed.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--The Victims of Crime Act of 
     1984 (42 U.S.C. 10601 et seq.) is amended by striking section 
     1404A.
       (c) Adoption Opportunities.--The Child Abuse Prevention and 
     Treatment and Adoption Reform Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 5111 et 
     seq.) is repealed.
       (d) Family Support Centers.--Subtitle F of title VII of the 
     Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11481-
     11489) is repealed.
       (e) Foster Care.--Section 472(d) (42 U.S.C. 672(d)) is 
     amended by striking ``422(b)(9)'' and inserting ``425''.

     SEC. 703. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments and repeals made by this title shall take 
     effect on October 1, 1995, and shall apply with respect to 
     activities under State programs on and after that date.
                         TITLE VIII--SSI REFORM
            Subtitle A--Eligibility of Children for Benefits

     SEC. 801. RESTRICTIONS ON ELIGIBILITY.

       (a) In General.--Section 1614(a)(3)(A) (42 U.S.C. 
     1382c(a)(3)(A)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(i)'' after ``(3)(A)'';
       (2) by inserting ``who has attained 18 years of age'' 
     before ``shall be considered'';
       (3) by striking ``he'' and inserting ``the individual'';
       (4) by striking ``(or, in the case of an individual under 
     the age of 18, if he suffers from any medically determinable 
     physical or mental impairment of comparable severity)''; and
       (5) by adding after and below the end the following:
       ``(ii) An individual who has not attained 18 years of age 
     shall be considered to be disabled for purposes of this title 
     for a month if the individual has any medically determinable 
     physical or mental impairment (or combination of impairments) 
     that meets the requirements, applicable to individuals who 
     have not attained 18 years of age, of the Listings of 
     Impairments set forth in appendix 1 of subpart P of part 404 
     of title 20, Code of Federal Regulations, or the individual 
     has a combination of impairments the effect of which should 
     be considered disabling for purposes of this title. In 
     applying this clause, such Listings shall not include 
     maladaptive behavior or psychoactive substance dependence 
     disorder (as specified in the appendix setting forth such 
     Listings).''.
       (b) Transition to New Eligibility Criteria.--Within 3 
     months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Commissioner of Social Security shall establish a functional 
     equivalency standard separate from the Listing of Impairments 
     (set forth in appendix 1 of subpart P of part 404 of title 
     20, Code of Federal Regulations (revised as of April 1, 
     1994)) under which a child with a combination of impairments 
     should be considered disabled for purposes of the 
     supplemental security income program under title XVI of the 
     Social Security Act. Within 10 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Commissioner shall review the case 
     of each individual who, immediately before such date of 
     enactment, qualified for benefits under such program by 
     reason of an individualized functional assessment in order to 
     determine eligibility under such Listings and the criteria 
     established under such standard.

     SEC. 802. CONTINUING DISABILITY REVIEWS FOR CERTAIN CHILDREN.

       Section 1614(a)(3)(G) (42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3)(G)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(i)'' after ``(G)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(ii)(I) Not less frequently than once every 3 years, the 
     Commissioner shall redetermine the eligibility for benefits 
     under this title of each individual who has not attained 18 
     years of age and is eligible for such benefits by reason of 
     disability.
       ``(II) Subclause (I) shall not apply to an individual if 
     the individual has an impairment (or combination of 
     impairments) which is (or are) not expected to improve.
       ``(III) Subject to recommendations made by the 
     Commissioner, parents or guardians of recipients whose cases 
     are reviewed under this clause shall present, at the time of 
     review, evidence demonstrating that funds provided under this 
     title have been used to assist the recipient in improving the 
     condition which was the basis for providing benefits under 
     this title.''.
     [[Page H3669]] SEC. 803. DISABILITY REVIEW REQUIRED FOR SSI 
                   RECIPIENTS WHO ARE 18 YEARS OF AGE.

       (a) In General.--Section 1614(a)(3)(G) (42 U.S.C. 
     1382c(a)(3)(G)), as amended by section 802 of this subtitle, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii)(I) The Commissioner shall redetermine the 
     eligibility of a qualified individual for supplemental 
     security income benefits under this title by reason of 
     disability, by applying the criteria used in determining 
     eligibility for such benefits of applicants who have attained 
     18 years of age.
       ``(II) The redetermination required by subclause (I) with 
     respect to a qualified individual shall be conducted during 
     the 1-year period that begins on the date the qualified 
     individual attains 18 years of age.
       ``(III) As used in this clause, the term `qualified 
     individual' means an individual who attains 18 years of age 
     and is a recipient of benefits under this title by reason of 
     disability.
       ``(IV) A redetermination under subclause (I) of this clause 
     shall be considered a substitute for a review required under 
     any other provision of this subparagraph.''.
       (b) Report to the Congress.--Not later than October 1, 
     1998, the Commissioner of Social Security shall submit to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives 
     and the Committee on Finance of the Senate a report on the 
     activities conducted under section 1614(a)(3)(G)(iii) of the 
     Social Security Act.
       (c) Conforming Repeal.--Section 207 of the Social Security 
     Independence and Program Improvements Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 
     1382 note; 108 Stat. 1516) is hereby repealed.

     SEC. 804. APPLICABILITY.

       (a) New Eligibility Standards and Disability Reviews for 
     Children.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amendments made by sections 801 and 802 shall apply to 
     benefits for months beginning more than 9 months after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, without regard to whether 
     regulations have been issued to implement such amendments.
       (2) Transitional rule.--
       (A) In general.--For months beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act and before the first month to which the 
     amendments made by section 801 apply under paragraph (1) and 
     subject to subparagraph (B), no individual who has not 
     attained 18 years of age shall be considered to be disabled 
     for purposes of the supplemental security income program 
     under title XVI of the Social Security Act solely on the 
     basis of maladaptive behavior or psychoactive substance 
     dependence disorder.
       (B) Exception for current beneficiaries.--Subparagraph (A) 
     shall not apply in the case of an individual who is a 
     recipient of supplemental security income benefits under such 
     title for the month in which this Act becomes law.
       (b) Disability Reviews for 18-Year Old Recipients.--The 
     amendments made by section 803 shall apply to benefits for 
     months beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.
  Subtitle B--Denial of SSI Benefits by Reason of Disability to Drug 
                         Addicts and Alcoholics

     SEC. 811. DENIAL OF SSI BENEFITS BY REASON OF DISABILITY TO 
                   DRUG ADDICTS AND ALCOHOLICS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1614(a)(3) (42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3)) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(I) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), an individual shall 
     not be considered to be disabled for purposes of this title 
     if alcoholism or drug addiction would (but for this 
     subparagraph) be a contributing factor material to the 
     Commissioner's determination that the individual is 
     disabled.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 1611(e) (42 U.S.C. 1382(e)) is amended by 
     striking paragraph (3).
       (2) Section 1631(a)(2)(A)(ii) (42 U.S.C. 1383(a)(2)(A)(ii)) 
     is amended--
       (A) by striking ``(I)''; and
       (B) by striking subclause (II).
       (3) Section 1631(a)(2)(B) (42 U.S.C. 1383(a)(2)(B)) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking clause (vii);
       (B) in clause (viii), by striking ``(ix)'' and inserting 
     ``(viii)'';
       (C) in clause (ix)--
       (i) by striking ``(viii)'' and inserting ``(vii)''; and
       (ii) in subclause (II), by striking all that follows ``15 
     years'' and inserting a period;
       (D) in clause (xiii)--
       (i) by striking ``(xii)'' and inserting ``(xi)''; and
       (ii) by striking ``(xi)'' and inserting ``(x)''; and
       (E) by redesignating clauses (viii) through (xiii) as 
     clauses (vii) through (xii), respectively.
       (4) Section 1631(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (42 U.S.C. 
     1383(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)) is amended by striking all that follows 
     ``$25.00 per month'' and inserting a period.
       (5) Section 1634 (42 U.S.C. 1383c) is amended by striking 
     subsection (e).
       (6) Section 201(c)(1) of the Social Security Independence 
     and Program Improvements Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 425 note) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``--'' and all that follows through ``(A)'' 
     the 1st place such term appears;
       (B) by striking ``and'' the 3rd place such term appears;
       (C) by striking subparagraph (B);
       (D) by striking ``either subparagraph (A) or subparagraph 
     (B)'' and inserting ``the preceding sentence''; and
       (E) by striking ``subparagraph (A) or (B)'' and inserting 
     ``the preceding sentence''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 1995, and shall apply with 
     respect to months beginning on or after such date.
       (d) Funding of Certain Programs for Drug Addicts and 
     Alcoholics.--Out of any money in the Treasury of the United 
     States not otherwise appropriated, the Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall pay to the Director of the National Institute 
     on Drug Abuse--
       (1) $95,000,000, for each of fiscal years 1997, 1998, 1999, 
     and 2000, for expenditure through the Federal Capacity 
     Expansion Program to expand the availability of drug 
     treatment; and
       (2) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1997, 1998, 1999, 
     and 2000 to be expended solely on the medication development 
     project to improve drug abuse and drug treatment research.
                          TITLE IX--FINANCING
                    Subtitle A--Treatment of Aliens

     SEC. 901. EXTENSION OF DEEMING OF INCOME AND RESOURCES UNDER 
                   AFDC, SSI, AND FOOD STAMP PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsections (b) and 
     (c), in applying sections 415 and 1621 of the Social Security 
     Act and section 5(i) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977, the 
     period in which each respective section otherwise applies 
     with respect to an alien shall be extended through the date 
     (if any) on which the alien becomes a citizen of the United 
     States (under chapter 2 of title III of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act).
       (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to an alien 
     if--
       (1) the alien has been lawfully admitted to the United 
     States for permanent residence, has attained 75 years of age, 
     and has resided in the United States for at least 5 years;
       (2) the alien--
       (A) is a veteran (as defined in section 101 of title 38, 
     United States Code) with a discharge characterized as an 
     honorable discharge,
       (B) is on active duty (other than active duty for training) 
     in the Armed Forces of the United States, or
       (C) is the spouse or unmarried dependent child of an 
     individual described in subparagraph (A) or (B);
       (3) the alien is the subject of domestic violence by the 
     alien's spouse and a divorce between the alien and the 
     alien's spouse has been initiated through the filing of an 
     appropriate action in an appropriate court; or
       (4) there has been paid with respect to the self-employment 
     income or employment of the alien, or of a parent or spouse 
     of the alien, taxes under chapter 2 or chapter 21 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in each of 20 different 
     calendar quarters.
       (c) Hold Harmless for Medicaid Eligibility.--Subsection (a) 
     shall not apply with respect to determinations of eligibility 
     for benefits under part A of title IV of the Social Security 
     Act or under the supplemental income security program under 
     title XVI of such Act but only insofar as such determinations 
     provide for eligibility for medical assistance under title 
     XIX of such Act.
       (d) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on 
     October 1, 1995.

     SEC. 902. REQUIREMENTS FOR SPONSOR'S AFFIDAVITS OF SUPPORT.

       (a) In General.--Title II of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act is amended by inserting after section 213 the 
     following new section:


           ``requirements for sponsor's affidavit of support

       ``Sec. 213A. (a) Enforceability.--
       ``(1) In general.--No affidavit of support may be accepted 
     by the Attorney General or by any consular officer to 
     establish that an alien is not excludable under section 
     212(a)(4) unless such affidavit is executed as a contract--
       ``(A) which is legally enforceable against the sponsor by 
     the Federal Government, by a State, or by any political 
     subdivision of a State, providing cash benefits under a 
     public cash assistance program (as defined in subsection 
     (f)(2)), but not later than 5 years after the date the alien 
     last receives any such cash benefit; and
       ``(B) in which the sponsor agrees to submit to the 
     jurisdiction of any Federal or State court for the purpose of 
     actions brought under subsection (e)(2).
       ``(2) Expiration of liability.--Such contract shall only 
     apply with respect to cash benefits described in paragraph 
     (1)(A) provided to an alien before the earliest of the 
     following:
       ``(A) Citizenship.--The date the alien becomes a citizen of 
     the United States under chapter 2 of title III.
       ``(B) Veteran.--The first date the alien is described in 
     section 901(b)(2)(A).
       ``(C) Payment of social security taxes.--The first date as 
     of which the condition described in section 901(b)(4) is met 
     with respect to the alien.
       ``(3) Nonapplication during certain periods.--Such contract 
     also shall not apply with respect to cash benefits described 
     in paragraph (1)(A) provided during any period in which the 
     alien is described in section 901(b)(2)(B) or 901(b)(2)(C).
       ``(b) Forms.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Attorney General, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services, shall formulate 
      [[Page H3670]] an affidavit of support consistent with the 
     provisions of this section.
       ``(c) Notification of Change of Address.--
       ``(1) Requirement.--The sponsor shall notify the Federal 
     Government and the State in which the sponsored alien is 
     currently resident within 30 days of any change of address of 
     the sponsor during the period specified in subsection 
     (a)(1)(A).
       ``(2) Enforcement.--Any person subject to the requirement 
     of paragraph (1) who fails to satisfy such requirement shall 
     be subject to a civil penalty of--
       ``(A) not less than $250 or more than $2,000, or
       ``(B) if such failure occurs with knowledge that the 
     sponsored alien has received any benefit under any means-
     tested public benefits program, not less than $2,000 or more 
     than $5,000.
       ``(d) Reimbursement of Government Expenses.--
       ``(1) Request for reimbursement.--
       ``(A) In general.--Upon notification that a sponsored alien 
     has received any cash benefits described in subsection 
     (a)(1)(A), the appropriate Federal, State, or local official 
     shall request reimbursement by the sponsor in the amount of 
     such cash benefits.
       ``(B) Regulations.--The Attorney General, in consultation 
     with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, shall 
     prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out 
     subparagraph (A).
       ``(2) Initiation of action.--If within 45 days after 
     requesting reimbursement, the appropriate Federal, State, or 
     local agency has not received a response from the sponsor 
     indicating a willingness to commence payments, an action may 
     be brought against the sponsor pursuant to the affidavit of 
     support.
       ``(3) Failure to abide by repayment terms.--If the sponsor 
     fails to abide by the repayment terms established by such 
     agency, the agency may, within 60 days of such failure, bring 
     an action against the sponsor pursuant to the affidavit of 
     support.
       ``(4) Limitation on actions.--No cause of action may be 
     brought under this subsection later than 5 years after the 
     date the alien last received any cash benefit described in 
     subsection (a)(1)(A).
       ``(f) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section:
       ``(1) Sponsor.--The term `sponsor' means an individual 
     who--
       ``(A) is a citizen or national of the United States or an 
     alien who is lawfully admitted to the United States for 
     permanent residence;
       ``(B) is 18 years of age or over; and
       ``(C) is domiciled in any State.
       ``(2) Public cash assistance program.--The term `public 
     cash assistance program' means a program of the Federal 
     Government or of a State or political subdivision of a State 
     that provides direct cash assistance for the purpose of 
     income maintenance and in which the eligibility of an 
     individual, household, or family eligibility unit for cash 
     benefits under the program, or the amount of such cash 
     benefits, or both are determined on the basis of income, 
     resources, or financial need of the individual, household, or 
     unit. Such term does not include any program insofar as it 
     provides medical, housing, education, job training, food, or 
     in-kind assistance or social services.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents of such Act 
     is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 
     213 the following:

``Sec. 213A. Requirements for sponsor's affidavit of support.''.

       (c) Effective Date.--Subsection (a) of section 213A of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act, as inserted by subsection 
     (a) of this section, shall apply to affidavits of support 
     executed on or after a date specified by the Attorney 
     General, which date shall be not earlier than 60 days (and 
     not later than 90 days) after the date the Attorney General 
     formulates the form for such affidavits under subsection (b) 
     of such section 213A.
     SEC. 903. EXTENDING REQUIREMENT FOR AFFIDAVITS OF SUPPORT TO 
                   FAMILY-RELATED AND DIVERSITY IMMIGRANTS.

       (A) In General.--Section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(4) Public charge and affidavits of support.--
       ``(A) Public charge.--Any alien who, in the opinion of the 
     consular officer at the time of application for a visa, or in 
     the opinion of the Attorney General at the time of 
     application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely 
     at any time to become a public charge is excludable.
       ``(B) Affidavits of support.--Any immigrant who seeks 
     admission or adjustment of status as any of the following is 
     excludable unless there has been executed with respect to the 
     immigrant an affidavit of support pursuant to section 213A:
       ``(i) As an immediate relative (under section 201(b)(2)).
       ``(ii) As a family-sponsored immigrant under section 203(a) 
     (or as the spouse or child under section 203(d) of such an 
     immigrant).
       ``(iii) As the spouse or child (under section 203(d)) of an 
     employment-based immigrant under section 203(b).
       ``(iv) As a diversity immigrant under section 203(c) (or as 
     the spouse or child under section 203(d) of such an 
     immigrant).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to aliens with respect to whom an immigrant visa 
     is issued (or adjustment of status is granted) after the date 
     specified by the Attorney General under section 902(c).
      Subtitle B--Limitation on Emergency Assistance Expenditures

     SEC. 911. LIMITATION ON EXPENDITURES FOR EMERGENCY 
                   ASSISTANCE.

       (a) In General.--Section 403(a)(5) (42 U.S.C. 602(a)(5)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(5) in the case of any State, an amount equal to the 
     lesser of--
       ``(A) 50 percent of the total amount expended under the 
     State plan during such quarter as emergency assistance to 
     needy families with children; or
       ``(B) the greater of--
       ``(i) the total amount expended under the State plan during 
     the fiscal year that immediately precedes the fiscal year in 
     which the quarter occurs; multiplied by

       ``(I) 4 percent, if the national unemployment rate for the 
     United States (as determined by the Secretary of Labor) for 
     the 3rd or 4th quarter of the immediately preceding fiscal 
     year is at least 7 percent; or
       ``(II) 3 percent, otherwise; or

       ``(ii) the total amount expended under the State plan 
     during fiscal year 1995 as emergency assistance to needy 
     families with children.''.
       (b) Authority of States To Define Emergency Assistance.--
     Section 406(e)(1) (42 U.S.C. 606(e)(1)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(e)(1)(A) The term `emergency assistance to needy 
     families with children' means emergency assistance furnished 
     by an eligible State with respect to an eligible needy child 
     to avoid destitution of the child or to provide living 
     arrangements in a home for the child.
       ``(B) As used in this paragraph:
       ``(i) The term `emergency assistance' means emergency 
     assistance as provided for in the State plan approved under 
     section 402 of an eligible State, but shall not include care 
     for an eligible needy child or other member of the household 
     in which the child is living to the extent that the child or 
     other member is entitled to such care as medical assistance 
     under the State plan under title XIX.
       ``(ii) The term `eligible needy child' means a needy 
     child--
       ``(I) who has not attained 21 years of age;
       ``(II) who is or (within such period as the Secretary may 
     specify) has been living with any relative specified in 
     subsection (a)(1) in a place of residence maintained by 1 or 
     more of such relatives as the home of the relative or 
     relatives;
       ``(III) who is without available resources; and
       ``(IV) whose requirement for emergency assistance did not 
     arise because the child or relative refused without good 
     cause to accept employment or training for employment.
       ``(iii) The term ``eligible State'' means a State whose 
     State plan approved under section 402 includes provision for 
     emergency assistance.''.
                       Subtitle C--Tax Provisions

     SEC. 921. CERTAIN FEDERAL ASSISTANCE INCLUDIBLE IN GROSS 
                   INCOME.

       (a) In General.--Part II of subchapter B of chapter 1 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to items 
     specifically included in gross income) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 91. CERTAIN FEDERAL ASSISTANCE.

       ``(a) In General.--Gross income shall include an amount 
     equal to the specified Federal assistance received by the 
     taxpayer during the taxable year.
       ``(b) Specified Federal Assistance.--For purposes of this 
     section--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `specified Federal assistance' 
     means--
       ``(A) aid provided under a State plan approved under part A 
     of title IV of the Social Security Act (relating to aid to 
     families with dependent children), and
       ``(B) assistance provided under any food stamp program.
       ``(2) Special rule.--In the case of assistance provided 
     under a program described in subsection (d)(2), such term 
     shall include only the assistance required to be provided 
     under section 21 or 22 (as the case may be) of the Food Stamp 
     Act of 1977.
       ``(c) Individuals Subject To Tax.--For purposes of this 
     section--
       ``(1) AFDC.--Aid described in subsection (b)(1)(A) shall be 
     treated as received by the relative with whom the dependent 
     child is living (within the meaning of section 406(c) of the 
     Social Security Act).
       ``(2) Food stamps.--In the case of assistance described in 
     subsection (b)(1)(B)--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     such assistance shall be treated as received ratably by each 
     of the individuals taken into account in determining the 
     amount of such assistance for the benefit of such 
     individuals.
       ``(B) Assistance to children treated as received by 
     parents, etc.--The amount of assistance which would (but for 
     this subparagraph) be treated as received by a child shall be 
     treated as received as follows:
       ``(i) If there is an includible parent, such amount shall 
     be treated as received by the includible parent (or if there 
     is more than 1 includible parent, as received ratably by each 
     includible parent).
       ``(ii) If there is no includible parent and there is an 
     includible grandparent, such amount shall be treated as 
     received by the includible grandparent (or if there is more 
      [[Page H3671]] than 1 includible grandparent, as received 
     ratably by each includible grandparent).
       ``(iii) If there is no includible parent or grandparent, 
     such amount shall be treated as received ratably by each 
     includible adult.
       ``(C) Definitions.--For purposes of subparagraph (B)--
       ``(i) Child.--The term `child' means any individual who has 
     not attained age 16 as of the close of the taxable year. Such 
     term shall not include any individual who is an includible 
     parent of a child (as defined in the preceding sentence).
       ``(ii) Adult.--The term `adult' means any individual who is 
     not a child.
       ``(iii) Includible.--The term `includible' means, with 
     respect to any individual, an individual who is included in 
     determining the amount of assistance paid to the household 
     which includes the child.
       ``(iv) Parent.--The term `parent' includes the stepfather 
     and stepmother of the child.
       ``(v) Grandparent.--The term `grandparent' means any parent 
     of a parent of the child.
       ``(d) Food Stamp Program.--For purposes of subsection (b), 
     the term `food stamp program' means--
       ``(1) the food stamp program (as defined in section 3(h) of 
     the Food Stamp Act of 1977), and
       ``(2) the portion of the program under sections 21 and 22 
     of such Act which provides food assistance.''
       (b) Reporting.--
       (1) In general.--Subpart B of part III of subchapter A of 
     chapter 61 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:
     ``SEC. 6050Q. PAYMENTS OF CERTAIN FEDERAL ASSISTANCE.

       ``(a) Requirement of Reporting.--The appropriate official 
     shall make a return, according to the forms and regulations 
     prescribed by the Secretary, setting forth--
       ``(1) the aggregate amount of specified Federal assistance 
     paid to any individual during any calendar year, and
       ``(2) the name, address, and TIN of such individual.
       ``(b) Statements To Be Furnished to Persons With Respect to 
     Whom Information Is Required.--Every person required to make 
     a return under subsection (a) shall furnish to each 
     individual whose name is re- quired to be set forth in such 
     return a written statement showing--
       ``(1) the name of the agency making the payments, and
       ``(2) the aggregate amount of payments made to the 
     individual which are required to be shown on such return.
     The written statement required under the preceding sentence 
     shall be furnished to the individual on or before January 31 
     of the year following the calendar year for which the return 
     under subsection (a) was required to be made.
       ``(c) Definitions and Special Rule.--For purposes of this 
     section--
       ``(1) Appropriate official.--The term `appropriate 
     official' means--
       ``(A) in the case of specified Federal assistance described 
     in section 91(b)(1)(A), the head of the State agency 
     administering the plan under which such assistance is 
     provided,
       ``(B) in the case of specified Federal assistance described 
     in section 91(b)(1)(B), the head of the State agency 
     administering the program under which such assistance is 
     provided, and
       ``(C) in the case of specified Federal assistance described 
     in section 91(b)(1)(C), the head of the State pubic housing 
     agency administering the program under which such assistance 
     is provided.
       ``(2) Specified federal assistance.--The term `specified 
     Federal assistance' has the meaning given such term by 
     section 91(b).
       ``(3) Amounts treated as paid.--The rules of section 91(c) 
     shall apply for purposes of determining to whom specified 
     Federal assistance is paid.''
       (2) Penalties.--
       (A) Subparagraph (B) of section 6724(b)(1) of such Code is 
     amended by redesignating clauses (ix) through (xiv) as 
     clauses (x) through (xv), respectively, and by inserting 
     after clause (viii) the following new clause:
       ``(ix) section 6050Q (relating to payments of certain 
     Federal assistance),''.
       (B) Paragraph (2) of section 6724(d) of such Code is 
     amended by redesignating subparagraphs (Q) through (T) as 
     subparagraphs (R) through (U), respectively, and by inserting 
     after subparagraph (P) the following new subparagraph:
       ``(Q) section 6050Q(b) (relating to payments of certain 
     Federal assistance),''.
       (c) Clerical Amendments.--
       (1) The table of sections for part II of subchapter B of 
     chapter 1 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new item:

``Sec. 91. Certain Federal assistance.''

       (2) The table of sections for subpart B of part III of 
     subchapter A of chapter 61 of such Code is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new item:

``Sec. 6050Q. Payments of certain Federal assistance.''

       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to benefits received after December 31, 1995.

     SEC. 922. EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT DENIED TO INDIVIDUALS NOT 
                   AUTHORIZED TO BE EMPLOYED IN THE UNITED STATES.

       (a) In General.--Section 32(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to individuals eligible to claim the 
     earned income tax credit) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(F) Identification number requirement.--The term 
     `eligible individual' does not include any individual who 
     does not include on the return of tax for the taxable year--
       ``(i) such individual's taxpayer identification number, and
       ``(ii) if the individual is married (within the meaning of 
     section 7703), the taxpayer identification number of such 
     individual's spouse.''
       (b) Special Identification Number.--Section 32 of such Code 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(k) Identification Numbers.--Solely for purposes of 
     subsections (c)(1)(F) and (c)(3)(D), a taxpayer 
     identification number means a social security number issued 
     to an individual by the Social Security Administration (other 
     than a social security number issued pursuant to clause (II) 
     (or that portion of clause (III) that relates to clause (II)) 
     of section 205(c)(2)(B)(i) of the Social Security Act).''
       (c) Extension of Procedures Applicable To Mathematical or 
     Clerical Errors.--Section 6213(g)(2) of such Code (relating 
     to the definition of mathematical or clerical errors) is 
     amended by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (D), 
     by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (E) and 
     inserting ``, and'', and by inserting after subparagraph (E) 
     the following new subparagraph:
       ``(F) an omission of a correct taxpayer identification 
     number required under section 32 (relating to the earned 
     income tax credit) to be included on a return.''
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1995.
     SEC. 923. PHASEOUT OF EARNED INCOME CREDIT FOR INDIVIDUALS 
                   HAVING MORE THAN $2,500 OF TAXABLE INTEREST AND 
                   DIVIDENDS.

       (a) In General.--Section 32 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended by redesignating subsections (i) and (j) as 
     subsections (j) and (k), respectively, and by inserting after 
     subsection (h) the following new subsection:
       ``(i) Phaseout of Credit for Individuals Having More Than 
     $2,500 of Taxable Interest and Dividends.--If the aggregate 
     amount of interest and dividends includible in the gross 
     income of the taxpayer for the taxable year exceeds $2,500, 
     the amount of the credit which would (but for this 
     subsection) be allowed under this section for such taxable 
     year shall be reduced (but not below zero) by an amount which 
     bears the same ratio to such amount of credit as such excess 
     bears to $650.''
       (b) Inflation Adjustment.--Subsection (j) of section 32 of 
     such Code (relating to inflation adjustments), as 
     redesignated by subsection (a), is amended by striking 
     paragraph (2) and by inserting the following new paragraphs:
       ``(2) Interest and dividend income limitation.--In the case 
     of a taxable year beginning in a calendar year after 1996, 
     each dollar amount contained in subsection (i) shall be 
     increased by an amount equal to--
       ``(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by
       ``(B) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under 
     section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable 
     year begins, determined by substituting `calendar year 1995' 
     for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.
       ``(3) Rounding.--If any amount as adjusted under paragraph 
     (1) or (2) is not a multiple of $10, such dollar amount shall 
     be rounded to the nearest multiple of $10.''
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1995.

     SEC. 924. AFDC AND FOOD STAMP BENEFITS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT 
                   FOR PURPOSES OF THE EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Section 32 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 (relating to the earned income tax credit), as amended 
     by section 932(b) of this Act, is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(l) Adjusted Gross Income Determined Without Regard to 
     Certain Federal Assistance.--For purposes of this section, 
     adjusted gross income shall be determined without regard to 
     any amount which is includible in gross income solely by 
     reason of section 91.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1995.
                    TITLE X--FOOD ASSISTANCE REFORM
          Subtitle A--Food Stamp Program Integrity and Reform

     SEC. 1001. AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH AUTHORIZATION PERIODS.

       Section 9(a)(1) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 
     2018(a)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the following: 
     ``The Secretary is authorized to issue regulations 
     establishing specific time periods during which authorization 
     to accept and redeem coupons under the food stamp program 
     shall be valid.''.

     SEC. 1002. SPECIFIC PERIOD FOR PROHIBITING PARTICIPATION OF 
                   STORES BASED ON LACK OF BUSINESS INTEGRITY.

       Section 9(a)(1) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 
     2018(a)(1)), as amended by section 1001, is amended by adding 
     at the end 
      [[Page H3672]] the following: ``The Secretary is authorized 
     to issue regulations establishing specific time periods 
     during which a retail food store or wholesale food concern 
     that has an application for approval to accept and redeem 
     coupons denied or that has such an approval withdrawn on the 
     basis of business integrity and reputation cannot submit a 
     new application for approval. Such periods shall reflect the 
     severity of business integrity infractions that are the basis 
     of such denials or withdrawals.''.

     SEC. 1003. INFORMATION FOR VERIFYING ELIGIBILITY FOR 
                   AUTHORIZATION.

       Section 9(c) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 
     2018(c)) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence by inserting ``, which may 
     include relevant income and sales tax filing documents,'' 
     after ``submit information'' ; and
       (2) by inserting after the first sentence the following: 
     ``The regulations may require retail food stores and 
     wholesale food concerns to provide written authorization for 
     the Secretary to verify all relevant tax filings with 
     appropriate agencies and to obtain corroborating 
     documentation from other sources in order that the accuracy 
     of information provided by such stores and concerns may be 
     verified.''.
     SEC. 1004. WAITING PERIOD FOR STORES THAT INITIALLY FAIL TO 
                   MEET AUTHORIZATION CRITERIA.

       Section 9(d) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 
     2018(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following: 
     ``Regulations issued pursuant to this Act shall prohibit a 
     retail food store or wholesale food concern that has an 
     application for approval to accept and redeem coupons denied 
     because it does not meet criteria for approval established by 
     the Secretary in regulations from submitting a new 
     application for six months from the date of such denial.''.

     SEC. 1005. BASIS FOR SUSPENSIONS AND DISQUALIFICATIONS.

       Section 12(a) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 
     2021(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following: 
     ``Regulations issued pursuant to this Act shall provide 
     criteria for the finding of violations and the suspension or 
     disqualification of a retail food store or wholesale food 
     concern on the basis of evidence which may include, but is 
     not limited to, facts established through on-site 
     investigations, inconsistent redemption data, or evidence 
     obtained through transaction reports under electronic benefit 
     transfer systems.''.

     SEC. 1006. AUTHORITY TO SUSPEND STORES VIOLATING PROGRAM 
                   REQUIREMENTS PENDING ADMINISTRATIVE AND 
                   JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       (a) Section 12(a) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 
     2021(a)), as amended by section 1005, is amended by adding at 
     the end the following: ``Such regulations may establish 
     criteria under which the authorization of a retail food store 
     or wholesale food concern to accept and redeem coupons may be 
     suspended at the time such store or concern is initially 
     found to have committed violations of program requirements. 
     Such suspension may coincide with the period of a review as 
     provided in section 14. The Secretary shall not be liable for 
     the value of any sales lost during any suspension or 
     disqualification period.''.
       (b) Section 14(a) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 
     2023(a)) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence by inserting ``suspended,'' 
     before ``disqualified or subjected'';
       (2) in the fifth sentence by inserting before the period at 
     the end the following: ``, except that in the case of the 
     suspension of a retail food store or wholesale food concern 
     pursuant to section 12(a), such suspension shall remain in 
     effect pending any administrative or judicial review of the 
     proposed disqualification action, and the period of 
     suspension shall be deemed a part of any period of 
     disqualification which is imposed.''; and
       (3) by striking the last sentence.

     SEC. 1007. DISQUALIFICATION OF RETAILERS WHO ARE DISQUALIFIED 
                   FROM THE WIC PROGRAM.

       Section 12 of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2021) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) The Secretary shall issue regulations providing 
     criteria for the disqualification of approved retail food 
     stores and wholesale food concerns that are otherwise 
     disqualified from accepting benefits under the Special 
     Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and 
     Children (WIC) authorized under section 17 of the Child 
     Nutrition Act of 1966. Such disqualification--
       ``(1) shall be for the same period as the disqualification 
     from the WIC Program;
       ``(2) may begin at a later date; and
       ``(3) notwithstanding section 14 of this Act, shall not be 
     subject to administrative or judicial review.''.

     SEC. 1008. PERMANENT DEBARMENT OF RETAILERS WHO INTENTIONALLY 
                   SUBMIT FALSIFIED APPLICATIONS.

       Section 12 of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2021), 
     as amended by section 1007, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(h) The Secretary shall issue regulations providing for 
     the permanent disqualification of a retail food store or 
     wholesale food concern that is determined to have knowingly 
     submitted an application for approval to accept and redeem 
     coupons which contains false information about one or more 
     substantive matters which were the basis for providing 
     approval. Any disqualification imposed under this subsection 
     shall be subject to administrative and judicial review 
     pursuant to section 14, but such disqualification shall 
     remain in effect pending such review.''.

     SEC. 1009. EXPANDED CIVIL AND CRIMINAL FORFEITURE FOR 
                   VIOLATIONS OF THE FOOD STAMP ACT.

       (a) Forfeiture of Items Exchanged in Food Stamp 
     Trafficking.--Section 15(g) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 
     U.S.C. 2024(g)) is amended by striking ``or intended to be 
     furnished''.
       (b) Civil and Criminal Forfeiture.--Section 15 of the Food 
     Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2024)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(h)(1) Civil Forfeiture for Food Stamp Benefit 
     Violations.--
       ``(A) Any food stamp benefits and any property, real or 
     personal--
       ``(i) constituting, derived from, or traceable to any 
     proceeds obtained directly or indirectly from, or
       ``(ii) used, or intended to be used, to commit, or to 
     facilitate,
     the commission of a violation of subsection (b) or subsection 
     (c) involving food stamp benefits having an aggregate value 
     of not less than $5,000, shall be subject to forfeiture to 
     the United States.
       ``(B) The provisions of chapter 46 of title 18, relating to 
     civil forfeitures shall extend to a seizure or forfeiture 
     under this subsection, insofar as applicable and not 
     inconsistent with the provisions of this subsection.
       ``(2) Criminal Forfeiture for Food Stamp Benefit 
     Violations.--
       ``(A)(i) Any person convicted of violating subsection (b) 
     or subsection (c) involving food stamp benefits having an 
     aggregate value of not less than $5,000, shall forfeit to the 
     United States, irrespective of any State law--
       ``(I) any food stamp benefits and any property 
     constituting, or derived from, or traceable to any proceeds 
     such person obtained directly or indirectly as a result of 
     such violation; and
       ``(II) any food stamp benefits and any of such person's 
     property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, 
     to commit, or to facilitate the commission of such violation.
       ``(ii) In imposing sentence on such person, the court shall 
     order that the person forfeit to the United States all 
     property described in this subsection.
       ``(B) All food stamp benefits and any property subject to 
     forfeiture under this subsection, any seizure and disposition 
     thereof, and any administrative or judicial proceeding 
     relating thereto, shall be governed by subsections (b), (c), 
     (e), and (g) through (p) of section 413 of the Comprehensive 
     Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 
     853), insofar as applicable and not inconsistent with the 
     provisions of this subsection.
       ``(3) This subsection shall not apply to property specified 
     in subsection (g) of this section.
       ``(4) The Secretary may prescribe such rules and 
     regulations as may be necessary to carry out this 
     subsection.''.

     SEC. 1010. EXPANDED AUTHORITY FOR SHARING INFORMATION 
                   PROVIDED BY RETAILERS.

       (a) Section 205(c)(2)(C)(iii) (42 U.S.C. 405(c)(2)(C)(iii)) 
     (as amended by section 316(a) of the Social Security 
     Administrative Reform Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-296; 108 
     Stat. 1464) is amended--
       (1) by inserting in the first sentence of subclause (II) 
     after ``instrumentality of the United States'' the following: 
     ``, or State government officers and employees with law 
     enforcement or investigative responsibilities, or State 
     agencies that have the responsibility for administering the 
     Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and 
     Children (WIC)'';
       (2) by inserting in the last sentence of subclause (II) 
     immediately after ``other Federal'' the words ``or State''; 
     and
       (3) by inserting ``or a State'' in subclause (III) 
     immediately after ``United States''.
       (b) Section 6109(f)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     (26 U.S.C. 6109(f)(2)) (as added by section 316(b) of the 
     Social Security Administrative Reform Act of 1994 (Public Law 
     103-296; 108 Stat. 1464)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting in subparagraph (A) after 
     ``instrumentality of the United States'' the following: ``, 
     or State government officers and employees with law 
     enforcement or investigative responsibilities, or State 
     agencies that have the responsibility for administering the 
     Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and 
     Children (WIC)'';
       (2) in the last sentence of subparagraph (A) by inserting 
     ``or State'' after ``other Federal''; and
       (3) in subparagraph (B) by inserting ``or a State'' after 
     ``United States''.

     SEC. 1011. EXPANDED DEFINITION OF ``COUPON''.

       Section 3(d) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 
     2012(d)) is amended by striking ``or type of certificate'' 
     and inserting ``type of certificate, authorization cards, 
     cash or checks issued of coupons or access devices, 
     including, but not limited to, electronic benefit transfer 
     cards and personal identification numbers''.

     SEC. 1012. DOUBLED PENALTIES FOR VIOLATING FOOD STAMP PROGRAM 
                   REQUIREMENTS.

       Section 6(b)(1) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 
     2015(b)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (i)--
       (A) by striking ``six months'' and inserting ``1 year''; 
     and
       (B) by adding ``and'' at the end; and
       (2) striking clauses (ii) and (iii) and inserting the 
     following:
     [[Page H3673]]   ``(ii) permanently upon--
       ``(I) the second occasion of any such determination; or
       ``(II) the first occasion of a finding by a Federal, State, 
     or local court of the trading of a controlled substance (as 
     defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 
     U.S.C. 802)), firearms, ammunition, or explosives for 
     coupons.''.

     SEC. 1013. MANDATORY CLAIMS COLLECTION METHODS.

       (a) Section 11(e)(8) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 
     U.S.C. 2020(e)(8)) is amended by inserting ``or refunds of 
     Federal taxes as authorized pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3720A'' 
     before the semicolon at the end.
       (b) Section 13(d) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 
     2022(d)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``may'' and inserting ``shall''; and
       (2) by inserting ``or refunds of Federal taxes as 
     authorized pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3720A'' before the period at 
     the end.
       (c) Section 6103(1) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 
     6103(1)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``officers and employees'' in paragraph 
     (10)(A) and inserting ``officers, employees or agents, 
     including State agencies''; and
       (2) by striking ``officers and employees'' in paragraph 
     (10)(B) and inserting ``officers, employees or agents, 
     including State agencies''.

     SEC. 1014. REDUCTION OF BASIC BENEFIT LEVEL.

       Section 3(o) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 
     2012(o)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and (11)'' and inserting ``(11)'';
       (2) in clause (11) by inserting ``through October 1, 1994'' 
     after ``each October 1 thereafter''; and
       (3) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following:
     ``, and (12) on October 1, 1995, and on each October 1 
     thereafter, adjust the cost of such diet to reflect 102 
     percent of the cost, in the preceding June (without regard to 
     any previous adjustment made under this clause or clauses (4) 
     through (11) of this subsection) and round the result to the 
     nearest lower dollar increment for each household size''.

     SEC. 1015. PRO-RATING BENEFITS AFTER INTERRUPTIONS IN 
                   PARTICIPATION.

       Section 8(c)(2)(B) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 
     2017(c)(2)(B)) is amended by striking ``of more than one 
     month''.

     SEC. 1016. WORK REQUIREMENT FOR ABLE-BODIED RECIPIENTS.

       (a) Work Requirement.--Section 6(d) of the Food Stamp Act 
     of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2015(d)) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(5)(A) Except as provided in subparagraphs (B), (C), and 
     (D), an individual who has received an allotment for six 
     consecutive months during which such individual has not been 
     employed a minimum of an average of 20 hours per week shall 
     be disqualified if such individual is not employed at least 
     an average of 20 hours per week, participating in a workfare 
     program under section 20 (or a comparable State or local 
     workfare program), or participating in and complying with the 
     requirements of an approved employment and training program 
     under paragraph (4).
       ``(B) The provisions of subparagraph (A) shall not apply in 
     the case of an individual who--
       ``(i) is under eighteen or over fifty years of age;
       ``(ii) is certified by a physician as physically or 
     mentally unfit for employment;
       ``(iii) is a parent or other member of a household that 
     includes a minor child;
       ``(iv) is participating a minimum of an average of 20 hours 
     per week and is in compliance with the requirements of--
       ``(I) a program under the Job Training Partnership Act (29 
     U.S.C. 1501 et seq.);
       ``(II) a program under section 236 of the Trade Act of 1974 
     (19 U.S.C. 2296); or
       ``(III) another program for the purpose of employment and 
     training operated by a State or local government, as 
     determined appropriate by the Secretary; or
       ``(v) or would otherwise be exempt under subsection (d)(2).
       ``(C) The Secretary may waive the requirements of 
     subparagraph (A) in the case of some or all individuals 
     within all or part of State if the Secretary finds that such 
     area--
       ``(i) has an unemployment rate of over 7 percent; or
       ``(ii) does not have a sufficient number of jobs to provide 
     employment for individuals subject to this paragraph. The 
     Secretary shall report to the Committee on Agriculture of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, 
     Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate on the basis in which 
     the Secretary made this decision.
       ``(D) An individual who has been disqualified from the food 
     stamp program by reason of subparagraph (A) may reestablish 
     eligibility for assistance--
       ``(i) by meeting the requirements of subparagraph (A);
       ``(ii) by becoming exempt under subparagraph (B); or
       ``(iii) if the Secretary grants a waiver under subparagraph 
     (C).
       ``(E) A household (as defined in section 3(i) of the Food 
     Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2015(i)) that includes an 
     individual who refuses to work, refuses to look for work, 
     turns down a job, or refuses to participate in the State 
     program if the State places the individual in such program 
     shall be ineligible to receive food stamp benefits. The State 
     agency shall reduce, by such amount the State considers 
     appropriate, the amount otherwise payable to a household that 
     includes an individual who fails without good cause to comply 
     with other requirements of the individual responsibility plan 
     signed by the individual.
       ``(F) The State agency shall make an initial assessment of 
     the skills, prior work experience, and employability of each 
     participant not exempted under subparagraph (B) within six 
     months of initial certification. The State agency shall use 
     such assessment, in consultation with the program 
     participant, to develop an Individual Responsibility Plan for 
     the participant. Such plan--
       ``(i) shall provide that participation in food stamp 
     employment and training activities shall be a condition of 
     eligibility for food stamp benefits, except during any period 
     of unsubsidized full-time employment in the private sector;
       ``(ii) shall establish an employment goal and a plan for 
     moving the individual into private sector employment 
     immediately;
       ``(iii) shall establish the obligations of the participant, 
     which shall include actions that will help the individual 
     obtain and keep private sector employment; and
       ``(iv) may require that the individual enter the State 
     program approved under part G or part H of title IV of the 
     Social Security Act if the caseworker determines that the 
     individual will need education, training, job placement 
     assistance, wage enhancement, or other services to obtain 
     private sector employment.''.
       (b) Enhanced Employment and Training Program.--Section 
     16(h)(1) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2025 (h)(1)) 
     is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)--
       (A) by striking ``$75,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$150,000,000''; and
       (B) by striking ``1991 through 1995'' and inserting ``1996 
     through 2000'';
       (2) by striking subparagraphs (B), (C), (E) and (F) and 
     redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (B); and
       (3) in subparagraph (B) (as so redesignated), by striking 
     ``for each'' and all that follows through ``of $60,000,000'' 
     and inserting ``the Secretary shall allocate funding''.
       (c) Required Participation in Work and Training Programs.--
     Section 6(d)(4) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 
     2015(d)(4)), is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(O) The State agency shall provide an opportunity to 
     participate in the employment and training program under this 
     paragraph to any individual who would otherwise become 
     subject to disqualification under paragraph (5)(A).''.
       (d) Coordinating Work Requirements in AFDC and Food Stamp 
     Programs.--Section 6(d)(4) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 
     U.S.C. 2015(d)(4)), as amended by subsection (c), is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(P)(i) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     paragraph, a State agency that meets the participation 
     requirements of paragraph (ii) may operate its employment and 
     training program for persons receiving allotments under this 
     Act as part of its Work First Program under part F of title 
     IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 681 et seq.), except 
     that sections 487(b) and 489(a)(4) shall not apply to any 
     months during which a person participates in such program 
     while not receiving income under part A of subtitle IV of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). If a State 
     agency exercises the option provided under this subparagraph, 
     the operation of this program shall be subject to the 
     requirements of such part F, except that any reference to 
     `aid to families with dependent children' in such part shall 
     be deemed a reference to food stamp benefits for purposes of 
     any person not receiving income under such part A.
       ``(ii) A State may exercise the option provided under 
     clause (i) if it provides any persons subject to the 
     requirements of paragraph (5) who is not employed at least an 
     average of 20 hours per week or participating in a workfare 
     program under section 20 (or a comparable State or local 
     program) with the opportunity to participate in an approved 
     employment and training program. A State agency shall be 
     considered to have complied with the requirements of this 
     subparagraph in any area for which a waiver under subsection 
     (5)(4)(C) is in effect.''.

     SEC. 1017. EXTENDING CURRENT CLAIMS RETENTION RATES.

       Section 16(a) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 
     2025(a)) is amended by striking ``September 30, 1995'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``September 30, 2000''.

     SEC. 1018. COORDINATION OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING PROGRAMS.

       (a) Section 8(d) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 
     2019(d)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``or any work requirement under such 
     program'' after ``assistance program''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
     ``If a household fails to comply with a work requirement in 
     the program under part A of title IV of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the household shall not receive 
     an increased allotment under this Act as a result of a 
     decrease in the household's income caused by a penalty 
     imposed under such Act, and the State agency is authorized to 
     reduce the household's allotment by no more than 25 
     percent.''.

     SEC. 1019. PROMOTING EXPANSION OF ELECTRONIC BENEFITS 
                   TRANSFER.

       Section 7(i) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 
     2016(i)(1)) is amended--
     [[Page H3674]]   (1) by amending paragraph (1) to read:
       ``(1)(A) State agencies are encouraged to implement an on-
     line electronic benefit transfer system in which household 
     benefits determined under section 8(a) are issued from and 
     stored in a central data bank and electronically accessed by 
     household members at the point-of-sale.
       ``(B) Subject to paragraph (2), a State agency is 
     authorized to procure and implement an electronic benefit 
     transfer system under the terms, conditions, and design that 
     the State agency deems appropriate.
       ``(C) The Secretary shall, upon request of a State agency, 
     waive any provision of this subsection prohibiting the 
     effective implementation of an electronic benefit transfer 
     system consistent with the purposes of this Act. The 
     Secretary shall act upon any request for such a waiver within 
     90 days of receipt of a complete application.'';
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``for the approval''; and
       (3) in paragraph (3), by striking ``the Secretary shall not 
     approve such a system unless'' and inserting ``the State 
     agency shall ensure that''.

     SEC. 1020. ONE-YEAR FREEZE OF STANDARD DEDUCTION.

       Section 5(e) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 
     2014(e)) is amended in the second sentence by inserting 
     ``except October 1, 1995'' after ``thereafter''.

     SEC. 1021. NUTRITION ASSISTANCE FOR PUERTO RICO.

       Section 19(a)(1)(A) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 
     2028(a)(1)(A)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``1994, and'' and inserting ``1994,''; and
       (2) by inserting ``and $1,143,000,000 for fiscal year 
     1996,'' before ``to finance''.

     SEC. 1022. OTHER AMENDMENTS TO THE FOOD STAMP ACT OF 1977.

       (a) Certification Period.--(1) Section 3(c) of the Food 
     Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2012(c)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(c) `Certification period' means the period specified by 
     the State agency for which households shall be eligible to 
     receive authorization cards, except that such period shall 
     be--
       ``(1) 24 months for households in which all adult members 
     are elderly or disabled; and
       ``(2) not more than 12 months for all other households.''.
       (2) Section 6(c)(1)(C) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 
     U.S.C. 2015(c)(1)(C)) is amended--
       (A) in clause (ii) by adding ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in clause (iii) by striking ``; and'' at the end and 
     inserting a period; and
       (C) by striking clause (iv).
       (b) Inclusion of Energy Assistance in Income.--
       (1) Amendments to the food stamp act of 1977.--Section 5 of 
     the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2014) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (d)--
       (i) by striking paragraph (11); and
       (ii) by redesignating paragraphs (12) through (16) as 
     paragraphs (11) through (15), respectively; and
       (B) in subsection (k)--
       (i) in paragraph (1)(B) by striking ``, not including 
     energy or utility-cost assistance,''; and
       (ii) in paragraph (2)--

       (I) by striking subparagraph (C); and
       (II) by redesignating subparagraphs (D) through (H) as 
     subparagraphs (C) through (J), respectively.

       (2) Amendments to the low-income home energy assistance act 
     of 1981.--Section 2605(f) of the Low-Income Home Energy 
     Assistance Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8624(f)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1) by striking ``food stamps,''; and
       (B) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
       ``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply for any purpose under 
     the Food Stamp Act of 1977.''.
       (c) Exclusion of Certain JTPA Income.--Section 5(d) of the 
     Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2014(d)), as amended by 
     subsection (b), is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and (15)'' and inserting ``(15)''; and
       (2) by inserting before the period the following:
     ``, and (16) income received under the Job Training 
     Partnership Act by a household member who is less than 19 
     years of age''.
       (d) Exclusion of Educational Assistance From Income.--
     Section 5(d) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2014(d)) 
     is amended--
       (1) by amending paragraph (3) to read as follows: ``(3) all 
     educational loans on which payment is deferred (including any 
     loan origination fees or insurance premiums associated with 
     such loans), grants, scholarships, fellowships, veterans' 
     educational benefits, and the like awarded to a household 
     member enrolled at a recognized institution of post-secondary 
     education, at a school for the handicapped, in a vocational 
     education program, or in a program that provides for 
     completion of a secondary school diploma or obtaining the 
     equivalent thereof,''; and
       (2) in paragraph (5) by striking ``and no portion'' and all 
     that follows through ``reimbursement''.
       (e) Limitation on Additional Earned Income Deduction.--The 
     3rd sentence of section 5(e) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 
     U.S.C. 2014(e)) is amended by striking ``earned income that'' 
     and all that follows through ``report'', and inserting 
     ``determining an overissuance due to the failure of a 
     household to report earned income''.
       (f) Exclusion of Essential Employment-Related Property.--
     Section 5(g)(3) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 
     2014(g)(3)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) The value of real and tangible personal property 
     (other than currency, commercial paper, and similar property) 
     of a household member that is essential to the employment or 
     self-employment of such member shall be excluded by the 
     Secretary from financial resources until the expiration of 
     the 1-year period beginning on the date such member ceases to 
     be so employed or so self-employed.''.
       (g) Exclusion of Life Insurance Policies.--Section 5(g) of 
     the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2014(g)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) The Secretary shall exclude from financial resources 
     the cash value of any life insurance policy owned by a member 
     of a household.''.
       (h) In-Tandem Exclusions From Income.--Section 5 of the 
     Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2014) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(n) Whenever a Federal statute enacted after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act excludes funds from income for 
     purposes of determining eligibility, benefit levels, or both 
     under State plans approved under part A of title IV of the 
     Social Security Act, then such funds shall be excluded from 
     income for purposes of determining eligibility, benefit 
     levels, or both, respectively, under the food stamp program 
     of households all of whose members receive benefits under a 
     State plan approved under part A of title IV of the Social 
     Security Act.''.
       (i) Application of Amendments.--The amendments made by this 
     section shall not apply with respect to certification periods 
     beginning before the effective date of this section.
                   Subtitle B--Commodity Distribution

     SEC. 1051. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``Commodity Distribution 
     Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 1052. AVAILABILITY OF COMMODITIES.

       (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary of Agriculture (hereinafter in this subtitle 
     referred to as the ``Secretary'') is authorized during fiscal 
     years 1996 through 2000 to purchase a variety of nutritious 
     and useful commodities and distribute such commodities to the 
     States for distribution in accordance with this subtitle.
       (b) In addition to the commodities described in subsection 
     (a), the Secretary may expend funds made available to carry 
     out the section 32 of the Act of August 24,
      1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c), which are not expended or needed to 
     carry out such sections, to purchase, process, and 
     distribute commodities of the types customarily purchased 
     under such section to the States for distribution in 
     accordance to this subtitle.
       (c) In addition to the commodities described in subsections 
     (a) and (b), agricultural commodities and the products 
     thereof made available under clause (2) of the second 
     sentence of section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935 (7 
     U.S.C. 612c), may be made available by the Secretary to the 
     States for distribution in accordance with this subtitle.
       (d) In addition to the commodities described in subsections 
     (a), (b), and (c), commodities acquired by the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation that the Secretary determines, in the 
     discretion of the Secretary, are in excess of quantities 
     needed to--
       (1) carry out other domestic donation programs;
       (2) meet other domestic obligations;
       (3) meet international market development and food aid 
     commitments, and
       (4) carry out the farm price and income stabilization 
     purposes of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, the 
     Agricultural Act of 1949, and the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation Charter Act; shall be made available by the 
     Secretary, without charge or credit for such commodities, to 
     the States for distribution in accordance with this subtitle.
       (e) During each fiscal year, the types, varieties, and 
     amounts of commodities to be purchased under this subtitle 
     shall be determined by the Secretary. In purchasing such 
     commodities, except those commodities purchased pursuant to 
     section 1060, the Secretary shall, to the extent practicable 
     and appropriate, make purchases based on--
       (1) agricultural market conditions;
       (2) the preferences and needs of States and distributing 
     agencies; and
       (3) the preferences of the recipients.

     SEC. 1053. STATE, LOCAL AND PRIVATE SUPPLEMENTATION OF 
                   COMMODITIES.

       (a) The Secretary shall establish procedures under which 
     State and local agencies, recipient agencies, or any other 
     entity or person may supplement the commodities distributed 
     under this subtitle for use by recipient agencies with 
     nutritious and wholesome commodities that such entities or 
     persons donate for distribution, in all or part of the State, 
     in addition to the commodities otherwise made available under 
     this subtitle.
       (b) States and eligible recipient agencies may use--
       (1) the funds appropriated for administrative cost under 
     section 1059(b);
       (2) equipment, structures, vehicles, and all other 
     facilities involved in the storage, handling, or distribution 
     of commodities made available under this subtitle; and
     [[Page H3675]]   (3) the personnel, both paid or volunteer, 
     involved in such storage, handling, or distribution; to 
     store, handle or distribute commodities donated for use under 
     subsection (a).
       (c) States and recipient agencies shall continue, to the 
     maximum extent practical, to use volunteer workers, and 
     commodities and other foodstuffs donated by charitable and 
     other organizations, in the distribution of commodities under 
     this subtitle.

     SEC. 1054. STATE PLAN.

       (a) A State seeking to receive commodities under this 
     subtitle shall submit a plan of operation and administration 
     every four years to the Secretary for approval. The plan may 
     be amended at any time, with the approval of the Secretary.
       (b) The State plan, at a minimum, shall--
       (1) designate the State agency responsible for distributing 
     the commodities received under this subtitle;
       (2) set forth a plan of operation and administration to 
     expeditiously distribute commodities under this subtitle in 
     quantities requested to eligible recipient agencies in 
     accordance with sections 1056 and 1060;
       (3) set forth the standards of eligibility for recipient 
     agencies; and
       (4) set forth the standards of eligibility for individual 
     or household recipients of commodities, which at minimum 
     shall require--
       (A) individuals or households to be comprised of needy 
     persons; and
       (B) individual or household members to be residing in the 
     geographic location served by the distributing agency at the 
     time of application for assistance.
       (c) The Secretary shall encourage each State receiving 
     commodities under this subtitle to establish a State advisory 
     board consisting of representatives of all interested 
     entities, both public and private, in the distribution of 
     commodities received under this subtitle in the State.
       (d) A State agency receiving commodities under this 
     subtitle may--
       (1)(A) enter into cooperative agreements with State 
     agencies of other States to jointly provide commodities 
     received under this subtitle to eligible recipient agencies 
     that serve needy persons in a single geographical area which 
     includes such States; or
       (B) transfer commodities received under this subtitle to 
     any such eligible recipient agency in the other State under 
     such agreement; and
       (2) advise the Secretary of an agreement entered into under 
     this subsection and the transfer of commodities made pursuant 
     to such agreement.

     SEC. 1055. ALLOCATION OF COMMODITIES TO STATES.

       (a) In each fiscal year, except for those commodities 
     purchased under section 1060, the Secretary shall allocate 
     the commodities distributed under this subtitle as follows:
       (1) 60 percent of such total value of commodities shall be 
     allocated in a manner such that the value of commodities 
     allocated to each State bears the same ratio to 60 percent of 
     such total value as the number of persons in households 
     within the State having incomes below the poverty line bears 
     to the total number of persons in households within all 
     States having incomes below such poverty line. Each State 
     shall receive the value of commodities allocated under this 
     paragraph.
       (2) 40 percent of such total value of commodities shall be 
     allocated in a manner such that the value of commodities 
     allocated to each State bears the same ratio to 40 percent of 
     such total value as the average monthly number of unemployed 
     persons within the State bears to the average monthly number 
     of unemployed persons within all States during the same 
     fiscal year. Each State shall receive the value of 
     commodities allocated to the State under this paragraph.
       (b)(1) The Secretary shall notify each State of the amount 
     of commodities that such State is allotted to receive under 
     subsection (a) or this subsection, if applicable. Each State 
     shall promptly notify the Secretary if such State determines 
     that it will not accept any or all of the commodities made 
     available under such allocation. On such a notification by a 
     State, the Secretary shall reallocate and distribute such 
     commodities in a manner the Secretary deems appropriate and 
     equitable. The Secretary shall further establish procedures 
     to permit States to decline to receive portions of such 
     allocation during each fiscal year in a manner the State 
     determines is appropriate and the Secretary shall reallocate 
     and distribute such allocation as the Secretary deems 
     appropriate and equitable.
       (2) In the event of any drought, flood, hurricane, or other 
     natural disaster affecting substantial numbers of persons in 
     a State, county, or parish, the Secretary may request that 
     States unaffected by such a disaster consider assisting 
     affected States by allowing the Secretary to reallocate 
     commodities from such unaffected State to States containing 
     areas adversely affected by the disaster.
       (c) Purchases of commodities under this subtitle shall be 
     made by the Secretary at such times and under such conditions 
     as the Secretary determines appropriate within each fiscal 
     year. All commodities so purchased for each such fiscal year 
     shall be delivered at reasonable intervals to States based on 
     the allocations and reallocations made under subsections (a) 
     and (b), and or carry out section 1060, not later than 
     December 31 of the following fiscal year.

     SEC. 1056. PRIORITY SYSTEM FOR STATE DISTRIBUTION OF 
                   COMMODITIES.

       (a) In distributing the commodities allocated under 
     subsections (a) and (b) of section 1055, the State agency, 
     under procedures determined by the State agency, shall offer, 
     or otherwise make available, its full allocation of 
     commodities for distribution to emergency feeding 
     organizations.
       (b) If the State agency determines that the State will not 
     exhaust the commodities allocated under subsections (a) and 
     (b) of section 1055 through distribution to organizations 
     referred to in subsection (a), its remaining allocation of 
     commodities shall be distributed to charitable institutions 
     described in section 1063(3) not receiving commodities under 
     subsection (a).
       (c) If the State agency determines that the State will not 
     exhaust the commodities allocated under subsections (a) and 
     (b) of section 1055 through distribution to organizations 
     referred to in subsections (a) and (b), its remaining 
     allocation of commodities shall be distributed to any 
     eligible recipient agency not receiving commodities under 
     subsections (a) and (b).

     SEC. 1057. INITIAL PROCESSING COSTS.

       The Secretary may use funds of the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation to pay the costs of initial processing and 
     packaging of commodities to be distributed under this 
     subtitle into forms and in quantities suitable, as determined 
     by the Secretary, for use by the individual households or 
     eligible recipient agencies, as applicable. The Secretary may 
     pay such costs in the form of Corporation-owned commodities 
     equal in value to such costs. The Secretary shall ensure that 
     any such payments in kind will not displace commercial sales 
     of such commodities.

     SEC. 1058. ASSURANCES; ANTICIPATED USE.

       (a) The Secretary shall take such precautions as the 
     Secretary deems necessary to ensure that commodities made 
     available under this subtitle will not displace commercial 
     sales of such commodities or the products thereof. The 
     Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Agriculture of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, 
     Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate by December 31, 1997, 
     and not less than every two years thereafter, a report as to 
     whether and to what extent such displacements or 
     substitutions are occurring.
       (b) The Secretary shall determine that commodities provided 
     under this subtitle shall be purchased and distributed only 
     in quantities that can be consumed without waste. No eligible 
     recipient agency may receive commodities under this subtitle 
     in excess of anticipated use, based on inventory records and 
     controls, or in excess of its ability to accept and store 
     such commodities.

     SEC. 1059. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Purchase of Commodities.--To carry out this subtitle, 
     there are authorized to be appropriated $260,000,000 for each 
     of the fiscal years 1996 through
      2000 to purchase, process, and distribute commodities to the 
     States in accordance with this subtitle.
       (b) Administrative Funds.--
       (1) There are authorized to be appropriated $40,000,000 for 
     each of the fiscal years 1996 through 2000 for the Secretary 
     to make available to the States for State and local payments 
     for costs associated with the distribution of commodities by 
     eligible recipient agencies under this subtitle, excluding 
     costs associated with the distribution of those commodities 
     distributed under section 1060. Funds appropriated under this 
     paragraph for any fiscal year shall be allocated to the 
     States on an advance basis dividing such funds among the 
     States in the same proportions as the commodities distributed 
     under this subtitle for such fiscal year are allocated among 
     the States. If a State agency is unable to use all of the 
     funds so allocated to it, the Secretary shall reallocate such 
     unused funds among the other States in a manner the Secretary 
     deems appropriate and equitable.
       (2)(A) A State shall make available in each fiscal year to 
     eligible recipient agencies in the State not less than 40 
     percent of the funds received by the State under paragraph 
     (1) for such fiscal year, as necessary to pay for, or provide 
     advance payments to cover, the allowable expenses of eligible 
     recipient agencies for distributing commodities to needy 
     persons, but only to the extent such expenses are actually so 
     incurred by such recipient agencies.
       (B) As used in this paragraph, the term ``allowable 
     expenses'' includes--
       (i) costs of transporting, storing, handling, repackaging, 
     processing, and distributing commodities incurred after such 
     commodities are received by eligible recipient agencies;
       (ii) costs associated with determinations of eligibility, 
     verification, and documentation;
       (iii) costs of providing information to persons receiving 
     commodities under this subtitle concerning the appropriate 
     storage and preparation of such commodities; and
       (iv) costs of recordkeeping, auditing, and other 
     administrative procedures required for participation in the 
     program under this subtitle.
       (C) If a State makes a payment, using State funds, to cover 
     allowable expenses of eligible recipient agencies, the amount 
     of such payment shall be counted toward the amount a State 
     must make available for allowable expenses of recipient 
     agencies under this paragraph.
       (3) States to which funds are allocated for a fiscal year 
     under this subsection shall submit financial reports to the 
     Secretary, on a regular basis, as to the use of such funds. 
     No 
      [[Page H3676]] such funds may be used by States or eligible 
     recipient agencies for costs other than those involved in 
     covering the expenses related to the distribution of 
     commodities by eligible recipient agencies.
       (4)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), to be 
     eligible to receive funds under this subsection, a State 
     shall provide in cash or in kind (according to procedures 
     approved by the Secretary for certifying these in-kind 
     contributions) from non-Federal sources a contribution equal 
     to the difference between--
       (i) the amount of such funds so received; and
       (ii) any part of the amount allocated to the State and paid 
     by the State--
       (I) to eligible recipient agencies; or
       (II) for the allowable expenses of such recipient 
     agencies;for use in carrying out this subtitle.
       (B) Funds allocated to a State under this section may, upon 
     State request, be allocated before States satisfy the 
     matching requirement specified in subparagraph (A), based on 
     the estimated contribution required. The Secretary shall 
     periodically reconcile estimated and actual contributions and 
     adjust allocations to the State to correct for overpayments 
     and underpayments.
       (C) Any funds distributed for administrative costs under 
     section 1060(b) shall not be covered by this paragraph.
       (5) States may not charge for commodities made available to 
     eligible recipient agencies, and may not pass on to such 
     recipient agencies the cost of any matching requirements, 
     under this subtitle.
       (c) Value of Commodities.--The value of the commodities 
     made available under subsections (c) and (d) of section 1052, 
     and the funds of the Corporation used to pay the costs of 
     initial processing, packaging (including forms suitable for 
     home use), and delivering commodities to the States shall not 
     be charged against appropriations authorized by this section.

     SEC. 1060. COMMODITY SUPPLEMENTAL FOOD PROGRAM.

       (a) From the funds appropriated under section 1059(a), 
     $94,500,000 shall be used for each fiscal year
      to purchase and distribute commodities to supplemental 
     feeding programs serving woman, infants, and children or 
     elderly individuals (hereinafter in this section referred 
     to as the ``commodity supplemental food program"), or 
     serving both groups wherever located.
       (b) Not more than 20 percent of the funds made available 
     under subsection (a) shall be made available to the States 
     for State and local payments of administrative costs 
     associated with the distribution of commodities by eligible 
     recipient agencies under this section. Administrative costs 
     for the purposes of the commodity supplemental food program 
     shall include, but not be limited to, expenses for 
     information and referral, operation, monitoring, nutrition 
     education, start-up costs, and general administration, 
     including staff, warehouse and transportation personnel, 
     insurance, and administration of the State or local office.
       (c)(1) During each fiscal year the commodity supplemental 
     food program is in operation, the types, varieties, and 
     amounts of commodities to be purchased under this section 
     shall be determined by the Secretary, but, if the Secretary 
     proposes to make any significant changes in the types, 
     varieties, or amounts from those that were available or were 
     planned at the beginning of the fiscal year the Secretary 
     shall report such changes before implementation to the 
     Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and 
     the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the 
     Senate.
       (2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation shall, to the extent that the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation inventory levels permit, provide 
     not less than 9,000,000 pounds of cheese and not less than 
     4,000,000 pounds of nonfat dry milk in each of the fiscal 
     years 1996 through 2000 to the Secretary. The Secretary shall 
     use such amounts of cheese and nonfat dry milk to carry out 
     the commodity supplemental food program before the end of 
     each fiscal year.
       (d) The Secretary shall, in each fiscal year, approve 
     applications of additional sites for the program, including 
     sites that serve only elderly persons, in areas in which the 
     program currently does not operate, to the full extent that 
     applications can be approved within the appropriations 
     available for the program for the fiscal year and without 
     reducing actual participation levels (including participation 
     of elderly persons under subsection (e)) in areas in which 
     the program is in effect.
       (e) If a local agency that administers the commodity 
     supplemental food program determines that the amount of funds 
     made available to the agency to carry out this section 
     exceeds the amount of funds necessary to provide assistance 
     under such program to women, infants, and children, the 
     agency, with the approval of the Secretary, may permit low-
     income elderly persons (as defined by the Secretary) to 
     participate in and be served by such program.
       (f)(1) If it is necessary for the Secretary to pay a 
     significantly higher than expected price for one or more 
     types of commodities purchased under this section, the 
     Secretary shall promptly determine whether the price is 
     likely to cause the number of persons that can be served in 
     the program in a fiscal year to decline.
       (2) If the Secretary determines that such a decline would 
     occur, the Secretary shall promptly notify the State agencies 
     charged with operating the program of the decline and shall 
     ensure that a State agency notify all local agencies 
     operating the program in the State of the decline.
       (g) Commodities distributed to States pursuant to this 
     section shall not be considered in determining the commodity 
     allocation to each State under section 1055 or priority of 
     distribution under section 1056.

     SEC. 1061. COMMODITIES NOT INCOME.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, commodities 
     distributed under this subtitle shall not be considered 
     income or resources for purposes of determining recipient 
     eligibility under any Federal, State, or local means-tested 
     program.

     SEC. 1062. PROHIBITION AGAINST CERTAIN STATE CHARGES.

       Whenever a commodity is made available without charge or 
     credit under this subtitle by the Secretary for distribution 
     within the States to eligible recipient agencies, the State 
     may not charge recipient agencies any amount that is in 
     excess of the State's direct costs of storing, and 
     transporting to recipient agencies the commodities minus any 
     amount the Secretary provides the State for the costs of 
     storing and transporting such commodities.

     SEC. 1063. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this subtitle:
       (1) The term ``average monthly number of unemployed 
     persons'' means the average monthly number of unemployed 
     persons within a State in the most recent fiscal year for 
     which such information is available as determined by the 
     Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor.
       (2) The term ``elderly persons'' means individuals 60 years 
     of age or older.
       (3) The term ``eligible recipient agency'' means a public 
     or nonprofit organization that administers--
       (A) an institution providing commodities to supplemental 
     feeding programs serving women,
      infants, and children or serving elderly persons, or serving 
     both groups;
       (B) an emergency feeding organization;
       (C) a charitable institution (including hospitals and 
     retirement homes and excluding penal institutions) to the 
     extent that such institution serves needy persons;
       (D) a summer camp for children, or a child nutrition 
     program providing food service;
       (E) a nutrition project operating under the Older Americans 
     Act of 1965, including such projects that operate a 
     congregate nutrition site and a project that provides home-
     delivered meals; or
       (F) a disaster relief program; and that has been designated 
     by the appropriate State agency, or by the Secretary, and 
     approved by the Secretary for participation in the program 
     established under this subtitle.
       (4) The term ``emergency feeding organization'' means a 
     public or nonprofit organization that administers activities 
     and projects (including the activities and projects of a 
     charitable institution, a food bank, a food pantry, a hunger 
     relief center, a soup kitchen, or a similar public or private 
     nonprofit eligible recipient agency) providing nutrition 
     assistance to relieve situations of emergency and distress 
     through the provision of food to needy persons, including 
     low-income and unemployed persons.
       (5) The term ``food bank'' means a public and charitable 
     institution that maintains an established operation involving 
     the provision of food or edible commodities, or the products 
     thereof, to food pantries, soup kitchens, hunger relief 
     centers, or other food or feeding centers that, as an 
     integral part of their normal activities, provide meals or 
     food to feed needy persons on a regular basis.
       (6) The term ``food pantry'' means a public or private 
     nonprofit organization that distributes food to low-income 
     and unemployed households, including food from sources other 
     than the Department of Agriculture, to relieve situations of 
     emergency and distress.
       (7) The term ``needy persons'' means--
       (A) individuals who have low incomes or who are unemployed, 
     as determined by the State (in no event shall the income of 
     such individual or household exceed 185 percent of the 
     poverty line);
       (B) households certified as eligible to participate in the 
     food stamp program under the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 
     2011 et seq.); or
       (C) individuals or households participating in any other 
     Federal, or federally assisted, means-tested program.
       (8) The term ``poverty line'' has the same meaning given 
     such term in section 673(2) of the Community Services Block 
     Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)).
       (9) The term ``soup kitchen'' means a public and charitable 
     institution that, as integral part of its normal activities, 
     maintains an established feeding operation to provide food to 
     needy homeless persons on a regular basis.

     SEC. 1064. REGULATIONS.

       (a) The Secretary shall issue regulations within 120 days 
     to implement this subtitle.
       (b) In administering this subtitle, the Secretary shall 
     minimize, to the maximum extent practicable, the regulatory, 
     recordkeeping, and paperwork requirements imposed on eligible 
     recipient agencies.
       (c) The Secretary shall as early as feasible but not later 
     than the beginning of each fiscal year, publish in the 
     Federal Register a 
      [[Page H3677]] nonbinding estimate of the types and 
     quantities of commodities that the Secretary anticipates are 
     likely to be made available under the commodity distribution 
     program under this subtitle during the fiscal year.
       (d) The regulations issued by the Secretary under this 
     section shall include provisions that set standards with 
     respect to liability for commodity losses for the commodities 
     distributed under this subtitle in situations in which there 
     is no evidence of negligence or fraud, and conditions for 
     payment to cover such losses. Such provisions shall take into 
     consideration the special needs and circumstances of eligible 
     recipient agencies.

     SEC. 1065. FINALITY OF DETERMINATIONS.

       Determinations made by the Secretary under this subtitle 
     and the facts constituting the basis for any donation of 
     commodities under this subtitle, or the amount thereof, when 
     officially determined in conformity with the applicable 
     regulations prescribed by the Secretary, shall be final and 
     conclusive and shall not be reviewable by any other officer 
     or agency of the Government.

     SEC. 1066. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PROGRAMS.

       (a) Section 4(b) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 
     2013(b)) shall not apply with respect to the distribution of 
     commodities under this subtitle.
       (b) Except as otherwise provided in section 1057, none of 
     the commodities distributed under this subtitle shall be sold 
     or otherwise disposed of in commercial channels in any form.

     SEC. 1067. SETTLEMENT AND ADJUSTMENT OF CLAIMS.

       (a) The Secretary may--
       (1) determine the amount of, settle, and adjust any claim 
     arising under this subtitle; and
       (2) waive such a claim if the Secretary determines that to 
     do so will serve the purposes of this subtitle.
       (b) Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to 
     diminish the authority of the Attorney General of the United 
     States under section 516 of title 28, United States Code, to 
     conduct litigation on behalf of the United States.

     SEC. 1068. REPEALERS; AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Repealer.--The Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (7 
     U.S.C. 612c note) is repealed.
       (b) Amendments.--
       (1) The Hunger Prevention Act of 1988 (7 U.S.C. 612c note) 
     is amended--
       (A) by striking section 110; and
       (B) by striking section 502.
       (2) The Commodity Distribution Reform Act and WIC 
     Amendments of 1987 (7 U.S.C. 612c note) is amended by 
     striking section 4.
       (3) The Charitable Assistance and Food Bank Act of 1987 (7 
     U.S.C. 612c note) is amended by striking section 3.
       (4) The Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 612c note) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking section 1562(a) and section 1571; and
       (B) in section 1562(d), by striking ``section 4 of the 
     Agricultural and Consumer Protection Act of 1973'' and 
     inserting ``section 1060 of the Commodity Distribution Act of 
     1995''.
       (5) The Agricultural and Consumer Protection Act of 1973 (7 
     U.S.C. 612c note) is amended--
       (A) in section 4(a), by striking ``institutions (including 
     hospitals and facilities caring for needy infants and 
     children), supplemental feeding programs serving women, 
     infants and children or elderly persons, or both, wherever 
     located, disaster areas, summer camps for children,'';
       (B) in subsection 4(c), by striking ``the Emergency Food 
     Assistance Act of 1983'' and inserting ``the Commodity 
     Distribution Act of 1995''; and
       (C) by striking section 5.
       (6) The Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 
     1990 (7 U.S.C. 612c note) is amended by striking section 
     1773(f).
                      Title XI--DEFICIT REDUCTION

     SEC. 1101. DEDICATION OF SAVINGS TO DEFICIT REDUCTION.

       (a) Upon the enactment of this Act, the Director of the 
     Office of Management and Budget shall make downward 
     adjustments in the discretionary spending limits (new budget 
     authority and outlays), as adjusted, set forth in 601(a)(2) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 for each of fiscal 
     years 1996 through 1998 as follows:
       (1) For fiscal year 1996, reduce new budget authority by 
     $1,420,000,000 and reduce outlays by $1,420,000,000.
       (2) For fiscal year 1997, reduce new budget authority by 
     $1,420,000,000 and reduce outlays by $1,420,000,000.
       (3) For fiscal year 1998, reduce new budget authority by 
     $1,470,000,000 and reduce outlays by $1,470,000,000.
       (b) Reductions in outlays resulting from the enactment of 
     this Act shall not be taken into account for purposes of 
     section 252 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985.
                       TITLE XII--EFFECTIVE DATE

     SEC. 1201. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       Except as otherwise provided in this Act, this Act and the 
     amendments made by this Act shall take effect on October 1, 
     1996.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Deal] will be recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Shaw] will be recognized for 30 minutes in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal].


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to whether or not as the 
designee of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons], it would be in 
order for 5 minutes to be reserved for debate time under the rule?
  The CHAIRMAN. It is not in order.
  Mr. FORD. Under the substitute it is not in order?
  The CHAIRMAN. It is not in order.
  Mr. FORD. So the 5 minutes would not be granted?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. DEAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, today is the day for change, today is the time to 
reaffirm our basic belief in work. Hard work has built this Nation and 
hard work continues to sustain it.
  Today we are here to talk about changing the institution of welfare 
and replacing it with work. This should not be a partisan debate, we 
should all share in seeking the best answers regardless of whose ideas 
they are.
  The substitute is brought to you by six Members and their hard-
working staffs, none of whom are chairmen or ranking members, and three 
of whom were freshmen when this issue began in our group last Congress. 
In this time of basketball fever with the final four being talked 
about, I would suggest that our bill is assigned a real label that has 
made it to the final three and for that I am grateful.
  I express my appreciation to the leadership for allowing this issue 
of welfare reform to come to the floor and to the members of the 
Committee on Rules and its chairman for allowing our substitute to be 
presented for debate.
  We believe that work is the only long-term solution to the issue of 
welfare, and we believe that our plan presents the best alternative 
with the resources to the States to achieve that transition.
  In the 30 minutes that we are allotted, we will do our best to reveal 
to Members why we believe that our plan presents the best alternative 
of making the transition from welfare to work.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Deal bill.
  On Tuesday, Representative Castle said the Republican bill is a big-
bang approach to changing welfare.
  He was right--and it is the kids who are getting banged up.
  I rise today to support the Deal substitute, the only bill before us 
which makes fundamental changes to the current system while protecting 
our children.
  The Deal bill is tough on work.
  It is fair to kids.
  It holds recipients accountable, and it makes both parents 
responsible for taking care of their children.
  The Deal bill is tougher on work than any proposal before the House.
  Each person on welfare will be required to sign a comprehensive 
individualized responsibility plan.
  Each recipient is required to start looking for work immediately.
  Nobody who refuses to work will get benefits.
  Unlike the Republican bill, the Deal bill makes sure no kid will go 
to school hungry. It makes sure no kid will be left alone when Mom or 
Dad goes to work.
  It cracks down on deadbeat parents to make sure they live up to their 
responsibility to support their children.
  Both Democrats and Republicans agree the current welfare system is 
broken.
  The Deal bill is the change we need to end welfare as we know it.
  I urge support for the Deal substitute, which truly ends welfare as 
we know it.
  Mr. DEAL. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Archer], the chairman of the full Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, it is curious to note the Democrat welfare 
bill that we have before us today is only offered in response to the 
strong action taken by Republicans on this issue. When the Democrats 
ran the Congress, they ran away from welfare reform. They did nothing 
about our crumbling 
 [[Page H3678]] cities, our decaying families, and our impoverished 
children. Only now that Congress is under Republican control did the 
Democrats muster the will to say, ``Me, too,'' on this vital issue.
  Let us take a look, Mr. Chairman, at this late and reluctant arrival 
at welfare reform. What is wrong with this amendment? Let me tell you. 
Their substitute spends more on welfare than the current law, $2 
billion more.
  This Democrat welfare bill raises taxes to do so on millions of 
middle-income working Americans. Let me repeat that: The Democrat 
welfare bill raises taxes on millions of middle-income working 
Americans.
  It was only 5 months ago that the American people voted the Democrat 
people out of office because of their big-taxing, big-spending ways. 
Now, more than 2 million Americans will have their taxes raised as a 
result of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the Democrats' true colors are showing. Their approach 
to welfare, just like their approach to all problems, is to raise taxes 
and spend more money. This is a repeat of 1988. The last welfare reform 
bill, you remember, ``Let us put a few more billion in with the promise 
that more people will work and get off of welfare 5 years later.''
  Here we are, 6 years later, about to do the same thing under the Deal 
amendment. The Democrats in Washington still do not understand that 
Government is too big and spends too much. So, once again, they raise 
taxes on working Americans to redistribute wealth to those who do not 
work. Their tax hikes hit working parents with children the hardest. 
These are not rich people. They are middle-income working Americans 
with children who will lose their tax credit for child care.
  As bad as their tax hikes are, there are other problems in this bill. 
The Deal substitute maintains the worst features of the failed welfare 
status quo. This amendment leaves welfare as an entitlement, and it 
continues to force Governors into inflexible positions when they appeal 
to Washington on bended knee to obtain waivers so that they can help 
their own citizens. The Democrats treat as sacred the failed welfare 
system that has us in this mess in the first place.
  For 30 years the Democrats built this failed system based on a faulty 
foundation. Now that true reform is at hand, they just cannot bear to 
see their failed creation come to an end, over $5 trillion of 
Government money spent on welfare in the last 30 years, and now they 
want to spend more.
  I have a simple message for the Democrats who are fighting to keep 
the failed welfare status quo alive: Let it go, let it go, let it go. 
Help the poor by taking welfare off of its life support system.
  There are other features in the Deal substitute which deserve 
comment. It does not put people to work, it puts Federal bureaucrats to 
work. It does not discourage out-of-wedlock births, it maintains the 
status quo. And it creates unfunded mandates on the States; the 
President signed a bill yesterday to stop this.
  Mr. Chairman, welfare has left a sad mark on the American success 
story. It has created a world in which children have no dreams for 
tomorrow, and parents have abandoned their hopes for today. Crime runs 
rampant. Fathers run away. And leaders run from real solutions.
  The time has come to pull the plug on the failed welfare state and to 
put in its place a new system, a system based on work, personal 
responsibility, and a system that dismantles the Federal bureaucracy 
and gives control where it can do the most good, at the State and local 
level.
  The Deal substitute does not get the job done. It punishes the 
taxpayer and maintains the failed welfare status quo. The bill is not a 
good deal for anyone. It is a bum deal for everyone, and is should be 
defeated.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur].
  (Ms. KAPTUR asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of work and 
education as fundamental to real welfare reform--endorse the Deal 
substitute--and oppose H.R. 4. Unlike H.R. 4, the Deal substitute 
provides meaningful work opportunities immediately by moving 
individuals off of welfare and into work. The Deal substitute requires 
that a job search begin immediately. H.R. 4 does not even require 
people to read the want ads.
  We all agree the current welfare system simply does not work. The 
current system does not result in the very values we wish to 
encourage--work, family and responsibility--that are the underpinning 
of a productive society.
  For welfare reform to work, the American people first must have job 
opportunities that pay enough for them to be self-supporting. Half the 
people on welfare in my community work, but at wages too low to afford 
the basic necessities. Half of our welfare caseload remains on welfare 
just to get the health benefit that their private sector job does not 
provide.
  If we are to be successful, our goal must be rooted in a strong 
economy that produces good-paying jobs. We must require parents to 
assume responsibility for themselves and their families. Any reform 
effort must move people toward literacy and skills advancement to get 
them off welfare and ultimately into jobs that pay a living wage. 
There's something wrong with an economy that produces more rent-a-
workers than factory jobs.
  Welfare must be structured as a system that offers a helping hand in 
time of need, while also providing the path to self-sufficiency and 
personal responsibility. States should be given the flexibility to make 
the system work for them, but in turn we must demand that job-readiness 
and living wage jobs are the end result. Job training, child care, 
transportation, and education can go a long way in moving people off 
the rolls. It will be the States responsibility to address these needs. 
We must make sure that uniform standards apply to all States. 
Furthermore, it will be the recipients responsibility to use these 
services to move off welfare rolls into real jobs.
  In February, I brought together community leaders in my District for 
a forum on welfare reform. I brought together welfare recipients with 
elected officials, human service workers with human service directors. 
Together we came to a consensus on what is truly needed to reform 
welfare and in my judgment the Deal proposal comes closest to those 
recommendations.
                     northwest ohio recommendations

  I would like to outline for my colleagues the recommendations made by 
my community on welfare reform. To be successful, welfare reform must 
begin on the frontlines with recipients and case workers who know what 
works and what does not, on an individualized basis. We must emphasize 
individualized contracts with a local case manager who is allowed to 
work with a family on its specific needs regarding work, education, 
skills training opportunities and building whole families. The current 
system perpetuates people being on service programs, not getting them 
off. We must focus our attention on incentives to help the working poor 
and working families move up and out of poverty.
  Case managers should be professional social workers trained in 
strength-based assessments, not needs-based assessment. We must change 
our focus from providing overly bureaucratic eligibility determinations 
to one of partnership and coordination of services. This can be done by 
using an Individualized Family Service Plan, in which the family picks 
its strengths and weaknesses, goals and objectives, and the case 
manager finds the services in the community to meet those needs. This 
approach empowers the family and gives them the tools to get off and 
stay off welfare.


                   intergovernmental responsibilities

                           federal standards

  At a minimum, the Federal Government should provide a national 
framework which outlines the categorical eligibility criteria and 
minimum benefits standards to ensure that the poorest citizens receive 
equitable treatment. Local agencies should not have to devote precious 
time to determining and redetermining eligibility of recipients and 
administering the programs. Initial determination of eligibility should 
be a federal responsibility set up like local Social Security offices. 
Local governments could then devote their efforts toward training and 
work activities, and employment and related supportive services such as 
child care. The Federal Government should establish a person's 
eligibility like Social Security does, and develop and monitor 
performance standards so that States programs can be measured. Federal 
standards are critical. When the Federal Government has failed to do so 
in the past, what resulted was the ``Mississippi Syndrome''--great 
inequity among States. Without Federal standards and performance 
measures, States will not comply, as has been demonstrated 
historically. Federal regulations on confidentiality prohibit local 
agencies--Head Start, welfare offices, WIC, Department of Agriculture, 
PCI--from sharing necessary information about clients. Since 
 [[Page H3679]] these agencies, along with many others, service the 
same populations, the Federal Government should permit cross 
referencing at the local level.


        State Partnership, Simplification and Local Empowerment

  Federal block grants to the States must not permit States to forgo 
their fair contribution to alleviating poverty. States must be 
encouraged to ``earn'' Federal payments. Flexibility is essential. What 
happens if there is not enough money in a given year to finish that 
year? People would be completely cut off until the next year. States 
must be allowed to carry over funds and not be penalized for good 
management of money.
  Human service regulations in my home State of Ohio are some of the 
most complicated in the Nation. The application is 37 pages long. We 
should not assume that if the Federal Government cashes programs out to 
the States, the system in Ohio or any other State will be streamlined. 
The Federal Government must force States to streamline regulations.
  It should further be required that, as a condition of receiving 
Federal funds, States be required to sign contractual arrangements with 
the local human service administering agency that places each on an 
equal plane. Counties, or any other local administering entity, should 
be given equal status with the State government to administer programs 
through contractual arrangements.


                             simplification

  The ideal system should encourage a team approach with a case 
manager--as opposed to a caseworker--determining what services are 
needed for a specific family, then bringing together a team at a 
location which is easily accessible and user friendly. Computer linkage 
at the local level is needed to ensure the success of a team approach. 
Interagency contracts must be established within each case management 
situation to avoid limits between agencies because of confidentiality 
requirements, and these contracts must be filtered down to the staff 
level.
  A common intake form should be designed by the Federal Government, 
along with similar eligibility criteria for all human service programs: 
Medicaid, AFDC, food stamps. Definition of eligibility relative to 
poverty guidelines varies across Federal programs; it should be 
simplified and made the same for all of them. Local welfare personnel 
complain they spend incredible hours of time--an average of 2 hours per 
client--ascertaining a client's eligibility. They are required to 
answer over 700 different questions about that client.


                education, training and health insurance

  Two areas of policy that must be a part of Federal welfare reform are 
education and job training.
  Fifty thousand adults in northwest Ohio are illiterate, many of them 
on welfare. I am sure many other Districts across our Nation face the 
same situation. Welfare reform must address this problem. Skills 
training and education must be incorporated into welfare reform. The 
Federal Government must assure educational institutions--such as some 
proprietary schools--will not rip off clients and deprive them of their 
futures. Vocational and proprietary schools must be held to uniform 
accreditation standards. Further, they must be required to give labor 
market statistics about each of their courses of study on a regular 
basis. For example, northwest Ohio has a glut of nurses, yet schools 
continually market nursing as an excellent field with plenty of job 
opportunities available.
  Half of welfare recipients in northwest Ohio remain on the program to 
receive health insurance, therefore, welfare must be reformed to offer 
people health insurance in private sector entry level jobs. Perhaps 
there could be a partnership formed at the local level between 
potential employers, human service agencies, and clients. For example, 
perhaps Federal health insurance such as Medicaid could be used to 
transition citizens for a period into private sector employment. Any 
person receiving welfare should be able to keep health insurance 
coverage after employment at least until his or her wages rise above 
the poverty level. If States receive incentives for performance, they 
will address health insurance.


                         other recommendations

  Emphasis must be placed on paternity orders, with identification of 
absent fathers being key to the receipt of benefits. The IRS should be 
the primary collector of child support payments. Stronger, swifter, and 
more certain sanctions for failure to cooperate in the order 
establishment are needed. Any proposed work plan must include a 
provision for at least minimal child support payments. The reporting of 
nonsupport should be rewarded. Workers currently have no incentive to 
follow up on leads provided by custodial parent, so they don't do 
anything.


                                  ssi

  We should anticipate the trend toward increased SSI benefits when 
work is made mandatory. SSI benefits to drug and alcohol dependent 
persons, many of whom are mentally ill, should, therefore, not be cut 
off automatically; rather, cases should be assessed individually and 
funds should be channeled to local substance abuse treatment agencies 
to work with the client in his or her interest.


                         keep families together

  Low-income families must be allowed to remain together without being 
penalized monetarily. Accounts of mothers and fathers are currently 
separate and based on eligible work quarters. Families should be 
treated as families.


                       developmental programming

  Mandatory classes in budgeting, parenting, and nutrition, and 
registration of children in Head Start or other quality preschool 
programs should be required of recipients.


                              food stamps

  The Food Stamp Program where possible should be cashed out and the 
money used for regular benefits, health insurance, or education 
associated with moving people off the program. We must accord people 
respect enough to assume they will spend the cash on food, after giving 
them nutrition counseling and education.


                                utility

  Assistance plans--like PIP--must be reformed. They leave the 
recipient with a debt which must be paid before utilities can be turned 
on in one's name at another residence.


                                housing

  Finally, incentives should be provided for people to leave public 
housing. If one has no income, one pays no rent. The safety of knowing 
one can always stay even if not paying anything prevents people from 
trying to get out of the system.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman].
  (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to vote for the Deal 
substitute to move people from welfare to work without punishing 
children.
  Mr. Chairman, I support bold reforms of our welfare system. The 
current system is broken and must be dramatically changed, not just 
tinkered with.
  I support strong work requirements for welfare recipients. I support 
job training programs to prepare people for work, and aggressive 
placement services to move people into the workforce. I support time 
limits so that welfare is a transition to work--not a way of life. I 
support strong child support enforcement to assure that both parents 
are responsible, and to keep many mothers off welfare to begin with. 
And I support State flexibility so that States can experiment and find 
innovative ways to reform welfare.
  But I do not support punishing children by cutting programs that work 
and disguising these cuts as block grants. Block grants do allow those 
closest to the people with the flexibility to meet the unique needs of 
a certain area, but I strongly oppose the block grants proposed in the 
Personal Responsibility Act. The child nutrition block grant would cut 
the School Lunch Program and the WIC Program--two programs that are 
proven successes.
  School districts in my congressional district serve 413,017 lunches 
each day, keeping children healthy and ready to learn. Based on the 
numbers of partially and fully-paid for lunches in my district, block 
granting the School Lunch Program would effectively mean the end of the 
School Lunch Program. I have met with school district administrators, 
teachers, and children in my district, and I know that the School Lunch 
Program has been incredibly successful. I ate one of these lunches last 
week with children at Mark Twain Elementary School in my district and 
saw firsthand the value of the School Lunch Program.
  I also do not support taking away the child protective services: the 
services that are the last resort for many kids. I heard from the Los 
Angeles County Supervisors--Democrats and Republicans--who worry about 
the huge increase in numbers of children who would fall through the 
cracks under the Personal Responsibility Act.
  Denying welfare benefits to many mothers and then cutting child 
protective services is not welfare reform, it is punishing children.
  Proponents of the Personal Responsibility Act would balance ill-timed 
tax cuts on the backs of vulnerable children. Any savings from welfare 
reform should go toward reducing the deficit--not toward tax cuts. The 
Rules Committee rejected a proposed lock box amendment similar to the 
bill I introduced in the House 2 weeks ago. We must ensure that a cut 
is a cut.
  While I oppose the Personal Responsibility Act in its present form, I 
strongly support the Deal substitute. It is true welfare reform. It 
would move people off welfare and into work 
 [[Page H3680]] and it would give States greater flexibility to 
administer their own programs. It would allow California to continue 
its successful GAIN Program. It would establish time limits and require 
recipients to work for their benefits. It would crack down on deadbeat 
parents; stronger child support enforcement laws would mean fewer 
mothers on welfare in the first place. It would also require minors who 
have children to live with a responsible adult in order to receive 
benefits. As a mother of four, I know that teens cannot raise children 
on their own; they need supervision. The Deal substitute's emphasis on 
pregnancy prevention is a critical component of welfare reform--helping 
to keep young women off welfare in the first place.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the Deal substitute to move people 
from welfare to work without punishing children.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Tennessee [Mr. Clement], one of the original cosponsors of the 
bill.
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, we have a real opportunity. The American 
people are watching us. They are expecting us to pass a welfare reform 
package.
  I do not know where the Republicans are coming from when they talk 
about taxes and trying to deceive the American people about the Deal 
substitute. I am one of the six founders, you might say, of this 
welfare reform package. It offers an opportunity for a future rather 
than welfare recipients being trapped like they are now. They want a 
future. Under the Deal substitute, which I strongly support, we require 
individuals to begin work or a work-related activity immediately.
  Does H.R. 4, the Republican version? No.
  The Deal substitute has real work requirements for each and every 
individual in the work program. Does H.R. 4, the Republican version?
  We require each recipient to sign an individualized contract of 
mutual responsibility outlining their road to work and self-sufficiency 
and the obligations they must meet. Does H.R. 4, the Republican 
version? No.
  We also include specific provisions to make work pay. Does H.R. 4, 
the Republican version? No.
  We remove the barriers to work by providing child care and health 
care to working recipients, those returning to work, and those working 
and struggling to stay off welfare. Does the Republican version, H.R. 
4? No.
  The Deal substitute provides the funding to ensure that the funds are 
their to meet the additional financial obligations of increased work 
requirements, child care, and assistance to move recipients to a 
private, unsubsidized job. Does H.R. 4, the Republican version? No.
  Our substitute preserves the school lunch program, and I know a lot 
of them are wearing those ``Save the Children'' ties, I do not see any 
Republicans wearing them, and other proven child nutrition programs 
ensuring that our children have a full belly and a fighting chance to 
get through life. Does H.R. 4, the Republican version?
  And finally, the Deal substitute will rid the children's SSI program 
of fraud and abuse while ensuring that much-needed benefits for those 
severely disabled children are afforded due process and that they are 
not indiscriminately cut off. Does H.R. 4? No.
  Support the Deal substitute.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], a member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I respect the effort of my 
colleague, the Gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal], whose bill does many 
of the things we know need to be done now to make the current approach 
workable. But it only loosens the reins of Washington in those areas we 
see as necessary now. When flexibility is needed for States to 
implement a new idea, it will again take years for States to gain 
temporary waivers and even longer for Congress to change the law.
  Let me give you an example. The Deal bill does not give States the 
right to make rent payments directly to landlords. Under current law, 
States must comply with cumbersome Federal regulations on a case-by-
case basis to prove the recipient is not capable of managing his or her 
financial affairs. This is so burdensome and takes so long that States 
simply do not pursue it. Yet the need is compelling.
  A recent grand jury investigating crime in a Connecticut police 
department uncovered a direct tie between welfare dollars and the drug 
trade. When taxpayer-provided benefit checks hit the streets, drug 
purchases soared. In the same city, kids are not staying in the same 
school the whole school year. Many classes turn over nearly 100 percent 
each year, compromising children's education severely. Families are on 
the move, and children are the victims due to nonpayment of rent, due 
to parents' drug addiction, subsidized with taxpayer dollars.
  Can we not do better from Washington? We simply cannot construct a 
flexible enough system to meet the needs of kids and their parents.
  Direct payment of rent is only one example of the need for far 
greater State control and authority than the Deal bill provides. It 
absolutely goes in the right direction, but the only block grant with 
Federal accountability that can foster development of a welfare system 
that will move people off welfare into jobs is the Republican 
alternative.
  Are we taking a risk by creating a block grant system? Yes. Change is 
inherently risky, but it is a solid risk, because in every other sector 
of our society, pushing authority and responsibility down to frontline 
folks has worked.
  This week we have the opportunity to rise to the challenge of making 
systemic real reform in America's welfare system.
  Vote to move from caretaking dollars to wage dollars, to restore 
dignity to need.
  Vote against the Deal amendment.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me say that I rise to support the 
Deal amendment, because it truly takes care of the children with child 
care and trains the parents for work.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1267, which offers a 
comprehensive proposal to reform our Nation's welfare system. This 
bill, sponsored by my colleague Nathan Deal of Georgia, focuses on 
promoting work and individual responsibility without punishing innocent 
children. Moreover, this bill gives states the flexibility to initiate 
different approaches while establishing clear guidelines and 
principles.
  H.R. 1267 requires welfare recipients to maintain a job or be 
enrolled in a job training program. It also establishes the principle 
that our Government must help welfare recipients to find jobs and not 
terminate assistance to individuals that are willing to work but are 
unable to find a job. And yes, it provides child care!
  During this debate on reform of the welfare system, I have emphasized 
empowering people instead of punishing them. Like many of my 
colleagues, I acknowledge that the current system has failed in many 
ways. However, the welfare reform bill favored by the Republican 
leadership will not help millions of Americans lead productive lives. 
We are a caring nation. In making public policy, we must exhibit 
compassion as well as promote individual responsibility. I believe that 
H.R. 1267 achieves these important objectives.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Georgia [Mr. Bishop].
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, unlike the Republican plan, the Deal 
substitute offers real welfare reform. Deal is real reform, because it 
is tough and compassionate. It links strict work requirements with 
training opportunities and gives support services recipients need to 
move from welfare to work.
  It is tough, because it sets a time limit for benefits and requires 
recipients to accept individual responsibility plans for education, 
parenting, budgeting, and substance abuse.
  It is compassionate because it makes available public service jobs 
after 2 years of unsuccessful job search. It ensures work will pay more 
than welfare by extending transitional health care benefits, giving an 
earned income tax credit, and providing the essential element of child 
care during training and work.
  And on top of that, it gives States flexibility to do innovative 
things like programs to avoid teenage pregnancy.
  The Deal substitute is modeled after the Georgia Peach and Work First 
Programs which have moved Georgians from welfare to work.
  [[Page H3681]] We need reforms that make programs more efficient and 
effective and do not just destroy them and empower families through 
training and jobs but do not just cut off, that promote individual 
responsibility and not just abdicate it.
  For real welfare reform, we need the Deal substitute.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Camp], another member of the committee.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, we have the opportunity to fix a badly broken 
welfare system. A system that has literally become a prison from which 
there is little chance of escape.
  Unfortunately, I can sum up the Deal substitute by saying ``The more 
things change, the more they stay the same.''
  The Deal substitute does not require work. It talks about work, their 
press releases talk about work. But while long on rhetoric, it is short 
on requirements.
  It is our understanding from legislative counsel that the Deal 
substitute has no individual work requirement until the year 2005. In 
contrast, our proposal allows States to require work for benefits from 
day one as opposed to just looking for work.
  Under the Deal substitute, looking for work is the same as having a 
job . . . and for States who do not meet the work requirement, there is 
no penalty. Under our bill, the States can lose up to 5 percent of the 
block grant if they do not meet the work requirement.
  If this legislation passes, a total of over 15 percent of the welfare 
recipients would be exempted from the ``work-first and ``workfare'' 
time limits.
  This substitute also attempts to fudge the numbers by counting 
everyone who leaves the welfare rolls with earnings as meeting the work 
requirement. Under our proposal, only an increase in the number of 
people working can count toward meeting the work requirement. The 
number of people required to work under the Deal substitute is actually 
lowered by 500,000 people per month.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the Deal substitute. In order to 
free families from the welfare trap, a real and meaningful work 
requirement is necessary. The Deal substitute fails that crucial test.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Utah [Mr. Orton].
  Mr. ORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Deal substitute. And in 
response to my friend, welfare reform must have one overriding goal, 
and that is to move people from dependency to self-sufficiency by 
putting people to work.
  Utah has a welfare reform program which is working. In the past 2 
years they have reduced AFDC grants by one-third. It has been reported 
that the Republican bill was patterned after the Utah work program.
  But let me read from the Utah State Department of Human Services 
memo: ``The prescriptive requirements of title I are not congruent with 
our policy.'' They go on to describe what the Utah work policy is: Of 
the hours required, at least 8 must be in a job search and the 
remaining hours can be any combination of employment, education, or 
training. They go on to say that the act, as drafted, would prohibit 
this approach. The Deal substitute is the only bill patterned after a 
Utah-type program, and I urge you to support the Deal substitute.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I spoke to the Republican Governors of this Nation this 
morning, and they asked me to express their strongest opposition to the 
Deal substitute. I quote: ``The Deal substitute undermines all our 
efforts to reform the welfare systems in our States.'' Governor Allen, 
Governor Wilson, Governor Whitman, and Governors Engel, Weld, Thompson, 
and a host of others oppose the Deal substitute. It is the big-
government solution, to the Clinton deal, the bad deal.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. I thank the gentleman from Georgia, and I rise in strong 
support of the Deal substitute and in opposition to H.R. 4.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4 and in support for the 
Individual Responsibility Act of 1995 as offered by Mr. Deal and Mr. 
Stenholm.
  Mr. Chairman, for more than 60 years, the Federal and State 
governments have attempted to provide a safety net for the poorest 
among us who have fallen upon hard times. While originally intended to 
be short-term assistance to cushion the fallout from the business 
cycle, the system has trapped a portion of its beneficiaries in a long-
term cycle of poverty. All of us will agree that the various public 
assistance programs, while helping many, have failed to cure long-term 
poverty. All of us will agree that we must change the welfare program 
if we are to try and cure the cycle of poverty. But, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 
4 neither meets this goal nor does it try to, rather, it merely focuses 
on spending cuts among the poorest to pay for tax cuts among the 
wealthiest individuals and corporations. It is a short-term diversion 
of funds which will result in exacerbating long-term problems. it is 
irresponsible to cut this program without reforming it to move people 
into the workforce. It is economically questionable to do so in order 
to fund tax cuts and bloat the deficit, but that is exactly what H.R. 4 
does. What it does not do is reform welfare.
  H.R. 4 as submitted by the Republican leadership does not
   attempt to address the cycle of poverty. It requires no work or 
training during the first two years of assistance, nor does it provide 
adequate assistance for such training. It cuts child care, making it 
harder for parents to hold work. It cuts nutrition programs. It cuts 
job training. It ignores the inefficiency of the tax code which makes 
welfare pay more than work. Rather than focusing on training and 
placing able-bodied adults in private sector employment it goes after 
children, poor by no fault of their own. This ill-conceived legislation 
will most likely result in putting more people out on the street with 
no means of employment. Whether you are a conservative, liberal or 
moderate, you must agree that increasing the pool of the untrained 
unemployed in deeper poverty will not help the economy and will 
eventually cost the country more. Further, it loads the problem onto 
the states in a form which would otherwise be called an unfunded 
mandate. It is one thing to transfer programs from the federal 
government to the states, it is another to do so with less funding, no 
assurance to cover the increased costs of a recession, and extreme 
mandates.

  This bill makes no sense. If you want to get tough on welfare, why 
not require work, today. H.R. 4 does not, the Deal substitute does.
  Mr. Chairman, this House can make history today, and it can do so by 
rejecting H.R. 4 and supporting the Deal substitute. Make no mistake 
about it, if you support a welfare bill which will take people off the 
welfare rolls and put them on payrolls, you must support the Deal bill. 
The Deal substitute requires immediate job action by welfare recipients 
while H.R. 4 does not. The Deal substitute lays out a plan, working 
with the States and the private sector to require recipients to enter 
the job market, today, not in two years. It is tough on non-compliance 
and it adjusts the tax code to make work pay more than welfare. H.R. 4 
does not. The Deal substitute, and not H.R. 4, puts teeth in child 
support for which the Republican Leadership abdicated its 
responsibility. The Deal substitute provides the means by which people 
who must find work can be assured of child care, which the Republican 
bill does not.
  The Deal substitute understands the necessity to ensure adequate 
funding in times of recession when unemployment increases by 
maintaining the entitlement status. It understands the importance of 
maintaining nutrition programs. It also understands the need to reduce 
the deficit by eliminating wasteful spending and reducing the deficit. 
Quite simply, the Deal substitute is a tough bill and a smart bill 
which requires people on welfare to find work, now, not in two years. 
It helps those who cannot through no fault of their own. The Deal 
substitute provides training, community work, and a 15-percent recycle 
provision for those who try but are unable to find steady private 
sector work in 4 years. It penalizes those who do not try. It provides 
the necessary means to allow people to hold jobs including child care 
and health care. It adjusts the tax code to ensure that work pays more 
than welfare. It is a cost effective, cost conscious measure which 
seeks to address the cycle of poverty with work. For sure, the goals 
between this substitute and the Contract with America are quite 
different. The Deal substitute attempts to put people back to work to 
remedy the welfare situation. H.R. 4 simply cuts spending, without 
 [[Page H3682]] sufficient work or training requirements and no long-
term goal for ending the cycle of poverty. H.R. 4 puts the issue on the 
backs of States and the taxpayers. And, if we adopt the Republican 
Leadership's bill, and not the Deal substitute, I assure you we will be 
back here later realizing the mistake we made in not trying to really 
reform welfare rather than pay for a tax cut and increase the deficit. 
Support real welfare reform, a real work bill, support the Deal 
substitute.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LOWEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I rise in 
strong support of the Deal substitute.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Neal].
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, this evening the Democratic Party stand united in 
support of the Deal bill and in unyielding opposition to the 
callousness offered by the Republican Party. There is not even a work 
requirement in the Republican bill that is offered. They are tough on 
kids and they are weak on work.
  Mr. Deal deserves extraordinary credit for bringing Democrats 
together from every region of this country. Tonight we are going to 
offer a credible alternative that stands up under scrutiny. I offered 
Governor Weld's amendments at the Committee on Ways and Means, and the 
Republican Party turned them down.
  We have a chance tonight, I think, to stand in support of a welfare 
reform bill that we all acknowledge needs change. Stand in support of 
the Deal alternative. It is credible and stands up under the magnifying 
glass of critical analysis.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal] has 22\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw] has 19\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
  The Chair states that he would like it to be reasonably balanced.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, in light of that, I yield such 
time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].
  (Mr. FAZIO of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Deal 
substitute and congratulate the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal] for 
coming up with a consensus solution to our welfare dilemma.
  Mr. Chairman, the current welfare system rewards staying home over 
work and permits dead-beat parents to shirk their obligations to their 
children and is a national embarrassment and outrage. The current 
welfare system contradicts the American work ethic, and undermines the 
American dream for millions. As a nation, we cannot afford to support a 
program that encourages able-bodied adults to stay at home rather than 
look for a job.
  Mr. Chairman, for these reasons and more, I rise in support of 
Congressman Deal's welfare reform substitute to the Personal 
Responsibility Act. The Deal proposal addresses the critical need for 
substantial reform in the current welfare system, and includes tough 
work requirements and a 2-year time limit on benefits, while 
maintaining a safety net for our children. The Republican plan does not 
do this. The Deal substitute would permanently remove people from 
welfare dependency by helping them find and retain real jobs, not by 
simply kicking them into the streets.
  Real welfare reform must be about economic self-sufficiency. It must 
be the primary goal of any valid proposal, and the Deal substitute 
faces this issue head-on. In meeting the goal of economic self-
sufficiency, individuals must be required to look for a job, and there 
ought to be a time limit on receiving benefits. Mr. Deal's plan gives 
States the flexibility to design a strong ``Work First'' program to 
ensure that individuals are moved off welfare and into work. This could 
mean job training, education, job placement services, assistance in 
creating microenterprises, or any other program developed by the State 
to move an individual into private, unsubsidized employment. After 2 
years of participation in the Work First program, individuals would no 
longer be eligible for AFDC, but would be eligible for a private 
employment subsidy or workfare program. The Deal substitute includes a 
2-year time limit--a necessary incentive for welfare recipients to take 
advantage of the work opportunities provided in the bill. From the 
moment a person enters the welfare system, they will be on their way 
out--out to economic opportunity and self-sufficiency. The Republican 
plan does not do this.
  Real welfare reform must be about job preparedness. An initial 
investment in job preparedness and placement will result in long-term 
savings, and do more for our long-term economic security than a tax cut 
for the rich ever would. Welfare recipients must learn marketable 
skills to find better jobs. And enduring job skills will prevent repeat 
visits to the welfare rolls. By providing welfare recipients with a 
real opportunity to find a permanent, well-paying job, the Federal 
Government will soon be rewarded with lower welfare costs, higher 
worker productivity, and increasing revenues. The Republican plan
 cannot do this.

  But real welfare reform does not stop here. Staying in a job is just 
as critical as finding one in the first place. Health and child care 
benefits must be part of any welfare reform plan that seeks to keep 
people at work, not on the Government rolls. Going to work should not 
mean losing health care benefits. And children must have a safe, 
supervised place to grow and learn while their parents are at work. The 
Republican plan does not do this. ``Personal Responsibility'' should 
not mean putting the health and safety of our children at risk.
  Welfare reform must also be about responsibility. I am outraged that 
parents can shirk their responsibility to their families by leaving 
them destitute and not paying child support. The Republican plan lets 
them do this. Any worthwhile reform effort must send a clear message to 
these deadbeats: you must support your children. Through streamlined, 
advanced technology, states can and should track down these parents. 
Tough enforcement mechanisms such as garnishing wages and taking away 
drivers licenses should be enacted and enforced.
  The Republican Personal Responsibility Act is a shameful pretense at 
real welfare reform. The Republicans would simply throw people out on 
the streets and call that cruelty ``reform.'' This most outrageous 
proposal as a solution to welfare dependency while not adequately 
addressing the issue of work.
  In seeking to reform the broken welfare system, we must not forget 
our moral responsibility to the workers and children of America. 
Welfare reform should be about work, responsibility, and families, not 
about a tax cut for the wealthy. The most enduring legacy of welfare 
reform will be its effect on those children and families who rely on it 
in tough times. The current welfare system encourages perpetual 
dependence and distorts American values. We must enact real welfare 
reform to restore their hope and their futures and break the cycle of 
dependency. Our future depends on it.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Payne].
  (Mr. PAYNE of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PAYNE of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, the sponsors of the Deal substitute are committed to 
making major changes to our welfare system.
  We understand that real welfare reform must be about replacing a 
welfare check with a paycheck.
  The Deal substitute is designed to get people into work as quickly as 
possible. It requires all recipients to enter into a self-sufficiency 
plan within 30 days of receiving benefits and no benefits will be paid 
to anyone who refuses to work, refuses to look for work, or who turns 
down a job.
  The Republican bill allows welfare recipients to receive benefits for 
up to 2 years before they are required to go to work, or even to look 
for work.
  Mr. Chairman, we believe the Government should assist welfare 
recipients in becoming self-sufficient, but we understand that in the 
end individuals must be responsible for their own welfare.
  The Deal substitute provides welfare recipients with the resources 
they need to move from welfare to work, but it also requires 
individuals to be responsible by setting a 2-year time limit on cash 
assistance.
  After 2 years, States may allow individuals to work for benefits by 
providing them with a voucher to supplement private sector wages.
  But no benefits are available after 4 years.
  Mr. Chairman, the Deal substitute is the only welfare reform bill 
which gives the American people exactly what they want: welfare reform 
which makes work the number one priority, welfare reform which requires 
individuals to be responsible for their own actions, and welfare reform 
which gives 
 [[Page H3683]] the States the flexibility they need to make it 
succeed.
  Mr. Chairman, I say to my friends, let us give the American people 
what they want. Support the Deal substitute.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the chairman of the 
Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts].
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  The Deal substitute does not represent real food stamp reform. Rather 
than allowing States to harmonize AFDC and food stamp rules for those 
families receiving assistance from both programs, the substitute clings 
to the waiver system. Rather than taking the food stamp program off of 
automatic pilot, the Deal substitute continues the pattern of ever 
escalating runaway costs. Rather than demanding workfare for able-
bodied people, the substitute simply mandates that States do provide 
the make-work jobs and training, but provides, really, less than half 
the money. It is an unfunded mandate.
  But here is the real deal, I did not know this, I read the CBO 
report: The Deal substitute would count:
  Benefit payments from the AFDC and food stamp programs would be 
included in income subject to income tax. You are taxing food stamps? 
That is a mean deal.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  First of all, I respond to the gentleman's comments: Yes, we believe 
that for those who are taking Federal assistance through food stamps 
and AFDC and earning the same amount of money as hardworking poor 
people, that a dollar of welfare ought to be worth the same thing as 
the dollar you work for. That is the reason for it.
  In responding to the issue of who supports whom in this issue, I 
would like to quote briefly from a letter. I would like to quote 
briefly from a letter dated March 20, 1995, from the National League of 
Cities, in which they say, ``We believe the pending bill, H.R. 4, could 
affect local government. The bill could be one of the greatest mandates 
ever imposed upon our communities.''
  Governor Carper of Delaware, in responding to the Republican bill, 
says, ``In sum, this legislation would not transform the welfare. 
Rather, it would not severely undercut our efforts to reform the 
welfare system in our State.''
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Peterson].
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I too want to commend the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Deal] and the others for putting together this bill, and I rise in 
strong support of the Deal substitute.
  In responding to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Agriculture, you know, one of the problems that I have with the 
Republican bill--and I intend to oppose it--is there are a lot of areas 
that are not working and have not been thought through. I think, in the 
case of food stamps, that is one of the areas where we have a lot of 
fraud and problems with the food stamp system.
  What we have done in the Deal bill is we have worked through those 
problems. We have 19 specific areas where we have addressed the 
problems in the Deal substitute. The Republicans have not done this. 
They have punted it to the States.
  So I think we ought to be clear about what has happened here. We have 
a bill that has worked together with the AFDC system, it is all 
integrated, we make sure it flows together, and we have addressed 
problems. It is the toughest bill dealing with the fraud and abuse and 
other problems that we have in the food stamp system.
  I ask you to support the Deal substitute.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, at this point I would like to paraphrase for the Record 
from a letter dated March 22, from the Republican Governors' 
Association, signed by a number of Governors. This is a letter 
addressed to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal]. In referring to his 
bill, they say that it maintains the individual entitlements, highly 
prescriptive Federal rules remain intact. It turns back the clock and 
has a chilling effect on the Governors' plans--including his own State 
of Georgia, I might add. It increases taxes by penalizing working 
Americans. By reducing dependent care tax credit for working women, you 
are sending a message that work, for these women, does not pay. It is 
an unfunded mandate, and they end by saying, ``We must oppose this 
bill.''
  Mr. Chairman, the full text of the letter is as follows:

                             Republican Governors Association,

                                   Washington, DC, March 22, 1995.
     Hon. Nathan J. Deal,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Deal: Although we salute your good 
     intentions on welfare reform key elements of your bill will, 
     we believe, substantially hinder real welfare reform efforts 
     in the states.
       Your bill maintains the individual entitlements and does 
     not provide states with a block grant. Current highly 
     prescriptive Federal rules intact. We need the flexibility of 
     block grants to design programs that will work in our states.
       Under you bill, states would be prohibited from removing an 
     individual from cash welfare without first providing 2 years 
     of education and training benefits. This provision will turn 
     back the clock on many state programs already operating and 
     will have a chilling effect on Governors' plans to put 
     individuals to work as soon as we determine they are ready to 
     do so.
       Further, your bill increases taxes by reducing the 
     dependent care tax credit. In effect, you are financing two 
     years of education and training for welfare recipients by 
     penalizing working Americans. Working women in particular 
     will be hurt by these changes. The costs associated with 
     child care for working mothers are work related. By reducing 
     the dependent care tax credit for working women, you are 
     sending the message that work for these women doesn't pay.
       The work requirements in your bill are highly prescriptive 
     and seriously restrict state flexibility. The two years of 
     additional Medicaid coverage required by your bill is an 
     unfunded mandate on states and will cost states an additional 
     $1.5 billion by the year 2000.
       For all of the above reasons we must oppose your bill.
           Sincerely,
       Tommy Thompson, Jim Edgar, Ed Schafer, and 5 others.

  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds in order 
to respond.
  I also have a letter, and since I have not received the one the 
gentleman from Florida quoted from, I have a letter from his own school 
board in which they say they do support our legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California 
[Ms. Woolsey].
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  (Ms. WOOLSEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, as the only Member of this body who has actually been a 
single, working mother on welfare, I support the Deal substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, Representative Rich Neal of Massachusetts and I co-
chaired the Democratic task force on welfare reform, and I want to 
compliment the many Members who made this substitute worthy of 
widespread support: Nathan Deal, Patsy Mink, Sandy Levin, Xavier 
Becerra, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Bill Orton, and many others worked long 
and hard to create a bill that reforms welfare without punishing poor 
women and children.
  The Deal substitute offers a fair deal. It invests in education; job 
training; and child care to get people into jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, the choice comes down to this: We either punish poor 
children as the Republican bill does or, as in my case we invest in 
families so they can get off welfare permanently.
  Let us put politics aside and put our children first. Support the 
Deal substitute.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan].
  (Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Deal 
amendment and in support of H.R. 4.
   Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Deal substitute and 
in support of H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility Act, the key word 
here being ``responsibility.'' It is time we take 
 [[Page H3684]] responsibility for this nation by ending the dependence 
on government which too many recipients have come to know. We all agree 
that the current system is in need of reform. H.R. 4 gives people now 
on the welfare roll the opportunity to take responsibility for 
themselves by moving to the payroll. What greater gift can we give 
these recipients than the gift of responsibility, freedom and dignity 
that comes with supporting themselves and their families?
  My home State of Alabama obviously has different needs than the State 
of California, and even the different counties in my district have 
diverse needs. Consolidating Federal programs into more flexible block 
grants allows States to respond more effectively to the needs of their 
residents. Eliminating the cumbersome Federal bureaucracy and the maze 
of redtape and regulations which have beset the welfare program will 
permit Congress to send more funds to the States to spend on programs 
such as school lunches and WIC.
  H.R. 4 provides welfare families with education, training, job 
search, and work experience needed to prepare them to discontinue 
welfare assistance. At the same time H.R. 4 protects children and 
families by maintaining a food stamp program, which grows in a 
recession, as a Federal safety net. Furthermore, a safeguard has been 
placed in the Federal nutrition grant which mandates that at least 80 
percent of the money must be spent on low-income children. That's the 
same ratio found in current nutrition programs.
  We can no longer sit back and allow millions of poor Americans to be 
trapped in the black hole of a failed welfare system. It is unfortunate 
that the very system created to assist persons in getting back on their 
feet has trapped them in a cycle of government dependency. We have 
spent $5 trillion in the war on poverty and the status quo will no 
longer cut it; let's start taking responsibility for this Nation and 
pass H.R. 4. Vote ``no'' on this substitute and vote ``for'' H.R. 4.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. McCrery], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. McCRERY. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
   Mr. Chairman, this Deal substitute, unfortunately, is just more of 
the same, micromanaging from a Federal level, trying to maintain the 
status quo. We cannot afford more of the same in this country with 
respect to our welfare programs. We must have fundamental change. That 
is what H.R. 4 represents. Let me talk about one section of this bill, 
particularly the SSI disability for children program.
                              {time}  1845

  Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment again the good work that some 
Members on the Democrat side have done. The gentlewoman from Arkansas 
[Mrs. Lincoln], the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka]; they have 
done good work.
  Unfortunately though, Mr. Chairman, I think, when they put together 
this Deal substitute, they got snookered by some people on their side 
who did not want to change much about the SSI disability program for 
children.
  Yes, the Deal substitute does away with the individualized functional 
assessment, the IFA, the rather vague qualifying standard that children 
are getting in on now. But in the next section of their bill they 
recreate the IFA. They say the commissioner of Social Security must set 
up a functional equivalent standard. So they are going to call it the 
FES instead of the IFA.
  Big deal. No pun intended.
  That is just going right back to the same vague standard. It invites 
abuse of the program.
  Cash. They continue cash for all children on SSI. That is the problem 
with the program now. At the level where the disability is not so bad 
that a child must be institutionalized or have the threat of 
institutionalization they are getting these parents coaching their kids 
to act crazy. Even in the literature that the gentleman from Georgia 
[Mr. Deal] handed out it says we cure the crazy check problem. I say to 
my colleagues, ``No, you don't. You invite it all over again by leaving 
that lure of cash out there for the parents.''
  The Deal substitute does not fix the problem, they do not fix the 
IFA. The GAO report right here issued this month says, ``You can't fix 
it, you can't fix it.''
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner].
  (Mr. HEFNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the fairest, 
most humane reform bill that has been offered in this House in many, 
many years.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], one of the original cosponsors of this 
legislation.
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I am constantly shocked by what I hear on 
the floor and what I see being put out. Deal taxes welfare moms' 
benefits. Thirty-three percent of the kids in America do not even 
qualify for a tax cut, and yet we have a wonderful yellow sheet put 
together by a political consultant designed for a 20-second spot on TV.
  Now let us talk about Deal raises taxes on the middle class. I am 
surprised to hear that coming from this side of the aisle.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my good friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Shaw], ``Do you remember March 29, 1990, roll call 57? We lost that day 
on the ABC bill. We lost 195 to 225, but you did a heck of a job 
rounding up Republican votes. All but 14 voted for the same language 
today that you criticized.''
  Now we talk about Medicaid spending. Let us talk about Medicaid 
spending in the Deal bill compared to H.R. 4. Let us talk about that 
welfare mother that has a child, and takes a job, and earns $1 more 
than the law allows, and then has to lose her Medicaid coverage. There 
is not a man or woman on this floor that would take a job under those 
circumstances, and I say to the gentleman, ``You're got the gall to 
criticize the Deal bill for being inadequate?''
  I cannot believe some of the stuff. We have talked about differences 
that we have got, but some of the criticisms, taxes, Medicaid spending, 
welfare moms, taxing benefits, absolutely ridiculous.
  Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to 
debate this important issue and particularly, the Deal substitute. I 
rise in strong support of Mr. Deal's substitute and commend him for his 
leadership in this effort.
  I believe that we have put together a real, workable reform package 
that achieves the goal we are all striving for--changing the face of 
our welfare system. The Deal substitute people off welfare and into 
work and it provides the funding to do so.
  By maintaining the funding necessary to carry out our program, the 
Deal substitute avoids unfunded mandates and increased state and local 
burdens. In contrast, the National Conference of State Legislatures 
says that ``H.R. 4 contains many un- and underfunded mandates including 
a federal work requirement with hefty participation rates''. The United 
States Conference of Mayors also says of H.R. 4 that ``in addition to 
the significant negative impact the proposal would have on low income 
people, it will also further strain local budgets.''
  As you can see from the chart, the savings from H.R. 4 are much more 
drastic than the savings in the Deal substitute. In other words, states 
will receive $18.8 billion less to care for the needy and help get 
individuals into jobs under the base bill than they would receive under 
the Deal substitute. More importantly, the Deal substitute directs all 
of our savings--approximately $7.5 billion--to deficit reduction, not 
tax cuts for the wealthy. This substitute is the only proposal that can 
claim any deficit reduction because it is the only proposal which locks 
those savings away from being spent again.
  In addition, the Deal substitute maintains the current federal 
nutrition programs, such as school lunch and WIC. Rather than being 
driven by spending cuts, our proposal focuses on moving people from 
welfare to work. School lunch programs, therefore, should not be, and 
are not, part of our welfare reform proposal.
  We have heard a great deal of talk about nutrition programs, 
particularly school lunch programs. The talk that really caught my 
attention, however, was the input I received from the school 
superintendents in the 17th District. They couldn't understand why we 
would want to change our school lunch program, when they don't see 
anything wrong with the way it is now. Because they work in the program 
at the local level, I trust that they know how well the program is 
working.
  The Deal substitute also follows a responsible approach to changes in 
the Food Stamp Program, including strong provisions to cut 
 [[Page H3685]] down on fraud and abuse. The Food Research and Action 
Center [FRAC] has endorsed the Deal substitute as a ``far better 
approach toward meeting the nutrition needs of families, children, and 
elderly.''
  I strongly urge your support for real, workable welfare reform. 
Support the Deal substitute.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Houghton], a member of the committee.
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, there is much appeal to the Deal 
amendment, and I have great respect for Mr. Deal himself in terms of 
changes in the trend in the current welfare plan, States requiring 
participation, a whole variety of things like that, but it seems to me 
the basic weakness comes down to two things. First, there is continued 
cash payments, and I know I am being repetitive here. Second, there is 
an open-ended entitlement concept, and I say to my colleagues, if 
you're going to change welfare, I don't know how you do it with cash 
payments and open-ended entitlement. It's absolutely contrary to what 
we're trying to do, and I frankly think the Republican bill here, what 
we're approaching, is humane, and yet it has an element of discipline 
and reality to it.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I point out that under the Republican bill it is 2 
years before anybody ever has to go to work, but in ours 30 days after 
they enter they have to begin a job search and sign a self-sufficiency 
plan.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the 
Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza].
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, I urge you to 
vote for the substitute bill prepared by Mr. Deal and others. The food 
stamp title of this substitute includes all of the antifraud proposals 
of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. No one can say that the 
substitute isn't tough on waste, fraud, and abuse. The food stamp 
substitute requires people to work. No one can say that this substitute 
does not have a work provision to receive food stamp benefits.
  After 6 months, anyone who is unable to find work, we also have 
provisions for employment and training. The substitute bill will 
promote expansion of electronic benefit transfers, or EBT. The 
substitute requires, and this is very important, this difference 
between the substitute and H.R. 4: We reduce legitimate costs, but we 
will not reduce costs from legitimate users of food stamps. These are 
not the no counts, not the anything else. What H.R. 4 does, it keeps 
the thrifty food plan at 103 percent, but with no increase. If the cost 
of food goes up; too bad, you go hungry. We don't do that. And also the 
substitute bill requires that all net savings must go to reducing the 
deficit. It does not go to anything else.
  Mr. Chairman, let us not punch holes in the safety net in the name of 
welfare. I say to my colleagues, don't talk to the Ag Committee about 
reducing expenditures. We have done over $60 billion in 12 years, but, 
Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I refuse to use hungry people to get 
moneys to give tax breaks to wealthy people. The Deal substitute 
mandates you to use the savings only for deficit reduction.
  I urge colleagues to vote for the substitute bill prepared by Mr. 
Deal and others. We have worked with Mr. Deal on the food stamp 
provisions of that substitute and believe that they present a much 
better option than the food stamp provisions of H.R. 4.
  The food stamp title of the substitute includes all of the antifraud 
proposals of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, proposals incorporated 
in H.R. 1093, a bill I introduced on March 1. Although a number of the 
USDA proposals were included in H.R. 4 as a result of an amendment I 
offered at our welfare reform markup, the substitute includes all of 
the Department's proposals. The most significant of the substitute's 
antifraud provisions will authorize criminal and civil forfeiture when 
food retailers traffic in food stamps. This provision will create a 
significant disincentive to food stamp trafficking. The substitute also 
doubles the penalties for individuals violating program rules, and 
requires the collection of certain claims against households by Federal 
tax and salary offset.
  The substitute will require that food stamp recipients work at least 
half-time, participate in a public service program in return for their 
benefits, or participate in an employment and training program. This 
requirement will be imposed on able-bodied recipients who have no 
children, after they have received food stamps for 6 months. This 
category of recipient is very likely to find work on their own during 
the first 6 months and no longer need food stamps. if they are unable 
to find work within that 6 month period and continue to need food 
stamps, the work requirements will be imposed. Every recipient wishing 
to continue to receive food stamp benefits after 6 months who is unable 
to find work, will be assured of a slot in an employment and training 
program rather than being kicked off of the food stamp program. Of 
course, the elderly and disabled are exempt, and those families 
receiving AFDC will be required to follow the AFDC work rules.
  The substitute will provide greater coordination between food stamps 
and AFDC by requiring in many instances that the same rules be used to 
calculate income and assets. This provision will help caseworkers who 
now must use different rules for different programs.
  The substitute will promote the expansion of electronic benefits 
transfer, or EBT, by allowing States to begin using EBT without seeking 
USDA approval first. Of course, the EBT requirements of the Food Stamp 
Act will still apply, and USDA will still monitor States to make sure 
that their EBT systems are in compliance with the law, but States will 
no longer have to prepare and have approved by USDA their plan for EBT. 
This provision should make it easier for States to implement EBT, and 
EBT will help us reduce fraud in the program.
  The substitute requires that food stamp allotments be based on 102 
percent of the thrifty food plan. The thrifty food plan is the cheapest 
of four food plans designed by USDA, and it assures a
 family a nutritionally adequate diet. It is adjusted annually to 
reflect the current cost of food, and food stamp allotments are then 
adjusted to reflect the changes in the thrifty food plan. This is one 
way that food stamps are responsive to changes in the economy. When 
food costs go up, food stamp allotments go up by the same percentage. 
H.R. 4 will discontinue use of this mechanism to keep food stamp 
benefits in line with the cost of food, and it will simply require that 
allotments be raised by 2 percent each year, no matter how much food 
costs might increase. CBO estimates that by fiscal year 1998, food 
stamp benefits will fall below what a family will need to maintain a 
nutritionally adequate diet if H.R. 4 is enacted. The substitute bill 
will not let that happen. The annual adjustments to reflect the cost of 
food will still be made, and instead of families getting 103 percent of 
what they need, they will get 102 percent--the extra 2 percent 
addresses the lag between the time that the thrifty food plan 
adjustment is made and when benefits are issued over the next 15 
months.

  This reduction in food stamp benefits, and several other provisions 
of the substitute, are included to provide some savings in the 
projected cost of the food stamp program. I understand that OMB 
projects the savings from these food stamp provisions at approximately 
$4 billion over 5 years. These are painful cuts, but we are providing 
those savings in as humane a way as we possibly can. The substitute 
bill requires that any net savings must go to deficit reduction and 
nothing else. This will assure that any reductions in benefits will 
only go to the employment and training programs, the coordination of 
AFDC and food stamps, or deficit reduction. To reduce benefits and 
allow the savings to be used for any other purpose is unacceptable.
  Finally, the bill coordinates four commodity distribution programs: 
the Emergency Food Assistance Program, the Commodity Supplemental Food 
Program, the program for soup kitchens and food banks, and the program 
for charitable institutions. These programs will be consolidated into 
one discretionary program.
  This substitute will maintain the safety net for all welfare 
recipients who are willing to work but unable to find jobs. It will 
help those recipients find work, and train them for work if that is 
what is needed. The policy behind the substitute demands that we reform 
our welfare system so that it is humane and effective as it moves 
people off of welfare and into jobs. Let us not punch holes in the 
safety net in the name of welfare reform.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Archer].
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Chairman, may I ask my friend, the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. de la Garza], what are the savings in this bill that are 
going to go against the deficit?
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ARCHER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. de la GARZA. I say to the gentleman, you haven't told us. You 
refuse to tell us.
  Mr. ARCHER. I am talking about their bill.
   [[Page H3686]] Mr. de la GARZA. The substitute mandates that it goes 
to deficit reduction.
  Mr. ARCHER. Where are the savings in the Deal substitute?
  Mr. de la GARZA. The savings are in the way that we revamp the food 
stamp program and not as much as you revamped it, you reduced them, 
but----
  Mr. ARCHER. I will say to the gentleman, your bill spends $2 billion 
more.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the majority whip, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay].
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Clinton-
Deal substitute, and I applaud the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal] 
for his efforts to bring a conservative Democrat approach to welfare as 
we know it. For 30 years we have seen a series of Presidents, from 
Lyndon Johnson, to Jimmy Carter, to Bill Clinton, who have failed to 
deliver on their promise to end welfare as we know it. Now we have 
another approach to tinker around the edges, and a very weak effort in 
my opinion. The Clinton-Deal bill throws more money at the problem, 
creates more programs on top of programs, more job programs on top of 
over 150 job programs that are already out there failing, and it is 
amazing to me under this bill welfare spending is going to increase 
from $300 billion this year to $500 billion by the end of this decade.
  The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] is so exercised on that kind 
of issue because the savings under our bill would not explicitly go to 
deficit reduction. The irony here is there are no substantial savings 
in the Clinton-Deal substitute to go to deficit reduction under it and 
a paltry $10 billion in savings as described by the previous speaker 
over the next 5 years out of a trillion dollars in spending on welfare.
  What we have here is very basic. We have a conservative approach by 
the Democrat Party to take a system that asks a 14-year-old child that 
has a baby out of wedlock to stay in a public housing system, be 
isolated in a torn-down public housing unit, live among the rats and 
cockroaches with the drug pushers standing outside the door, and, as 
long as she does not get married or work, the cash will keep flowing. 
Their new system is all of that, living in public housing, not getting 
married, with the drug pushers standing outside the door. As long as 
she worked a little bit, the cash will keep flowing.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to 
respond to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay].
   Mr. Chairman, I wish he would read my bill. It says we do not 
continue those benefits to underage mothers. They have to live at home 
with a parent or an adult, and they do not have the freedom to live in 
that public housing, and we require they go back to school and complete 
their high school education.
  I would also point out there is no Clinton-Deal bill. It is the 
Clement-Deal bill. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Clement] has 
previously spoken.
   Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Levin].
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I further say to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Delay], ``Why don't you stop talking labels and start talking 
substance? It is about time. There is a way to reform welfare, and we 
must do it, and that is work, work.''
  Mr. Chairman, the key to breaking cycles of dependence and poverty is 
moving people on welfare into productive work, and that is why I 
support the Deal bill. The Republican bill talks about work, but lets 
participation goals be met by States without a single person being put 
to work and without putting a single dollar into a Federal partnership 
with States to get people off work into welfare.
  Welfare reform on the cheap will not work. The Deal bill ensures the 
necessary incentives, including child and medical care, to the person 
who should move from welfare and additional resources to the States to 
help make it really happen with reasonable time limits.
  In a word, Mr. Chairman, the Deal plan is likely to move people off 
welfare into work. The Republican plan is more likely to move people 
off welfare to nowhere at all. The Republican plan is not only weak on 
work, it is harsh on kids from its hit on school lunches and other 
nutrition programs to its mandates to the States that they cannot 
provide a cash benefit for a child if it is born to teen mothers or if 
it is a second child.
  The Republicans' punitive approach is seen in their treatment of 
middle and low income families with a seriously handicapped, physically 
handicapped, kid. It cuts $15 billion from the current program and 
replaces it with a block grant of only $3.8 billion. The Deal bill gets 
at abuses without being abusive to handicapped kids.
  The Republican approach to SSI is a vivid example of the painful fact 
the Republican bill is extreme. The Deal bill is mainstream. Let us 
support the Deal bill.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. English], a member of the committee.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, as I have reviewed this 
so-called Deal substitute, and we do know there is no Clinton bill; I 
will concede that point; I can understand why there was no bill offered 
in committee, and I can understand why there was no bill passed by the 
other side of the aisle last session. What they have offered here is a 
tax and spend approach to welfare reform which is not going to fly 
because it is tied to the existing failed welfare system. This bill has 
cash flow problems because under it cash flows to minors, cash flows to 
aliens, cash flows to welfare families who have additional kids, and 
States are even required to pay cash to some who are not working.
  Mr. Chairman, State flexibility is gutted under this bill. States 
need to come back to Washington to get permission to reform their 
welfare system. Power stays with the HHS bureaucracy, and under this 
bill, under this existing entitlement structure, the welfare system was 
preserved like a fly in amber.
  There is also a $1.5 billion unfunded mandate on the States, and let 
us talk about taxes. I say to my colleagues, ``You may want to wake up. 
This is an applause line for you because we're going to talk about how 
you're raising taxes. You raise taxes on working moms in families with 
a $60,000 income range. You impose taxes on AFDC benefits and food 
stamps.''
                              {time}  1900

  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln], one of the original 
cosponsors of the amendment.
  (Mrs. LINCOLN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to get one thing 
straight, and that is definitely that this bill is not the status quo. 
If people would learn to check their party sometimes at the door and 
take a listen to what their people are saying at home to put people 
above politics and read what we have got here, we would know that.
  In my weekly trips home to Arkansas, I constantly hear stories of a 
government program called ``crazy checks.'' Teachers, doctors, bankers 
complain to me that parents are coaching their children to misbehave in 
school to get a no-strings-attached government check. Well, if we do 
not do something about this program, we are the ones that are crazy.
  So in February of last year, I asked the GAO to investigate both the 
allegations of coaching and the overall integrity of the program.
  And after a year of study, the GAO results confirmed my escalating 
concerns. The program has grown 300 percent since 1989, and the 
subjective IFA standard left the door open for abuse.
  The GAO said, the high level of subjectivity leaves the process 
susceptible to manipulation and the consequent appearance that children 
fake mental impairments to qualify for benefits. A more fundamental 
problem is determining which children are eligible for benefits using 
this new IFA process.
  Well, we eliminate that IFA program, and we do reform that program by 
trimming 25 percent off the rolls, but we are not cruel to disabled 
children.
  The Office of the Inspector General at HHS said that SSI payments are 
not being used for special needs of children 
 [[Page H3687]] with disabilities so that they can be engaged in 
substantial gainful activity.
  We are the only bill that holds the parent accountable to prove that 
they are using those funds toward the disability of that child. For the 
first time, we put that accountability into a program.
  The Republicans in our letters that we received certainly from the 
subcommittee was that all of the governors opposed H.R. 4 in terms of 
the SSI disability for children program.
  I acknowledge the hard work that my colleagues Mr. McCrery and Mr. 
Kleczka have put in. Though I disagree with their approach to solving 
the problem, I certainly applaud them for making the effort.
  The Deal bill is the best one there, and I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Nevada [Mr. Ensign], a member of the committee.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, the Deal bill increases taxes on middle-
class families. It increases taxes by $2.2 billion by phasing out a 
child care credit for middle-class working families, $2.2 billion. I 
campaigned on a middle-class tax cut, not to raise taxes on middle-
class families.
  The Deal bill also will cost the American taxpayer, get this, $64 
billion more than the Republican bill over 5 years. That is $64 
billion.
  The Deal bill is also weak on work. Let me give you an example of how 
in the formula you can play games with this. If somebody goes off of 
welfare into work, does that three times during the year, under the 
Deal bill this would be counted as three people going into work. That 
is how you can play games with the formula, and that is why this bill, 
one of the reasons this bill is so flawed. This bill is more symbolism 
than it is substance.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the Deal bill and for the 
Personal Responsibility Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Thurman], one of the original cosponsors 
of this amendment.
  (Mrs. THURMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, the Republicans pledged to enact a tough 
welfare reform bill. The Republican plan is more than tough. It is 
downright cruel. It is brutal to children, the elderly and families 
that are trying to get back on their feet.
  The bottom line here is that the Republican plan takes food out of 
the mouths of hungry children, children whose only sin is having 
parents who are working through tough times or elderly folks who have 
to make daily decisions between buying food or medicine.
  Let us set the record straight right now. This not about welfare 
cheats. This is about food. Make no mistake, $25 billion in cuts in 
food stamps alone means less food for children and the elderly.
  Oh, we have heard the excuses over the weeks. A little here, a little 
there, it will not hurt anybody. But when a child misses a meal, it 
hurts that child. It hurts me. And, Mr. Chairman, it should hurt my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle because the bill threatens the 
very future of our society.
  I stand up tonight to say this is wrong. Our children are our future. 
When we sacrifice their
 well-being, we sacrifice the future of America. The Republican plan 
will cause children to suffer from cognitive development problems due 
to malnutrition. They do not eat; they do not learn. They grow up 
hungry, and they cannot get a job. Then where do we stand?

  The Republican plan reduces the ability of hungry people to buy food. 
In a few years, food stamp benefits will fall below the amount needed 
to purchase the thrifty food plan, the bare-bones plan that was 
developed under the Nixon and Ford administrations. What this means is 
that, first, kids get no butter on their bread, then no bread on their 
plates, then no vegetable, then no meat. And, finally, the people of 
the Third World will be watching our starving children on the evening 
news.
  Today, the benefit level is set at 103 percent of that thrifty food 
plan cost. The Deal plan does drop it to 102 percent but guarantees 
that it will never drop below the basic benefit level. The Deal plan 
provides the safety net for those who need it the most. Here is the 
Deal safety net. Here is the Republican safety net disappearing 
quickly.
  The goal of welfare reform should be to create the most effective 
welfare system. I beg you to vote for the Deal plan.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson].
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, the Deal substitute is as weak as water on the subject 
of work. They say that it is work first. It ought to be called job 
search first. If you listen closely, they keep talking about job 
search. They keep talking about work-related activity.
  Under the Deal substitute, a person could spend up to 2 years in job 
search without ever doing any real work. And, ladies and gentlemen, 
looking is not working.
  Then the Deal substitute has a loophole big enough for 500,000 
welfare recipients to walk through. You see, caseload attrition counts 
as work participation. It is a kind of caseload revolving door. One 
person going on and off the rolls three times in a year would count as 
three people going to work. The Republican plan requires not only real 
work but a real net decrease in the caseload.
  The Deal substitute does virtually nothing on the subject of 
illegitimacy and out-of-wedlock births, though the President himself 
has admitted the clear link between welfare and out-of-wedlock births.
  Incredibly, the Deal substitute raises taxes on working moms with 
children, over $2 billion at the very time we are trying to provide tax 
relief for the American family. The Deal substitute has spending 
increases. It is going to cost $2 billion more over the next 5 years, 
while the GOP plan saves billions of dollars. It is tax and spend again 
and again, and the American people do not want a welfare reform plan 
that is going to cost more money.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield a minute and a half to the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh].
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Deal 
amendment.
  First, let me say I appreciate the efforts of Mr. Deal and his 
colleagues to work towards a welfare bill that would reduce the 
dependency on welfare, but there are several provisions in there that I 
find very troubling.
  My opposition to the welfare system as we know it today is that I 
think it ruins the American family. It creates incentives for women to 
leave their husbands in order to receive benefits, it penalizes 
families that stick together, and it ultimately undermines the family 
as an institution in our society.
  Provisions in this bill which end up taxing working mothers who are 
relying on the earned income tax credit and increase the marriage 
penalty in that program, I think, would be counterproductive.
  I also think that allowing a statement that we are going to accept 50 
percent illegitimacy rates as being OK sends the wrong signal in this 
country. We have to be against illegitimacy and strengthen the family 
and strengthen the roots that it creates in order to overcome the deep 
social problems that we have in this country.
  So, Mr. Chairman, for that reason, I would urge my colleagues to vote 
against the Deal substitute and stay with the bill that came out of 
committee.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer].
  (Mr. CRAMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Deal 
substitute, the only deficit reducing welfare reform plan.
  Mr. Chairman, we must reform the welfare system from top to bottom. 
The current system does not work. It was intended to be a safety net 
for poor children and families, but it has become a burned-out 
bureaucracy that encourages laziness and discourages people from 
finding work.
  I support welfare reform, and I am going to vote for the strongest 
plan possible. I am cosponsoring a plan drafted by the coalition, 
 [[Page H3688]] which is a group I belong to made up of conservative 
and moderate House Members.
  The plan I support is tough but fair. It is the best plan before 
Congress to get people off welfare and get them into the workforce.
  The welfare reform plan I support would:
  Impose a 2-year lifetime limit on welfare benefits.
  Demand that people who get welfare start their job search immediately 
upon receiving benefits.
  Impose tougher enforcement of child support, with provisions to 
revoke driver's licenses and withhold income of people who fail to pay 
child support.
  Provide States with funding for job training for recipients so they 
can get off welfare and into work.
  While other welfare proposals have been criticized for cutting the 
National School Lunch Program, the plan I support does not affect 
school lunches or any other nutrition program.
  The problem with the current welfare system is not the School Lunch 
Program. The problem is the welfare system doesn't give people any 
incentive to work.
  The plan I support provides benefits for a limited amount of time, 
during which you must look for a job. No more something for nothing.
  My plan is the only one that reduces the deficit. It costs less than 
the current system, and it specifically directs the savings to go 
toward deficit reduction. Other plans put their savings toward paying 
for tax cuts.
  This proposal is tough but sensible. It provides reasonable 
assistance for those in need for a limited amount of time. It provides 
the means and the incentive to get off welfare and get a job.
  The House is expected to hold votes on the coalition's welfare reform 
plan and competing proposals by Friday afternoon.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner], one of the original cosponsors of this 
legislation.
  (Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia 
[Mr. Deal] and say that the six of us who have been working on this for 
3, almost 4 years now, none of us are committee chairmen, none of us 
are ranking members of a committee, and so the gentleman was right when 
he said it is really, I think, a tribute to the merit of this work that 
our staffs and others have done that we are even on the floor tonight.
  We looked at our welfare system again about 4 years ago and decided 
that we needed to change it for three or four reasons.
  One, the present system encouraged unwed motherhood, and that is 
wrong, and we changed that in our bill.
  Second, it discouraged two-parent families, and that is wrong, and we 
changed incentives in the system in this bill.
  Third, we knew we had to do child care and some things for kids so 
that people could accept a job and go to work, and we went about this 
in a way that was quiet in many respects. But it was like this. We went 
with one guiding principle, and that is if life, as one man once said, 
is about nothing else, it is about the dignity that comes with earning 
one's own way.
  Our bill is the only one that really and truly tries to get people 
back to work with self-sufficiency contracts, with a partnership with 
the State. We try to fix the things that are wrong with the Federal 
system before we dump it on the governors and the legislatures and the 
cities of this Nation.
  I have letters from the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National 
League of Cities against H.R. 4 because of what they see coming down 
the road in terms of unfunded mandates. But I am not going to get into 
all that tonight.
  Let me tell you what I am going to talk about with the little time I 
have got left. Very similar to our bill, 162 Republicans in the last 
Congress signed a bill just like this, almost like it, and we have been 
working with them a long time.
  The six of us that are sponsors of this bill cannot be accused of 
being partisan voters. We have had, we collectively have, I would 
suggest, the most nonpartisan voting record in this House over the time 
we have been here. And for the criticism that comes from the 
Republicans tonight on some of the things that they have been for until 
it was here tonight as our bill, I think, is disgusting and disgusting 
for this reason. The American people have got enough sense to know that 
neither party has got a monopoly on wisdom and virtue. And they are 
tired of partisan gamesmanship and this unbelievable rhetoric at the 
level that there is, and 162 of you were for it when we had this almost 
same bill in the last Congress, and now all of a sudden it is bad.
  I think it is a shame. I think the American people want this Congress 
to work for them and do something about our problems. We have got a 
chance to do it tonight, and I would urge us to lay aside our partisan 
differences and try to do that.

                              {time}  1915

  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the previous speaker that if 
we started pointing out the good parts, they would start losing votes 
on that side.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Missouri 
[Mr. Talent].
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Let us look at what the Republican bill actually does. It actually 
requires actual people actually on the welfare case load to work; 
2,225,000 people by the beginning of the next decade will have to work 
under the Republican bill. And it is work as the American people 
understand work, working at a job.
  Let us look at what the Deal bill has. It has job search. It has 
education and training. It has personal employability plans. Where have 
we seen that before? In the 1988 welfare bill, which was also called a 
workfare bill. Do you know how many people are working now that we have 
had the 1988 bill for 6 years, 26,000 people out of 4\1/2\ million 
people are working. That is how many people are going to be working 
under the Deal bill. It is the same old wine and it is not even in new 
bottles. It is the same old wine in the same old bottles.
  We are taxing middle-class Americans. We are pouring the money into 
billions and billions of dollars worth of new bureaucracies, personal 
employability plans, education and training. No where does the bill 
define work as work, and nobody will be
 working.

  The bill does nothing about illegitimacy. It allows the illegitimacy 
rate to continue to grow. It creates new bureaucracies instead of 
requiring work. It maintains the Federal lock hold on the welfare 
system. It is the kind of welfare reform that we have had in the past.
  Mr. Chairman, it proves that we need not just to end welfare as we 
know it, we need to end welfare reform as we know it.
  Vote for the Republican welfare bill and against the Deal substitute.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa 
[Mr. Latham].
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose Mr. Deal's substitute amendment to the 
Personal Responsibility Act. The current welfare system is 
fundamentally broken. We must replace it, instead of tinkering around 
the edges.
  The Deal substitute retains ultimate power in the hands of Federal 
bureaucrats. Allow me to give some examples:
  States will still have to come to Washington bureaucrats to get 
waivers to try anything new or innovative. These waivers can take years 
to obtain.
  The Deal substitute also preserves the Federal bureaucrats power over 
work programs. More ``Washington Knows Best.'' Job placement vouchers, 
work supplementation and workfare are all subject to the blessing of 
Federal bureaucrats.
  I support the Personal Responsibility Act because it will not require 
Governors--who are far ahead of Washington when it comes to welfare 
reform--to seek permission from Federal bureaucrats for their innovate 
welfare-to-work programs.
  The bottom line is that the Deal substitute fails to meet the public 
demand to end welfare as we know it. I urge my colleagues to vote 
against the Deal substitute.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Collins], a member of the committee.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Members, opportunity knocks only once. But temptation will beat your 
 [[Page H3689]] door down. The Deal substitute is a temptation. It is a 
temptation that continues an open-end entitlement program.
  What is an entitlement? An entitlement simply means that if you fit 
the criteria of a program, you are entitled to the money that comes 
from that program. Should not states have the opportunity to adjust 
their criteria? No, under the Deal substitute, they continue to be 
faced with mandates of how to beat that criteria.
  States should have the flexibility to adjust. A lot has been said 
about Governors, Republican Governors, mainly, but I want to mention a 
Democrat Governor from Georgia, Zell Miller, a real leader in welfare 
reform.
  Just last December, he said, ``Mac, when it comes to welfare reform, 
just send me the money. Even if you have to send it be less, I will 
handle welfare reform in Georgia.'' And he has and he will continue to 
do so.
  Let us end the Washington bureaucracy. Let us give the States and the 
local governments the ability to assist their citizens. Compassion 
begins at home, my colleagues, not in Washington.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gene Green.
  (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Deal 
amendment.
  I support the substitute offered by Representative Deal which 
provides real reform of our Nation's welfare system without penalizing 
children, seniors, or economically disadvantaging people. Congress must 
provide training and transitional assistance to move Americans from 
welfare to work. Without providing the helping hand to welfare 
participants, Congress will force them to make a choice between health 
care benefits, child care and housing assistance, or work. No one 
should be forced to pick between their children or work.
  We must take charge and reform the welfare system which penalizes 
families for staying together or trying to obtain work which will cause 
the loss of several assistance programs. The Deal substitute does 
provide this assistance in the crucial transition period. A 2-year 
extension for medical assistance allows a welfare recipient to better 
their life and keep their health care benefits.
  The Deal substitute is tough love but it provides the helping hand 
for recipients to move on to a better life. Deal requires double the 
number of people to work than the Republicans do and provides more 
assistance. While the Republicans claim they are tough on requiring 
work for welfare, the Deal substitute requires it.
  The Deal substitute allows nutrition programs to continue under 
current law. The Republican bill cuts school lunch and completely 
changes the entire program. Under the Republican's bill, school 
breakfast and lunch funding is guaranteed to Governors but there is no 
guarantee of a school lunch meal for our children. The block grant 
funding system does not allow for any of this and will force the State 
of Texas to make up for lost funding either by raising taxes or cutting 
services. Cutting services means fewer meals.
  The Comptroller for the State of Texas estimated a loss of federal 
revenues of over $1 billion in the next 2 years if the Republican 
welfare bill is passed. Congress must not force this massive cost shift 
onto the States. We passed the unfunded mandates but this will be an 
unfunded mandate beyond any other. The State of Texas will be forced to 
take charge of programs which the Federal Government is abandoning.
  We must not turn our backs on the children, seniors, or any 
Americans. I support the Deal substitute and I ask for its passage.
  Mr. DEAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Ford].
  (Mr. FORD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Deal 
substitute. I have worked with him over the past 6 weeks, and we have 
looked closely at this bill. And we strongly support this substitute 
for a real work bill.
  Mr. DEAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis].
  (Mr. LEWIS of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Deal 
bill.
  Mr. DEAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I said at the outset that we are the Cinderella team 
here. We are just pleased to be invited to the ball. We had to come as 
we were. One of our stepsisters got invited. They were supposed to be 
the one that wore the shipper. We have taken 2 days and 31 visits to 
the beauty shop to try to improve their dress, to improve their hair 
style and to give them a facial makeover.
  But we are glad to be invited to the ball. We thank all of you for 
that opportunity.
  Let me address some of the issues that you have stated previously. 
First of all, we think that unfortunately, if you are going to break 
welfare, you have to get people to work. You saw the charts that were 
displayed on this side.
  The one glaring error is that on the Republican bill you can count 
somebody in your work requirements just by simply kicking them off the 
rolls whether they ever to go work or not. We do not allow that.
  Let us look at the percentages here. You will see the percentages. As 
you notice, one of the makeovers did increase the percentages, but it 
did not give the States any additional revenue to achieve these goals. 
If it costs money to get people to work, where is the extra revenue to 
get them to work? We believe it is one of the largest unfunded mandates 
that States and communities will ever see.
  We have a letter from the Conference of Mayors, indicating they think 
that it is a shift, made reference to the fact that the Governors, 
Republican Governors Association endorsed a letter against us. I notice 
that only eight of them signed it. I thought you had significantly more 
than that. Maybe they will get around to signing it later.
  Let me talk to you about the issue of flexibility. We talk about 
flexibility, and we talk about funding. This is the funding mechanism. 
you are not going to be able to get people off of work by cutting child 
care benefits. You are not going to get people off of work without 
giving them the incentive for additional transitional Medicaid so that 
a working mother does not lose the health care for her children. And 
that costs the money. You have got to have incentives for people to go 
to work. We do it and we save money.
  How much is it going to cost? I want to talk to you about how much it 
is going to cost.
  The CBO scores these things. That is what they are there for, and 
they are now under the Republicans' control. And we have talked about 
how much things are going to cost.
  CBO has scored both bills, and they have looked at it from the 
standpoint of are you achieving the goal of getting people off of 
welfare and into work. What do they say? They say that we can meet our 
work requirements under the bill and probably not use all of the 
resources.
  What do they say about the Republican version? They simply say that 
none of the 50 States, including the territories, will be able to reach 
the goals of work that they schedule.
  You can talk about us being able to allow people to look for jobs and 
job search. Yes, we do require that within 30 days from the time we 
began. But, gentleman and ladies on the other side, you allow people to 
sit at home for 2 years and never have to go to work. They do not even 
have to look in the yellow pages or in the work section of the 
newspaper.
  I would urge Members to look at this bill on the merits. We think it 
is a substantial improvement over what is being offered.
  We are Cinderella, and we believe at the end of the ball we will be 
wearing the slipper.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
   Mr. Chairman, we have had a long few days. I think we have had some 
good moments in this Chamber, and I think we have had some of our worst 
moments in this Chamber. But I am struck by the fact that no one has 
come to the floor and defended the status quo, despite the fact that 
for so many years the Democrats of this House have prevented real 
welfare reform.
  The gentleman from Tennessee who spoke just a few moments ago about 
 [[Page H3690]] working with us on other legislation, he has. The 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] mentioned the child care bill. We 
worked on that together, and we got good legislation.
  The problem is here there is too much politics and there is not 
enough cure. But let us look for a minute. I want to be very 
complimentary of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal] for doing this 
and being able to bring about some of the Members of his party who are 
dead fast against any reform to bring them on board.
  You say you have been back and forth to the beauty parlor. Some areas 
you have sat under the dryer too long, I might say. I think that there 
are areas that your bill is very commendable. But I am not here to tell 
you where you did good.
  I am here to tell you where you messed up. And I know you messed up 
because of the compromises that you had to make to bring so many of 
your Members aboard.
  You increase the deficit by $2 billion. This is not a time to do 
this. The Republican bill decreases the deficit. It adds back to $67 
billion. That is a big, big difference.
  You increase taxes. That is a mistake in this atmosphere. It is a 
mistake to increase taxes, and you increase it on over 2 million 
middle-income families. That is a very, very big mistake. You should 
not have done it. You should not have weakened to that.
  It is weak on work. There is no question about it. When you say 
someone is looking for work, that counts as work. And you say you are 
tough on work. All you have to do is go home and say, I am working on 
my resume or send your resume to be president of General Motors and by 
God you are looking for work. But that should not score.
  On our side we say that you cannot, it is not a question of sitting 
home 2 years. Many of the Governors today, they provide that you have 
got to work the first day. You absolutely gut the program that is now 
in place in places such as Massachusetts and Michigan, where they are 
requiring them to go to work.
  Under the Deal bill they can say, I am getting an education and 
training. I am not going to go to work. I got 2 years.
  Under our bill, the States can say, no, you do not. You are going to 
work right now, because there is work out there and it is there for you 
and you are going to be able to take it.
  The unfunded mandates and keeping the bureaucracy here in Washington 
is the greatest tragedy of this bill.
  Vote ``no'' on the Deal bill.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, the current welfare system is at odds with 
the core values Americans share: work, opportunity, family, and 
responsibility.
  Instead of strengthening families and instilling personal 
responsibility, the system penalizes two-parent families, and lets too 
many absent parents who owe child support off the hook.
  It is long past time to ``end welfare as we know it.'' We need to 
move beyond political rhetoric, and offer a simple compact that 
provides people more opportunity in return for more responsibility.
  I have a few common-sense criteria which any welfare plan must meet 
to get my vote.
  It must require all able-bodied recipients to work for their 
benefits.
  It must require teenage mothers to live at home or other supervised 
setting.
  It must create a child support enforcement system with teeth so that 
deadbeat parents support their children.
  It must establish a time limit so that welfare benefits are only a 
temporary means of support.
  It must be tough on those who have defrauded the system.
  And it must give states maximum flexibility to shape their welfare 
system to their needs, while upholding the important national 
objectives I have just listed.
  Tuesday, in debate on the House floor, Mr. Castle said the Republican 
bill is a ``big bang'' approach to changing welfare. He was right--and 
it's the kids who are getting banged up.
  As Governor Mike Lowry of Washington State says regarding the 
Republican bill, ``I recognize the serious need to reshape and 
revitalize our public welfare system, but I oppose prescriptive Federal 
mandates that would harm children.''
  I rise today to support the Deal substitute. This is the only bill 
before this House which meets my criteria. It is the only bill before 
us which makes fundamental changes to the current system without 
hurting children.
  The Deal substitute reinforces the values which Americans share: Hard 
work, self discipline and personal responsibility. It is tough on work, 
fair to kids, holds recipients accountable to the government, and makes 
both parents responsible for taking care of their children.
  The Deal bill is tougher on work than any proposal before the House. 
As Governor Tom Carper of Delaware wrote, the Republican bill ``will 
not do what the public is demanding--that is, ensure that welfare 
recipients work.''
  Under the Deal bill, each individual coming onto AFDC will be 
required to sign a comprehensive individualized responsibility plan. 
This contract outlines what welfare recipients must do in order to 
receive Government assistance. The plan requires that each recipient 
begin to look for a job immediately, and work to gain the tools which 
will move them from welfare to work. Nobody who refuses to work will 
get benefits.
  In addition, the Deal bill requires States to meet higher 
participation rates than the Republican bill does. The Republican bill 
would count any kind of caseload reduction towards States' work 
participation rates, whether people are working or not. Under the Deal 
bill, people will be given the opportunity to gain the skills they need 
to get a job--with time limits that create the right incentives to do 
so.
  The Deal bill is also better than the Republican bill for what it 
does not do--it does not make children pay for the behavior of their 
parents. As Governor Benjamin Cayetano of Hawaii says, ``The Republican 
proposal will bite into the already overburdened safety nets of State 
and local government and numerous nonprofit organizations. It will bite 
into the tight budget of families working hard to get off welfare. And, 
most unfortunately, it will be the children in these families who will 
suffer the most.''
  Unlike the Republican bill, the Deal bill maintains the guarantee 
that no kid will go to school hungry. The Deal bill budgets enough 
funding for child care to make sure no kid will be left at home alone 
when mom and dad go to work. As Governor Dean points out, the 
Republican bill ``not only appears to reduce child care assistance by 
roughly 20 percent over 4 years, it would not account for projected 
increases in child care needs for welfare recipients who are required 
to work under the bill.'' The Deal bill makes sure welfare recipients 
can go to work without fearing for their children's safety--a critical 
element of workable welfare reform.
  As Governor Roy Roemer of Colorado points out, ``it is unacceptable 
to expect a parent to enter employment if it means their children's 
safety and well-being is jeopardized by lack of child care or medical 
assistance.'' Governor Gaston Caperton of West Virginia tells us that 
``we need to eliminate the disincentives to work running through our 
welfare system, by providing transitional health and child care 
benefits.'' Unlike the Republican bill, the Deal bill provides adequate 
funding for child care, and extends Medicaid eligibility for an 
additional year to help people move from welfare to work.
  The Deal bill also cracks down on deadbeat parents to make sure
  they live up to their responsibility to support their kids. It sends 
a crystal clear message to all Americans: You should not become a 
parent until you are able to provide and care for your child.
  The Deal bill puts the teeth into our child support enforcement 
system that the Republicans took out of their bill. It includes the 
provisions Mrs. Kennelly and I fought for in the Rules Committee last 
week which withholds or suspends the professional and driver's licenses 
of people who have not made their child support payments.
  The Deal bill will send a strong message that parents--even 
teenagers--must be responsible for their children. Under this bill, 
teen mothers will be required to live at home and stay in school. We 
will send the message that we will support children of teenagers only 
while their parents are preparing to support them independently.
  The Deal bill is also better than the Republican bill for what it 
does not do. The Republican bill wages an attack on the basic food 
programs that make sure every child in this country has at least one 
good meal a day. Despite rhetoric to the contrary, the Republican bill 
cuts spending for child nutrition programs almost $7 billion below the 
funding that would be provided by current law.
  Do not just rely on me to tell you. Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont says, 
the Republican bill ``would decrease funding, repeal nutritional 
standards and permit States to siphon off school lunch funds to pay for 
other programs. This is wrong and it should be stopped in its tracks.''
  In the Republican bill, funding for the Women, Infants and Children 
Program is reduced compared to current law--and provisions requiring 
competitive bidding on baby formula have been removed. That decision 
alone will take $1 billion of food out of the 
 [[Page H3691]] mouths of children each year, and put the money in the 
pockets of big business. This simply defies common sense. No one in 
America could possibly argue that this is ``reform.''
  The Deal bill maintains the current-law competitive requirements in 
WIC that save money for the taxpayers--and increase the number of women 
and children we can help in this program.
  The Deal bill also maintains current funding levels for foster care. 
Adoption and foster care services are already overloaded, and are 
failing our children. At a time when the need for foster care, group 
homes, and adoption is likely to rise dramatically, the Republican 
welfare plan would cut Federal support for foster care and adoption by 
$4 billion over 5 years.
  As Governor Lowry says, ``The overall effect of the welfare reform 
proposal may force more children into foster care; yet the State will 
have fewer funds to meet this increased need. Moreover, if the funds 
provided are diverted primarily into foster care, then there will be 
even less money available for family support and preservation, 
adoption, finding permanent homes for children, or prevention.''
  The Republican bill restricts State flexibility. Gov. Mel Carnahan of 
Missouri says that H.R. 1214 ``would undermine the reform that has 
already begun in States like Missouri'' because it would ``provide 
(block grants) with very little flexibility. The legislation is full of 
micromanagement prescriptions. Furthermore, the funding to achieve true 
reform and provide for recipients in harsh economic periods would be, 
at best, uncertain.'' Governor Dean says that H.R. 1214 ``is overly 
prescriptive by telling States how to design their reforms and who they 
can serve. It fails to meet the commitment of the leadership to grant 
States the flexibility we view as critical to successful State-based 
welfare reform.''
  As Governor Carnahan says, the Deal bill ``acknowledges what is 
needed to help people move from welfare to work. This measure would 
emphasize work requirements, bind recipients to an individual 
responsibility contract in order to receive benefits, and encourage 
responsible parenting.''
  Both Democrats and Republicans agree the current welfare system needs 
to be overhauled. The Deal bill is tough on work without being tough on 
kids. It represents true welfare reform--not the wealth-fare reform the 
Republicans propose.
  The Deal bill is the change we need to end welfare as we know it. I 
urge your support for this bill.
  I would like to submit the text of these letters from Governors 
across the country for the Record.
                                       Office of The Governor,

                                   Montpelier, VT, March 22, 1995.
     Hon. Richard Gephardt,
     Democratic Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Gephardt: As the House of 
     Representatives debates welfare reform, I wanted to share 
     with you my concerns about the Republican proposal, H.R. 
     1214, The Personal Responsibility Act.
       Vermont was the first state in the nation to implement a 
     statewide welfare reform initiative that includes both work 
     requirements and time limits. Our goals are to strengthen 
     incentives to work, make dependence on cash assistance 
     transitional, and promote good parenting and individual 
     responsibility. Although our reforms took effect in July we 
     are already seeing encouraging results. In the first six 
     months of operation, the number of employed parents in our 
     program increased by 19 percent and their average monthly 
     earnings grew by 23 percent.
       We were hopeful that federal reforms promised by the 104th 
     Congress would complement and propel Vermont's reform 
     initiative. However, after closely following the progress of 
     welfare reform in the House and examining the details of H.R. 
     1214, I can only conclude that this proposal will deal a 
     severe blow to our efforts in Vermont by shifting 
     responsibility and costs to the states.
       First, I believe there is a national interest in protecting 
     children and that a child in Mississippi is no less important 
     than a child in Minnesota. Any welfare reform should embrace 
     this national priority and ensure that children are protected 
     and not penalized for the mistakes of others. The Personal 
     Responsibility Act fails to meet this minimum test of decency 
     and represents a declaration of war on America's children.
       The failure of the leadership to meet this test is best 
     illustrated by their proposal to block grant the school lunch 
     program, a program that works and puts food directly into the 
     mouths of hungry children. The bill would decrease funding, 
     repeal national nutrition standards and permit states to 
     siphon off school lunch funds to pay for other programs. This 
     is wrong and it should be stopped dead in its tracks.
       Second, states have asked for flexibility to tailor welfare 
     reforms to meet the special circumstances present in every 
     state. H.R. 1214 is overly prescriptive by telling states how 
     to design their reforms and who they can serve. It fails to 
     meet the commitment of the leadership to grant states the 
     flexibility we view as critical to successful state-based 
     welfare reform.
       Finally, I am convinced, based on our experience in 
     Vermont, that real welfare reform will not save the states or 
     the federal government money in the short run. If the 
     leadership is serious about moving people from welfare to 
     real and meaningful work, it has missed the mark. Slashing 
     $69 billion dollars over five years from the very programs 
     that would help people transition from welfare to work is a 
     demonstration of the leadership's seriousness of purpose in 
     welfare reform. Without sufficient federal support for true 
     welfare reform, H.R. 1214 is simply another unfunded mandate 
     imposed on the states.
       Dick, I stand ready to work with you in any way to improve 
     this bill and I appreciate your leadership on this critical 
     issue. Please feel free to call on me if I can be of any 
     assistance.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Howard Dean, M.D.
     Governor.
                                                                    ____

                                           Executive Chambers,

                                     Honolulu, HI, March 21, 1995.
     Hon. Richard Gephardt,
     House Democratic Leader, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Gephardt: On behalf of the State of 
     Hawaii, I want to express my strong support for the efforts 
     of the House Democrats to craft a bill that would produce 
     meaningful and effective welfare reform.
       The State of Hawaii believes that real welfare reform 
     invests in people. This means welfare programs that train 
     people for the kinds of jobs that will allow them to earn a 
     decent living, to live a life off welfare, to be self 
     sufficient. Our state Department of Human Services is taking 
     action to make this kind of program a reality. We have in 
     place programs which require recipients to work part-time 
     while receiving job skills training. This type of program 
     empowers the recipients by providing them with meaningful 
     work experience concurrent to learning more effective job 
     skills. It also will save the state millions of dollars.
       Under the House Republican bill, welfare stands a good 
     change of becoming well-unfair. Unfair to welfare recipients 
     who will see basic benefits cut and eligibility standards 
     devised which do not work in the real world. And, unfair to 
     the states who will find themselves paying out of their own 
     pocket for programs mandated, but not funded, by Congress.
       On the surface, the House Republican bill's goals of 
     turning 336 welfare programs into 8 block grants sounds 
     appealing. It sounds like common sense. It sounds like 
     government being wise. In reality, the sound bites of the 
     House Republicans are just that--sound bites. The Republican 
     proposal will bite into the already overburdened safety nets 
     of state and local government and numerous non-profit 
     organizations. It will bite into the tight budget of families 
     working hard to get off welfare. And, most unfortunately, it 
     will be the children in these families who will suffer most.
       We in Hawaii cannot let this happen. Our community will not 
     stand idly by while others attempt to hobble our ability to 
     care for our vulnerable populations.
       I and other Democratic Governors believe that the health 
     and safety of children should be protected. That means 
     welfare reform with compassion. The House Republicans 
     proposal overlooks this key guiding principle of welfare.
       This proposal also restricts a state's ability to gain 
     meaningful welfare reform tailored to the specific needs of 
     an individual state. I stand with my fellow Democratic 
     Governors in asking for significant state flexibility which 
     is free of the bureaucratic prescriptive language and hazy 
     funding mechanisms.
       Congressman Gephardt, your leadership in crafting a reality 
     based welfare reform bill is heartily appreciated in the 
     Aloha State. The Democratic Governors have been national 
     leaders in the welfare reform movement, and we stand ready to 
     help you in any way possible to fashion a welfare bill that 
     will emphasize personal responsibility, promote self-
     sufficiency, provide economic opportunity and encourage 
     families to stay together.
       With warmest personal regards.
           Very truly yours,
                                             Benjamin J. Cayetano,
     Governor.
                                                                    ____

                                       Office of the Governor,

                               Jefferson City, MO, March 22, 1995.
     Hon. Richard Gephardt,
     House Democratic Leader, Washington, DC.
       Dear Dick: I am writing to express my concerns about the 
     welfare reform proposal, H.R. 1214, scheduled this week for 
     debate on the House floor. Unfortunately, this legislation is 
     not a serious attempt to reform welfare. If passed, it would 
     cause more damage than good to Missourians who are trying to 
     improve their lives.
       Democratic governors want to accomplish real welfare reform 
     and understand how to achieve it. It has been Democratic 
     governors who have instituted statewide programs to help 
     recipients break the cycle of dependency and go to work. 
     Democratic governors know that to achieve true change, people 
     must become self-sufficient, find and maintain a job, and be 
     responsible for their families.
       The welfare reform legislation that was passed in Missouri 
     last year accomplishes all of these goals and more. 
     Missouri's program emphasizes jobs and self-sufficiency. AFDC 
     recipients, for example must enroll in self- 
      [[Page H3692]] sufficiency pacts that are time-limit 
     contracts with a 24-month time limit and possible 24-month 
     extension. Minor parents must live in their parent's home to 
     receive AFDC.
       Missouri's reform does not stop there. Work is rewarded by 
     allowing families to keep a greater share of the money they 
     earn without experiencing a sudden loss of resources. Wage 
     supplements go to employers who create jobs in low-income 
     neighborhoods. Child care is made accessible for those who go 
     to work. Paternity acknowledgment at birth is increased. 
     Perhaps most importantly, Missouri does not tear away the 
     ``safety net'' for children. These are the responsible ways 
     to help people to help themselves.
       Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for H.R. 1214. Self-
     sufficiency and work are not emphasized. Support for children 
     is not ensured. In fact, this legislation would undermine the 
     reform that has already begun in states like Missouri. For 
     example:
       Block grants (which are by their nature intended to provide 
     flexibility to states) would be provided along with very 
     little flexibility. The legislation is full of micro-
     management prescriptions that are required of States. 
     Furthermore, the funding to achieve true reform and provide 
     for recipients in harsh economic periods would be, at best, 
     uncertain.
       Welfare recipients are denied the training, child care, and 
     health care that are needed to help recipients to qualify 
     for, obtain, and keep jobs. In fact, child care assistance 
     would be reduced approximately 20% over the next five years.
       Innocent children would be punished because federal funds 
     could not be used to support children born to a young mother, 
     born to current AFDC recipients, or born into a family that 
     has received AFDC for more than five years. Foster care 
     protections currently in place would be eliminated by this 
     bill and the guarantee of child nutrition programs for low-
     income children would be eliminated.
       These are only a few examples of the problems that are 
     evident with the Republican approach to welfare reform. As 
     for alternative approaches, the proposal put forth by 
     Congressman Nathan Deal (the Individual Responsibility Act of 
     1995) seems to be a much more legitimate approach to 
     improving the current welfare system. This measure 
     acknowledges what is needed to help people move from welfare 
     to work. This measure would emphasize work requirements, bind 
     recipients to an individual responsibility contract in order 
     to receive benefits, and encourage responsible parenting.
       Dick, I appreciate your leadership in trying to achieve 
     true welfare reform. There are ways to reform welfare without 
     punishing those who are less fortunate. I am proud of what we 
     are doing in Missouri and pleased to see many other 
     Democratic governors striving to better serve the people of 
     their states.
       Please let me know if there are more ways we can work 
     together with Congress to reward self-sufficieny, hard work, 
     and personal responsibility.
           Very truly yours,
                                                     Mel Carnahan,
     Governor.
                                                                    ____

                                                State of Delaware,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                                   March 21, 1995.
     Hon. Richard Gephardt,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Dick: As one of the NGA's two lead governors on 
     welfare reform, let me take this opportunity to bring to your 
     attention my serious concerns about the House Republican 
     welfare plan, H.R. 1214, which I understand will be 
     considered by the House this week.
       You may be aware that earlier this year, I announced my 
     statewide welfare reform initiative, ``A Better Chance.'' My 
     plan seeks to ensure that 1) work pays more than welfare; 2) 
     welfare recipients exercise personal responsibility; 3) 
     welfare is transitional; 4) both parents help support a 
     child; and, 5) two-parent families are encouraged, and 
     teenage pregnancy is discouraged.
       Under this plan, welfare recipients who go to work will 
     receive an additional year of child care assistance and 
     Medicaid, as well as part of their welfare grants for their 
     families and an individual development account for continuing 
     education, job training, and economic stability. Welfare 
     recipients will be required to sign contracts of mutual 
     responsibility, and a two-year time limit on cash assistance 
     for recipients over 19 will be imposed, after which 
     recipients will be required to work for their AFDC checks. 
     Teenagers will be required to stay in school, immunize their 
     children and participate in parenting education. To 
     discourage teenage pregnancy, I've begun a grassroots and 
     media outreach campaign to convince teens to postpone sexual 
     activity or avoid becoming or making someone else pregnant.
       In essence, Delaware's plan contains strong work 
     requirements, addresses the critical need for child care and 
     health care for poor working families, helps recipients find 
     private-sector jobs, outlines a contract of mutual 
     responsibility between welfare recipients and the state, 
     imposes real time limits on benefits, and lifts barriers to 
     the creation of two-parent families.
       As I've reviewed the House Republican plan, H.R. 1214, I 
     believe that it will undercut our efforts in Delaware to 
     enact real welfare reform. As written, H.R. 1214 will not 
     ensure that welfare recipients make the transition to work, 
     will not give states the flexibility needed to enact real 
     welfare reform, and will not assure adequate protection for 
     children.
                                  work

       The House Republican plan, H.R. 1214, will not ensure that 
     welfare recipients make the transition to work. The litmus 
     test for any real welfare reform is whether or not it 
     adequately answers the following three questions 1) Does it 
     prepare welfare recipients for work? 2) Does it help welfare 
     recipients find a job? 3) Does it enable welfare recipients 
     to maintain a job? The Republican proposal, H.R. 1214, fails 
     to meet this litmus test. This proposal will not do what the 
     public is demanding, that is, ensure that welfare recipients 
     work.
       Real, meaningful welfare reform requires recipients to work 
     and my welfare reform plan for Delaware contains stiff work 
     requirements. However, this proposal not only does not 
     include any resources for the creation of private sector 
     jobs, but it would repeal the JOBS program, a program focused 
     on assisting welfare recipients in preparing for and 
     obtaining private sector jobs, and reduce funding for 
     combined AFDC and work requirements. The JOBS program, a 
     central component of the 1988 Family Support Act, received 
     strong bipartisan support from Members of Congress, the 
     Reagan Administration, and the National Governors' 
     Association. The JOBS program in Delaware, ``First Step'', 
     has been nationally recognized for its success in training 
     and placing thousands of welfare recipients in jobs. While I 
     certainly support greater state flexibility in the use of 
     JOBS funding, I am concerned that the elimination of this 
     program without replacing it with a means for ensuring the 
     transition from welfare to work would reduce the focus of 
     welfare reform on work. I believe that additional resources, 
     not less, should be targeted to ensuring that welfare 
     recipients can successfully make the transition to work.
       The Republican proposal, H.R. 1214, will not assure that 
     families who work will be better off than those who don't 
     because it would deny welfare recipients who go to work the 
     child care, health care, and nutrition assistance they need 
     to improve their lives and to keep their children healthy and 
     safe. That is simply impractical and wrong.
       For example, H.R. 1214 will not assure child care 
     assistance to welfare recipients who go to work, or 
     participate in job training or job search activities. In my 
     state, I will be requiring welfare recipients to go to work, 
     and to ensure that they can prepare for, find and maintain a 
     job, I will be providing significant new state dollars for 
     child care assistance. However, this legislation not only 
     appears to reduce the child care assistance by roughly 20 
     percent over five years, but it would not account for 
     projected increases in child care needs for welfare 
     recipients who are required to work under the bill. I believe 
     that it is unrealistic to expect many welfare recipients to 
     keep
      working or participate in job training if they are not 
     provided some assistance with child care.
       Additionally, H.R. 1214 allows the one-year extension of 
     Medicaid benefits for welfare recipients who go to work to 
     expire at the end of fiscal year 1998. The expiration of this 
     provision will remove both the work incentive that this 
     provision provides, as well as the assurance that welfare 
     recipients who go to work and their children can continue to 
     receive health care coverage. I authored the one-year 
     extension of Medicaid benefits which was adopted by the House 
     in the 1988 Family Support Act, and I am disappointed that 
     this legislation would not extend such a work incentive. I 
     would urge consideration of an additional year extension of 
     Medicaid for welfare recipients who go to work, as I am 
     seeking in my federal waiver application.


                           state flexibility

       The House Republican plan, H.R. 1214, will not give states 
     the flexibility needed to enact real welfare reform. In 
     addition to the roughly $69 billion projected loss in funding 
     for these programs, H.R. 1214 significantly alters the 
     federal-state partnership which has assured both federal and 
     state support for children and families in need. Under H.R. 
     1214, states would not be able to count on increased federal 
     support during times of recession, to help the thousands, 
     perhaps millions of children and families who will need 
     government assistance.
       When I came to the Congress in 1982, I recall the state of 
     our nation's economy. Working families who never thought 
     they'd need the government's support, applied for government 
     assistance. Both the federal and state governments reached 
     out to these families and their children by providing 
     critical support through this difficult time. I am deeply 
     concerned about the next recession, or the next disaster, or 
     the next unforeseen circumstance that will occur in my state, 
     in any of our states or in our country, in which the people 
     in our states will call for our assistance. This proposal 
     makes no attempt to address these unforeseen calamities--it 
     does not include adequate adjustments for recessions, 
     population growth, disasters, and other events that could 
     result in an increased need for services. As you may recall, 
     the welfare reform resolution which was unanimously approved 
     by the governors at the National Governors Association 
     meeting in January called for any block grant proposal to 
     address such factors. I've attached a February 23 letter to 
     Chairman Archer, signed by Governors Thompson, Engler, 
      [[Page H3693]] Carlson, Dean, Camahan, and me, outlining 
     these and other concerns.
       While I recognize that the bill includes a Rainy Day Fund, 
     the meager size of the fund and the fact that it is a loan 
     fund which states are required to repay within three years, 
     rather than a grant to states, makes it a wholly inadequate 
     anti-recessionary tool.
       In addition, H.R. 1214 expressly prohibits states from 
     using the funding under the cash assistance block grant to 
     serve children born to unmarried mothers under 18, additional 
     children born to mothers who currently receive AFDC, and 
     children and families who have received AFDC for five years 
     or more. Decisions on which populations to serve should be 
     determined at the state level, not mandated by Congress. 
     These provisions should be modified as state options.
       Furthermore, states are required, under H.R. 1214, to 
     reduce AFDC benefits for children for whom paternity is not 
     yet established. I favor requiring full cooperation in 
     paternity establishment as a condition of AFDC receipt, but I 
     believe that this particular provision in H.R. 1214 
     discriminates against women who have fully cooperated.
       I believe that this proposal's significant reduction in 
     funding, lack of a safety net and recessionary tools, as well 
     as its numerous prescriptive mandates, threatens to limit the 
     very flexibility I am seeking to ensure successful reform of 
     the welfare system in my own state, and very likely in other 
     states.


                                children

       The House Republican proposal, H.R. 1214, will not assure 
     adequate protection for children because it reduces the 
     federal commitment to some of the country's most vulnerable 
     children in a number of significant ways.
       For example, H.R. 1214 eliminates the safety net for 
     children by removing the entitlement status of AFDC. Under 
     H.R. 1214, states are expressly prohibited from using these 
     federal funds to serve millions of children, and the bill 
     does not assure children, whose parents go to work, child 
     care, adequate nutritional assistance, or health care 
     coverage. By requiring states to reduce benefits to children 
     for whom paternity has not yet been established, H.R. 1214 
     will negatively impact millions of children. The most 
     egregious examples are the bill's dramatically reduced 
     federal commitment to assist disabled children, children in 
     foster care and adoptive placements, and children who are 
     abused and neglected. Historically, Congress determined a 
     federal responsibility to support children placed in foster 
     care who came from AFDC-related households in the same way 
     parents continue to pay child support while their children 
     are in foster care. To end this relationship is a fundamental 
     change in the federal government's national commitment to 
     children.
       In addition, H.R. 1214 reduces the federal commitment to a 
     number of crucial child nutrition programs, namely school 
     lunch and school breakfast, as well as WIC. During my tenure 
     in Congress, I, along with most of my colleagues in the 
     House, strongly supported the school lunch and breakfast 
     programs because these programs have been critical in 
     ensuring childrens' health and nutrition, and also strongly
      supported fully funding the WIC program. Over the past 
     twenty years, WIC has been a critical program in 
     dramatically improving the nutritional status of mothers 
     and their infants. Proper nutrition during pregnancy and 
     in the early years of life is the most critical element in 
     the development of a child. WIC is cost-effective, as a 
     noted Harvard study demonstrated--every dollar invested in 
     WIC saves three Medicaid dollars. I am disappointed that 
     this legislation reduces WIC funding, and eliminates 
     federal cost containment requirements to competitively bid 
     formula rebate contracts, a provision which reduced WIC 
     costs by a billion dollars in FY94.
       I am concerned about the serious negative impact of all of 
     the above provisions on children. None of these provisions 
     are essential to transforming the welfare system and in some 
     instances, e.g. child care reductions and removal of a 
     federal guarantee of child care for welfare recipients who go 
     to work, they will have the direct opposite effect on reform 
     efforts.
       It is disturbing to me that children who are most at risk 
     are targeted under this bill--this will only serve to put 
     more children at risk and further exacerbate an already 
     overburdened child welfare system. Early proposals in the 
     Contract with America, spoke to the potential increased need 
     for a safety net of foster care when hard time limits for 
     welfare reform are put in place. To reduce funding for foster 
     care while acknowledging increased demand from the very 
     population federal foster care was designed to protect is 
     illogical at best. Essentially, these provisions are outright 
     discriminatory and unconscionable, and should either be 
     modified or entirely removed from the bill.
       In sum, this legislation will not transform the welfare 
     system. Rather, it would severely undercut our efforts to 
     reform the welfare system in my state. As I am seeking to 
     ensure that welfare recipients prepare for, find, and 
     maintain jobs, I am deeply troubled by this legislation's 
     negative effect on reforming the welfare system here and 
     elsewhere.
       I am strongly opposed to H.R. 1214 and I would urge Members 
     of Congress to vote against this legislation, and instead, 
     support the Deal substitute, which in my view, represents 
     real welfare reform. Representative Deal's legislation 
     focuses on providing assistance to prepare welfare recipients 
     for work, and to help welfare recipients find and maintain 
     jobs, as well as ensure that work pays more than welfare, 
     which H.R. 1214 fails to do.
       Representative Deal's legislation, in contrast to H.R. 
     1214, appropriately establishes the framework of a federal-
     state partnership to transform the welfare system by giving 
     the states the flexibility to pursue innovative approaches 
     and the resources to successfully implement work-focused 
     welfare reform.
       I appreciate the opportunity to share my concerns with you, 
     and I look forward to continuing to work with you in the 
     effort to transform our nation's welfare system.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Tom Carper,
                                                         Governor.
                                              State of Washington,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                              Olympia, Washington, March 22, 1995.
     The Hon. Richard Gephardt,
     House Democratic Leader,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Gephardt: I am writing to express my 
     concerns about the proposed Personal Responsibility Act 
     (PRA). I believe this bill, which would essentially dismantle 
     this country's social safety net and replace it with a series 
     of block grants, will be detrimental to Washington State and 
     the nation as a whole. This bill contains a number of 
     provisions that will harm children and likely result in 
     higher, hidden costs to states and local governments.
       The welfare reform provisions of this bill would disallow 
     cash assistance to both mother and child when a mother under 
     age 18 bears a child out of wedlock. The bill will also deny 
     additional cash assistance for a child born while a parent is 
     on welfare, bar most legal immigrants from receiving public 
     assistance, and stop aid to families with an adult not 
     cooperating with the child support enforcement system.
       While I support the broad program goals of the PRA and 
     recognize the serious need to reshape and revitalize our 
     public welfare system, I oppose prescriptive federal mandates 
     that would harm vulnerable children. I would like to see 
     specific policies in place that protect the well-being and 
     safety of children. This is not a state-by-state interest, 
     but a national one. I favor retaining Aid to Families with 
     Dependent Children (AFDC) as an entitlement program open to 
     any needy family and child who qualifies for benefits.
       I am also concerned that block granting will not provide 
     our state with the funding needed to make the radical changes 
     to our welfare system mandated by this legislation. Block 
     granting cash welfare as proposed represents the worst of 
     both worlds--not only reduced funding, but also higher 
     program costs for states to meet expensive conditions and 
     restrictions. If block grants are going to be created then 
     the entitlement nature of the programs must be retained and 
     the prescriptive mandates eliminated. Each state should have 
     the flexibility to determine what reform will work best in 
     that state.
       Further, the PRA food and nutrition proposals will be 
     determined to the children of Washington State. Due to 
     effective targeting and outreach, there has been a 43 percent 
     increase in the number of children receiving low and no cost 
     school lunches in Washington State over the past four years. 
     We have enjoyed a 23 percent increase in the number of 
     children eating school breakfasts. The need for these 
     programs by the children of our state is growing at a rate 
     much faster than the graduated increases allowed in the 
     proposed federal legislation. The dollars invested in the 
     entire continuum of food programs, beginning with WIC and 
     continuing through the Child and Adult Care Food, school 
     lunches, breakfasts and summer meals are wisely invested in 
     our children. The quantity and quality of these meals must be 
     protected.
       The proposed changes to the child welfare programs will 
     eliminate the entitlement to foster care and adoption 
     support. Again, the block grant funding would be capped by a 
     formula that is calculated to be particularly harmful to 
     Washington State. Under my administration, we have moved 
     dramatically toward local control of many prevention and 
     early intervention programs to address the problems faced by 
     our communities and our youth. The overall effect of the 
     welfare reform proposal may force more children into foster 
     care; yet the state will have fewer funds to meet this 
     increased need. Moreover, if the funds provided are diverted 
     primarily into foster care then there will be even less money 
     available for family support and preservation, adoption, 
     finding permanent homes for children or prevention.
       The PRA also proposes denying Supplemental Security Income 
     (SSI) for drug addicts and alcoholics. We believe that any 
     progress states have made in helping and treating this 
     population will unravel with this change. There is a clear 
     need to provide these individuals--many of whom have serious 
     medical problems and who are marginally attached to the 
     workforce--with a basic safety net. Because that need will 
     not disappear, state, city and county resources will be 
     taxed. To support this provision, state and local governments 
     need assurance there will be federal funding available to 
     enhance their capacity to provide these individuals with 
     support services and treatment they need for rehabilitation.
        [[Page H3694]] In shaping national policies, flexibility 
     in the design and implementation of reform programs is 
     critical if states are to make optimum use of agency 
     resources and develop strategies and approaches that can 
     achieve maximum results. As Congress considers these issues, 
     I urge you to consider the likely outcomes of these reform 
     measures and to give states the latitude to vary from the 
     current proposal in areas we feel will work for us.
       I believe there are several key elements that warrant 
     special attention by decision makers. First, these measures 
     would have a devastating effect on the safety net now in 
     place for many low-income families and children. Because the 
     needs of these individuals will continue and likely grow, it 
     could result in more poverty and more spending by states and 
     local
      communities when we desperately need less. Passage of the 
     bill could well increase the number of children in foster 
     care and other expensive alternative living situations. I 
     understand the need to challenge parents to take 
     responsibility for their own lives and for the children 
     they bring into this world, but I disagree with the 
     approach taken in the PRA, which would punish children for 
     the shortcomings of their parents.
       Second, I welcome the opportunity to tailor programs and 
     services in ways that meet the unique needs of our individual 
     states, but the current proposal to cap block grant funding 
     does not take into account uncertain variables like 
     recessions, higher unemployment and other changes that result 
     in higher costs to states. I would like to see fiscal 
     protections in place beyond the ``rainy day'' fund to ensure 
     states have adequate resources to meet the needs of low-
     income families and children.
       Third, information technology is fundamental for states to 
     effectively deliver services to clients and meet federal 
     reporting requirements. Federal resources must be brought to 
     bear so that states can make necessary changes to their 
     current information systems as well as keep up with advances 
     in management information technology.
       Finally, as Governor of a state with a large, growing and 
     vibrant immigrant population, I am concerned that we not tip 
     the balance against these families. While the intent of the 
     legislation is not cost-shifting to states, that would be its 
     effect. In addition, the well-being of many immigrant 
     families and children could be jeopardized.
       I urge you to consider amendments which would protect 
     children and give states the funding and support needed to 
     turn the corner on poverty and dependency. Effective welfare 
     reform must include a license suspension program for child 
     support enforcement, continuation of the child care 
     guarantee, and safety net provisions to protect children if 
     jobs are not available to their parents.
       I appreciate this opportunity to raise these concerns on 
     the proposed legislation. I want to work with you to create 
     and shape a public welfare system that can make a positive 
     difference in the lives of those in need.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Mike Lowry,
                                                         Governor.
                                            State of Colorado,

                                 Denver, Colorado, March 22, 1995.
     Hon. Richard Gephardt,
     House Democratic Leader,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Gephardt: As the House of Representatives 
     initiates its floor debate on welfare reform, I am writing to 
     express my encouragement for the development of a bill that 
     will respond to the needs of the nation's children and at the 
     same time effectively reform the welfare system. The current 
     Republican proposal falls short of these goals in my opinion.
       I believe true welfare reform should be based on the 
     following principles:
       1 States need maximum flexibility in managing the programs 
     to address their unique circumstances and needs.
       2. Moving welfare recipients into employment and keeping 
     them there ought to be the primary goal of any legislation. 
     However, in order to accomplish this goal, there must be 
     upfront investments in education, skill development, and job 
     training.
       3. Support services such as child care, medical care, 
     transportation and housing are also critical to successful 
     welfare reform. It is unacceptable to expect a parent to 
     enter employment if it means their children's safety and well 
     being is jeopardized by a lack of child care or medical 
     assistance. These services are costly. For example, in 
     Colorado, a parent with two children, making around $9.50/
     hour would spend from 25 to 40 percent of their income to 
     purchase child care alone. Even though costly, these services 
     are necessary for parents to obtain and maintain a job.
       4. Any legislation must establish a requirement for state 
     fiscal participation in its welfare reform effort. Without 
     this commitment, there will be a tendency for programs to be 
     reduced to the level of available federal funding which will 
     be inadequate. Those states choosing to spend state funds to 
     augment their programs may become magnet states for the 
     population seeking employment opportunities. This ``race to 
     the bottom'' is a short-sighted approach to public policy.
       5. Funding must be adequate to support the total cost of 
     work initiatives and support services cited above. Efforts to 
     balance the budget by reducing the federal participation for 
     these programs either shifts costs to the states or results 
     in inadequate work programs to meet the objective of welfare 
     reform. For example, under the current proposal, Colorado 
     would have to increase state spending by over $200 million 
     over the next five years to maintain its existing programs. 
     Increasing participation in employment programs as required 
     in proposed legislation will expand this cost beyond the 
     savings generated by increased flexibility.
       Thank you Congressman Gephardt, for your leadership in 
     trying to craft a bill that will lead to real welfare reform.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Roy Romer,
                                                         Governor.
                                           State of West Virginia,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                   Charleston, WV, March 21, 1995.
     Hon. Richard Gephardt,
     House of Representatives,
     U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Gephardt: I am writing in support of your 
     efforts to craft a sensible welfare reform strategy that 
     encourages and supports personal initiative of people 
     involved in our welfare system.
       West Virginia has made great strides in recent years 
     bringing its economy back from an enduring recession in the 
     1980s. We are adding jobs, our population is up and our 
     unemployment is the lowest in 15 years.
       Yet, even in the best of times there are hard-working, 
     honorable West Virginians that are unable to find work. 
     Contrary to most stereotypes, in West Virginia the majority 
     of people on welfare live in families headed by two parents. 
     In spite of a lifetime of various manual jobs, these parents 
     may now lack the skills to work in our changing economy. Or 
     they may be unable to afford the child care or health care 
     insurance needed for their children while working a minimum 
     wage job.
       We have both a moral and an economic obligation to help 
     these families help themselves. Arbitrary ``cut-off' 
     deadlines will not return these people to work nearly as 
     effectively as creating meaningful economic opportunities for 
     them through education and real work experience. Rather, we 
     need to eliminate the disincentives to work running through 
     our welfare system, such as providing transitional health and 
     child care benefits.
       Our state's economy used to rely on natural resources 
     extraction. As in other states, jobs in these sectors are 
     declining while technical and service jobs are increasing. 
     This trend has caused and will continue to cause significant 
     disruption and dislocation to families in our state. As 
     public officials, we need to support, not punish, these 
     families in this increasingly complex and competitive world 
     by creating opportunities and expectations to return to the 
     world of work. I am concerned that current proposals under 
     discussions are long on expectations, but short on 
     opportunity. They must go together.
       I look forward to working with you and the members of 
     Congress as you address meaningful and effective welfare 
     reform.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Gaston Caperton,
                                                         Governor.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I am proud that Congress this week will 
be saying no to the status quo and yes to welfare reform.
  It is time to get rid of the fraud and abuse in a welfare system 
designed to help people get back to work.
  Democrats have worked hard at finding smart ways to fix a system that 
has been overcome with problems.
  The Democratic bill is tough on fraud, it gets rid of abuse, and most 
importantly, it gets people to work.
  The Democratic bill requires responsibility and accountability, 
provides real programs to move people into work, and does not punish 
children.
  The Democratic bill ensures that recipients are not penalized for 
working. It provides temporary medical assistance, expands the use of 
earned income tax credits, and gives parents necessary child care while 
working.
  The Democratic bill requires that recipients establish an individual 
responsibility plan to move from assistance to the workforce and if a 
recipient refuses to work--AFDC benefits will be terminated; this is 
the sort of responsibility and practicality we must demand.
  The democratic bill sets an aggressive and realistic compliance 
schedule for the States, but also allows States to accommodate economic 
cycles.
  The Democratic bill is tough on child support enforcement--requires a 
central registry to track support orders, makes interstate enforcement 
uniform, and enforces income withholding for irresponsible parents.
  The Democratic bill makes teen parents responsible without punishing 
their children--it requires teen parents to live at home and sends 
benefit checks to a responsible adult; most importantly--it demands 
that teen parents stay in school and establishes a national campaign to 
stop teen pregnancy.
  Finally, the Democratic bill is fair in its treatment of legal 
immigrants--legal immigrants who have worked and paid taxes in this 
country for 5 years and not denied benefits, and all legal immigrants 
can receive medical care.
   [[Page H3695]] I support the Democratic bill because it does not 
tolerate people who refuse to work or parents who abandon their 
children; also, it does not seek to destroy families or condemn 
children who are born poor.
  The Democratic bill gets to the heart of the matter; it creates a 
rational, comprehensive, and compassionate avenue to move people from 
welfare to work--to truly end welfare as we know it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute offered by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 205, 
noes 228, not voting 1, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 266]

                               AYES--205

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Laughlin
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--228

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Tucker
       

                              {time}  1946

  Mr. BLILEY changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                          Personal explanation

  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I missed rollcall vote No. 265. I 
was unavoidably detained. If I had been here I would have voted 
``yes.''


                          personal explanation

  Mr. TUCKER. Mr. Chairman, I missed the last vote. Had I been here I 
would have voted ``aye.''
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I support responsible welfare reform that is 
prowork and prochildren. But H.R. 4--the Republicans' bill--undercuts 
children and it undercuts work.
  We all agree: the current welfare system is broken and needs to be 
fixed. I am committed to welfare reform that moves people from welfare 
to work. In order to do that, we must ensure that people receive the 
necessary support to get off welfare and into liveable-wage jobs.
  The Republican proposal does nothing to enable adult welfare 
recipients to become self-sufficient, and it would hurt their children 
by denying them the basic necessities of life, including nutrition, 
shelter, and health care. I am committed to providing those necessities 
to all children living in poverty while we require their parents to 
assume responsibility for themselves and their family.
  Children must not be victimized by welfare reform. Whatever we may 
feel about the behavior or situation of their parents, as a nation we 
must not allow children to become victims.
  Our focus must be on eliminating poverty and creating the economic 
conditions in which jobs can flourish. Any welfare reform effort that 
limits access to welfare without reducing the need for welfare will 
only increase poverty and hurt needy families.
  Mr. Speaker, we committed $264 billion for production of weapons and 
preparations for war this year. If our Nation is able to do that, we 
have a moral responsibility to ensure that our citizens do not go 
hungry, have adequate housing and access to basic health care, and are 
given opportunities to work at a living wage.


             getting people off welfare rolls and into jobs

  Welfare reform means requiring and assisting people to move out of 
dependency and into self-sufficiency. It means getting people off the 
welfare rolls and into jobs.
  From the very first day an individual receives benefits, the central 
focus of any welfare reform legislation should be work. H.R. 4, 
however, has no work requirements for the first 2 years benefits are 
received.
  I am disappointed the Deal substitute was rejected tonight. I hope 
the other body will give its provisions thoughtful consideration.
  The Deal substitute required individuals who enter the AFDC program 
to develop a plan which addresses who they will move into the work 
force. The Deal approach did not wait for 2 years to address the issue 
of work, as the Republicans' bill does.
  I believe in tough, but fair, work requirements. From the very first 
day of receiving benefits, individuals will only receive assistance if 
they play by the rules under the Deal substitute. Those who refuse to 
work or turn down a bona fide job offer will not receive benefits.
  As my State's newspaper, the Oregonian, stated, at a time when 
national attitudes toward welfare reform focus on linking recipients' 
assistance to behavior, Oregon has a message to send: incentives help.
  We have a Federal waiver in Oregon that allows us to make public 
assistance to teen parents contingent on their participation in the 
 [[Page H3696]] Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Program, and the 
strategy pays off. Four years into the program, 89 percent of teen 
parents on assistance are cooperating in educational plans or have 
already completed their high school diplomas or GEDs.
  The critical yardstick is how many people are moving off the welfare 
rolls into self-sufficiency. And it's working in Oregon. Recipients are 
finding work faster. The State's welfare caseload has actually 
declined.
  H.R. 4 doesn't train people for jobs. Few people can pull themselves 
up by their bootstraps if they haven't any boots. The reality is that 
some people not only lack basic skills, but also don't know how to go 
about looking for work in the first place.
  The Deal substitute focused on work. It ensured that a welfare 
recipient would be better off economically by taking a job than by 
remaining on welfare. From day one of receiving benefits, its focus was 
on helping individuals join the work force. It extended the amount of 
time people could retain their health care benefits after leaving 
welfare for a private sector job from 1 year to 2 years.
  Unlike the Republicans' bill, the Deal substitute added $9 billion to 
assist States in establishing programs to move people into work. As 
introduced, the Republicans' bill did include $9.9 billion for work 
funding but that funding has now been removed.
  The Deal substitute provided State and local governments the 
flexibility and resources necessary to deal with the specific 
conditions they face and move individuals from welfare to work. The 
school lunch block grants in H.R. 4 will leave States to bear the 
burden of increased costs from inflation or increased caseload. H.R. 4 
will force States and local governments to bear the financial burden of 
welfare reform.
  The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that under the 
provisions of H.R. 4, none of the 50 States will be successful in 
reaching the employment goals of the bill. Their views echo those of 
scholars who have studied welfare-to-work programs.
  The U.S. Conference of Mayors has recognized H.R. 4 as just exactly 
what it is, a huge cost shift to the State and local governments. 
People need jobs, but we don't need this unfunded mandate.
                          FEEDING OUR CHILDREN

  I want to talk about the damage H.R. 4 does to our Nation's school 
lunch programs.
  In my State, Oregon, 5,800 students would lose eligibility for free 
or reduced-price lunches. Currently, 62 percent of Portland students 
qualify for free or reduced-price lunches. Kids are caught in the 
middle and will pay a heavy price for this change.
  Well-fed children learn better than poorly fed children. These cuts 
set up a cruel cycle where kids fall behind when they've barely begun 
to grow. School lunches are an education program, not a welfare 
program. Until now, they have enjoyed bipartisan support.
  This reform is mean-spirited and does direct harm to our children. It 
means $1.2 million less for Oregon alone next year. It certainly does 
not take into account increases in enrollment, poverty, and food 
prices. There are no nutritional guidelines. The block grants in H.R. 4 
provide incentives to serve fewer and fewer children.
  H.R. 4 decreases the amount of funds that must be spent on poor 
children. The Republicans' bill requires targeting of 80 percent of the 
funding for children below 185 percent of poverty, while USDA reports 
that closer to 90 percent of school meal funds are currently spent on 
these children.
  For a family of four, 185 percent of poverty is $27,380 a year. In 
1992, one in four children in America lived in poverty. That was up 
from one in five in 1987. Cutting the School Lunch Program truly hurts 
the poor and the working poor.
  When Republican leaders talk about defense spending, they expect 
maintaining existing spending levels as a minimum, adjusted for 
inflation. When they talk about programs to feed kids, provide medical 
care for veterans, or retirement security for seniors, they use a 
different measure. They use phrases like ``controlling the growth of 
programs,'' which means ``feed kids less or feed less kids.''
  H.R. 4 increases bureaucratic requirements for school lunch 
providers. It retains most Federal administrative burdens such as meal 
counting and income verification, adds another layer of State 
bureaucracy, and requires program managers to establish a system to 
identify the citizenship and visa status of participants.
  The School Lunch Program was established in 1946 to prevent future 
generations from suffering the malnutrition that disqualified many of 
the draftees for service during World War II.
  Today our national security is just as dependent on the nutrition 
programs put at risk by H.R. 4. That kind of national security--well-
fed children--is of at least equal value to the Pentagon which we 
continue to feed lavishly.
  I do not oppose cutting waste in government. Last week, I tried to 
offer an amendment to the rescissions bill that would have but $8 
billion for cold war weapons systems that are still in their research 
stage, but are no longer needed. Unfortunately, the Republican 
leadership did not accept my amendment for consideration.
  Mr. Speaker, Jesus said, ``Suffer the little children to come unto 
me, for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven.'' He did not say, ``Make the 
children suffer.''
  Let's get our priorities straight.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, there are many problems with H.R. 4, the 
Republican welfare reform bill which patches together disparate policy 
changes on AFDC, governance, School Lunch, Food Stamps, SSI Disability 
and numerous other public assistance programs. The GOP welfare measure 
is punitive without purpose or promise and in the final analysis turns 
out to be weak on work and tough on children and families. There is 
nothing in this bill that would successfully move welfare recipients 
back into the world of work. There are certainly problems with our 
current welfare system but the GOP policy effort is not going to solve 
those problems. This bill will punish children and leave people to 
languish on AFDC for 2 years before they would be required to work or 
be actively engaged in job search or job training. The Republican bill 
doesn't have the best interests of children or their families at heart. 
It perpetuates a cruel hoax and is fundamentally flawed in its core 
``solutions.'' Current and former welfare recipients have to fight day 
by day for child care, health care, education and training, all within 
the shadow of a welfare stigma to become successful. The Federal 
Government has a role in helping these people and their children.
  Today in our society the number of people earning and holding minimum 
wage jobs is expanding and increasingly, these minimum and low wage 
workers can't support themselves and their families. Therefore, such 
low wage workers slide into the welfare system to make ends meet or to 
make a transition to a skilled, better compensated position. This 
phenomenon is a reflection of social, economic and numerous other 
changes in the latter years of the 20th Century and the shortfalls in 
existing education, training, unemployment and numerous public 
assistance programs. We need policies that will help people move off of 
welfare for good. People need jobs that will pay a livable wage with 
which they will be able to support themselves and their children. They 
need the transitional services which will enable them to achieve a 
stable situation in which they can maintain a home, pay their bills and 
feed their children. This is common sense and the Federal, State and 
private sectors ought to be partners in such endeavors. This requires 
more than cutting off benefits with the notion that you can forcefeed 
change through such harsh action. A rational policy would start with 
work so that a person is doing what they can for themselves, fostering 
independence rather than dependence and passivity. Our purpose must be 
to change the public assistance system once and for all; to protect 
children; to empower families; and to take the time honored values of 
the dignity of work and the significance of the individual and place 
these values at the core of the policy reforms we shape.
  Last Friday, I met with two women from my district, St. Paul,
   Minnesota, who had received welfare, one is now employed and has 
moved off of AFDC and the other is about to leave the system. One of 
these women shared with me her experience prior to receiving assistance 
when she worked in a minimum wage job, diligently trying to support her 
child and found she was unable to do so. Most minimum wage jobs do not 
provide health care benefits and adequate, affordable child care is 
very difficult to find, perhaps the most important threshold need for 
the single parent.
  Yes, there are problems with the current system and they are 
especially stark when it comes to making the transition from welfare to 
work in today's economic environment. We already have long waiting 
lists for child care in my Minnesota district. Cutting funds for child 
care programs, which this Republican bill does, flies in the face of 
that need. Child care is a crucial need for single parent families 
attempting to move away from dependence on welfare and into productive 
work.
  This Republican bill launches an extreme and broad-based attack on 
poor children and families. From cutting funds for nutrition programs 
to reducing funds, incredibly, for families who are maintaining a 
disabled child at home. There have been problems with the SSI 
Disability Program, but this bill attacks the program without taking 
proper account of the needs of disabled children and their families. 
Congress can do better, we can make changes to the system that ensure 
that the truly disabled are effectively served. The changes in this 
bill are focused on change at the bottom link producing enough money 
for tax breaks for the well off, not empowering families with special 
challenges to successfully participate and achieve greater independence 
for individual with disabilities.
  [[Page H3697]] In my Minnesota district there is a large population 
of Southeast Asian immigrants, mostly Hmong from Laos. Many of the 
Hmong are citizens but some are not because of an unusual problem. It 
has been estimated that 6,000 to 7,000 noncitizens in Ramsey County, 
Minnesota will lose benefits under the Republican welfare bill. Most of 
the Hmong in Minnesota face special obstacles to becoming citizens. The 
Hmong did not have a written language until more recent times and many, 
especially the older people among them had their lives disrupted in 
their homeland of Laos by the Vietnam war. Members of that generation 
have found it very difficult to learn English and to become U.S. 
citizens. Many are struggling to learn English and are working to 
improve the lives of their families, becoming productive members of 
American society.
  This Republican bill hurts the Minnesota Hmong by denying these tax-
paying families the regular and usual help accorded others in our 
society. The significant obstacles which the Hmong face to supporting 
themselves and their families and in becoming citizens is exaggerated 
by this poor policy of denying noncitizens assistance. The Republican 
welfare bill arbitrarily drops
 people, dumping them on the doorstep of the States and counties in 
which they live. Minnesota and specifically my area didn't choose to be 
the home of the Hmong; secondary migration has greatly contributed to 
this concentration. But the Hmong and other noncitizens will continue 
to have needs which will have to be met and it will be left to the 
State and local governments to meet these needs without the Federal 
Government bearing its share of the burden. I might add that even the 
regular refugee and new immigrant assistance grants were prematurely 
curtailed and that non-profit groups have done an outstanding job in 
helping our communities cope with this challenge.

  Yet another policy area of deep concern is child protection services 
which are overburdened today, reducing these resources will not help 
children or their families. The GOP cuts to child protection services 
put children in danger. What alternative would such children have when 
the monetary and professional resources are not there to help their 
families change their circumstances? How can a family be held together 
or a child be removed if they are at risk?
  Mr. Chairman, initially I thought there were virtually no positive 
benefits from the Republican welfare reform bill but then it would be 
positive for one segment of our society--the affluent. This measure 
gives new meaning to the phrase, ``Women and children first.'' This 
bill is fundamentally punitive--punishment for children born into a 
circumstance not of their
 making--punishment for mistakes that young women and men make. Will 
this punitive action result in social justice, or a better society. 
Visiting the minor parent's sins upon their new born child is a big 
step backwards, it is beyond the pale of a society which is thought of 
as civilized. Those working at the community level are worried and we 
should readily understand why. The real needs persist where the rubber 
meets the road. That is where the programs are implemented and if the 
House Republican welfare bill were the law they would not have adequate 
resources to meet the needs and be strapped with punitive new 
Republican social engineering policies so contradictory to basic 
fairness, common sense and decency.

  I assume we could all support moving welfare recipients from welfare 
to work but there is nothing in this Republican welfare bill which will 
have this effect. This Republican bill has all sorts of requirements. 
It requires that, after being maintained on AFDC for a certain period, 
that people work but it does not help facilitate States in meeting such 
requirements. The Republicans say that this measure will move people 
off of welfare, off of SSI, off of Food Stamps and reduce spending by 
nearly $70 billion over 5 years. The question is; where are the 
children, women and the elderly going? The GOP wants to take away their 
entitlement, the social safety net of education, training, child care, 
shelter, medical care and food and admonishes the Congress to trust the 
States because flexibility and block grants are held forth as a cure 
for all ailments, that frankly makes no sense. No realistic economic 
countercyclical capacity exists in this GOP policy. There is no common 
sense to this Republican policy path. The only cents in this bill are 
the $70 billion worth of cuts that are being extracted from poor and 
working American families and bestowed on the affluent through the 
Republican tax give aways already passed by the Ways and Means 
Committee. The fiscal deficit won't be helped by this action. The 
States will experience a trickle down tax increase and America's human 
deficit; the numbers of kids below the poverty level, the underemployed 
and unemployed, the malnourished, the abused women and kids, the 
noncitizens without recourse will grow by leaps and bounds. Mr. 
Chairman, it is time to stop blaming the poor for being poor--stop our 
abandonment of people in need and to renew real investment in our 
greatest asset--the American people. We can't afford to desert people, 
even those who may have made a mistake or two, certainly not those who 
are simply born into poverty. Mr. Chairman, it seems in this Chamber 
that some have strayed far from the common sense path of compassion and 
human understanding. They profess an understanding of cost in dollars 
but understand the value of nothing. They are incorrect on all counts. 
This GOP measure should be defeated.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I voted for the rule on H.R. 4, 
however, I am deeply disturbed and angered that the Rules Committee has 
chosen to ignore a major committee which has jurisdiction on issues 
which affect the daily lives of American Indians and Alaska Natives. 
Many of my colleagues in the Committee on Resources are very concerned 
that this body has chosen to overlook the concerns of American Indians 
and Alaska Natives in the welfare reform bill and how deeply this 
action will affect them. American Indians and Alaska Natives have 
contributed much to this great country of ours and yet, again have been 
placed at the bottom of the totem pole.
  I offered a bi-partisan amendment to the Rules Committee, however, my 
amendment was not accepted. My proposed amendment would have set aside 
3 percent of appropriations for block grants to Indian tribes. This 
would have allowed Indian tribes to operate their own block grant 
programs on the same basis as states. For those tribes who would have 
declined to assume this program funding, the funds would have reverted 
to the state. The State would then operate the program in the tribes 
service area according to their population. My amendment would have 
allowed American Indians and Alaska Natives to participate fully in the 
welfare reform process.
  Mr. Speaker, there is an obligation here, a trust obligation of fair 
and honorable dealings with American Indians and Alaska Native tribes. 
Tribes have a government to government relationship with the Federal 
Government and a right to self-determination in the operation of 
programs intended to benefit Indians. Congress and Presidents Nixon to 
President Reagan have recognized the special government to government 
relationship. Yet, the Rules Committee has failed to recognize the long 
standing trust obligations that this body and the Federal Government 
have to tribes.
  At current time, tribal programs suffer from two problems which 
handicap tribal social service programs. First, tribes generally can 
only contract for operation of secondary social service programs, since 
the Bureau of Indian Affairs programs are secondary and available only 
if an Indian is not eligible for other generally available programs 
(AFDC). Consequently, reform of the primary welfare system operating in 
tribal communities is beyond tribal control. Second, tribal social 
service programs, such as Indian Child Welfare Act, were funded on a 
competitive basis for 1 to 3-year terms. This disrupts tribal programs 
when funding interruptions occur. Despite the problems above, tribally 
run social service programs generally outperform state operated 
programs in tribal communities. [Indian Child Welfare: A Status Report 
(IHS/BIA 1988)].
  Efforts by tribes to reform welfare programs have been opposed by the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA], which in fiscal year 1994 attempted to 
cut off funding for tribally initiated Tribal Work Experience Program 
[TWEP] in the Tanana Chiefs Conference and Tlingit and Haida Central 
Council regions in my state of Alaska. It is interesting to note for 
this member of Congress that the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs 
took credit for the very TWEP program the Bureau tried to nullify. 
Within Indian country there is a consensus that welfare reform is 
needed and that tribes are best equipped to accomplish that task. By 
excluding tribes from reform of the primary welfare programs, this 
Congress has abandoned one segment of society truly in need and 
supportive of welfare reform.
  Tribes have some of the highest levels of poverty in the country. At 
least 51 percent of all reservation Indian families are below the 
poverty line. While the merits of the current welfare system can be 
reasonably debated, there is little doubt that it is not working for 
Indian people. This bill as written, excludes tribes from the primary 
welfare program. While 
 [[Page H3698]] it provides a 3 percent set aside for one program only, 
the Child Care Block Grant program, the bill excludes funding for 
tribes in all of the other programs of the bill. Again, this body is 
not meeting the obligation of trust responsibility to American Indians 
and Alaska Natives and I must voice my grave concern with this 
inequity. Thank you for the opportunity to vote my objections in 
omitting American Indians and Alaska Natives in participating in the 
welfare reform bill currently being debated by this body.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, during my tenure here in Congress, I have 
seen and participated in several attempts at reforming welfare. The 
Democrats have always crafted bipartisan bills and the far-reaching 
1988 Family Support Act with its JOBS component is one result of 
cooperative work between Democrats and Republicans. However, in 
crafting the Personal Responsibility Act, Republicans apparently do not 
believe in continuing this bipartisan spirit. Out of the 150 amendments 
submitted to the Rules Committee, only 33 were accepted. And of the 33, 
only 7 will be offered by the Democrats with the Republicans offering 
26 of their own amendments.
  It is a shame that an issue that will impact millions of low-income 
and poor families in our nation is not debated in a democratic forum. 
The Republicans continue to exclude us even after they have 
incorporated some of the Democrats' ideas such as allowing immigrants 
who are veterans and fought to protect this country access to public 
assistance if they fall on hard times. And although some of the 
Republican amendments attempt to correct the mean-spirited provisions 
such as letting states give vouchers to teen mothers, vouchers cannot 
pay rent or the bus fare to work.
  Critics of our welfare system always divide the poor into two groups: 
the deserving and the underserving poor. Never before have I seen the 
so-called reformers exaggerate the underservingness of our poor as I 
have seen in the past couple of months. The Republicans vilify the poor 
and uses misinformation to justify their welfare cuts.
  The typical AFDC mother is seen as an African American teenage girl 
who has at least three children and is breeding more for money. This 
gross exaggeration and misperception is used over and over again. The 
truth is that only 10-15% stay on welfare continuously for five year or 
more. The rest cycle on and off welfare, finding jobs but never one 
secure or stable enough to stay off welfare permanently. These people 
who look for jobs want to work and need help and training so that they 
can find secure and permanent jobs. Instead, they are described 
erroneously as undeserving.
  Republicans also argue that out of wedlock births and single 
parenthood causes poverty which in turn, fuels a host of all these 
other social problems like crime and moral decay. Their cause and 
effect equation is all wrong. What they fail to see is that poverty is 
the source of social problems, and joblessness is what destroys hope 
and dignity. We need to train these parents and educate
 their children so that they are able to take advantage of 
opportunities and overcome poverty.

  Welfare reform is about helping and investing in people so that they 
can become economically independent which is not the same thing as 
refusing help. The Republican welfare bill will refuse to help AFDC 
recipients who are looking for jobs, those who are working but need 
child care, and those who are teen mothers. The Republican bill will 
deny benefits to: 70,000 children whose mothers are under eighteen; 2.2 
million children because of they happen to be born to a family on AFDC; 
4.8 million children due to the 5 year cutoff even if their parents 
cannot find jobs; 3.3 million children because they cannot establish 
paternity even though they are fully cooperating and the states are 
slow to officially establish paternity.
  By the year 2005, an estimated 6.1 million children will be 
ineligible for welfare benefits. Is this really welfare reform or is it 
just refusal to help--a refusal to help poor people and children just 
for the sake of the bottom line or even worse, to finance a tax cut for 
families making $200,000 a year.
  There has been talk of compassion and tough love but is it 
compassionate to tell a family who cannot find a decent job in 5 years 
that they will no longer get benefits? Is it compassionate to tell a 
legal alien who has been working and contributing in the United States 
for over 20 years that he can't get public assistance? Is it 
compassionate to cut money for school lunches for poor children just to 
save money?
  Republicans want to foster personal responsibility in these AFDC 
recipients but the federal government will be guilty of abrogating our 
responsibility to the poor families and their children in the United 
States if we pass the bill.
  The Federal government should bear part of the responsibility for 
ensuring that AFDC recipients find jobs or get training to be more 
marketable so that they can get jobs. This Republican bill doesn't 
ensure that they are working but rather, counts people who are cutoff 
from the welfare rolls as meeting work participation rates even if they 
do not have jobs. In my book, work participation is about people in 
jobs, not just kicking them off the rolls.
  Beyond this issue of welfare reform is this role of the federal 
government. We have a necessary role to invest in our people, in our 
children and to rebuild broken families. It is in our national interest 
to make sure that American families can contribute and that their 
children can grow up to be productive citizens.
  This so-called Personal Responsibility Act does not invest in our 
people and help make America more productive. Instead, it denies help 
to people and cuts funding for programs that feed children and in the 
long run, the human consequences of this bill will come back to haunt 
us. This bill encourages joblessness, drug abuse, crime and perpetuates 
hopelessness. In this case, the Republicans are willing to spend 
$60,000 a year to lock a kid up in jail but not spend $6,000 to keep 
that kid in school
  This bill is not about investment in our children and country but a 
conspiracy to end assistance to the neediest Americans.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, several amendments have been offered to 
improve the unwise and unwarranted provisions of H.R. 4, the Personal 
Responsibility Act, relating to legal immigrants. Sadly, none of them 
goes far enough to correct a serious defect in this poorly drafted 
bill.
  The legislation now before us prohibits most legal immigrants from 
receiving certain welfare benefits, food stamps and Medicaid. It also 
contains an ill-advised ``deeming until citizenship'' provision that 
could render legal immigrants ineligible for benefits under a wide 
range of federal, state and local programs. This punitive approach, 
that runs counter to our best traditions of fairness and decency, is 
strongly opposed by the Catholic Church, the Council of Jewish 
Federations and a host of other prominent organizations.
  As we discuss this issue, I would remind my colleagues that under 
current law legal immigrants are effectively barred from receiving most 
welfare benefits for several years after entry. Moreover, they are 
required to fulfill virtually the same responsibilities as citizens. 
They must pay taxes, and they can be drafted.
  Under the proposed restriction, a legal immigrant, who has been 
working for years and paying taxes, will be denied assistance if he 
becomes disabled. Many others who have worked hard but never officially 
become citizens will be refused coverage for valuable health care 
services.
  For those who assert that legal immigrants represent a drain on 
Government, I commend to them a study conducted last year by the Urban 
Institute. The Institute estimated that immigrants contribute $30 
billion more in revenue than they collect in services each year. These 
findings echoed an earlier study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New 
York showing that immigrant families on average contribute about $2,500 
a year more in taxes than they obtain in public services. We should 
also remember why many immigrants come here. Like many of our ancestors 
they land on these shores because they want to work and be productive, 
self-sustaining individuals.
  I believe it can only be characterized as callous and mean-spirited 
to bar taxpaying, law-abiding persons from participating in programs 
that they must help support.
  Refusing benefits to legal immigrants will clearly not translate into 
savings for everyone. State and local governments will be forced to 
make increased expenditures as those noncitizens left with no means of 
support turn to their programs. Under the proposed bill, states and 
localities are able to deny assistance to legal immigrants.
 However, I believe the damaging repercussions of such a decision will 
make them reluctant to do so.

  I am sure that state and local officials around the country are 
surprised to see my colleagues creating these financial burdens less 
than a week after Congress sent unfunded mandate legislation to 
President Clinton, which he signed.
  Eliminating Medicaid coverage for legal immigrants will be 
particularly costly to state and local governments, as well as 
hospitals. 1.7 million noncitizens--many of whom are children--will be 
forced to let their illnesses go untreated until they become 
emergencies. As we all know, treating persons on this basis is 
generally far more expensive than providing routine care.
  Past experience shows that it can also be fatal. Two studies that 
appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine are particularly 
instructive. One focused on the State of California's decision to 
terminate Medicaid eligibility for 270,000 people in 1982. Public 
health experts examined the effect on a number of patients with high 
blood pressure. Within 6 months of losing coverage, these patients 
suffered an average increase in blood pressure associated with a four-
fold increased risk of death.
  [[Page H3699]] Another study focused on New Hampshire's limitation on 
prescription drug coverage in 1981. This policy change, which was 
reversed 11 months later, limited people to three prescriptions per 
months. Among chronically-ill elderly patients nursing home and 
hospital admissions rose significantly. In fact, the resulting increase 
in mental health costs alone exceeded the $400,000 savings realized by 
a ratio of more than a 17 to 1.
  It is clear that this poorly drafted legislation will leave states 
and hospitals with unfair choices. Do they absorb 100% of the costs of 
providing non-emergency care, or do they only treat legal immigrants on 
an emergency care basis. Focusing on emergency care potentially risks 
the health of citizens, as well. In addition, as CBO noted in its cost 
estimate for this legislation, this approach requires significant 
federal spending. Medicaid expenditures will be needed to finance 
emergency services and disproportionate share payments to hospitals.
  These are just a few examples of the dangers that America's less 
fortunate will have to face with passage of H.R. 4. I would welcome the 
opportunity to work with my colleagues across the aisle to enact well-
reasoned and effective welfare reform legislation that does not imperil 
the children, elderly, and legal immigrants of this nation. However, I 
refuse to blindly support extreme legislation that is contrary to 
personal responsibility.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, 30 years of ``Great Society'' Government 
handouts has transformed America into a tragic society. Our current 
welfare system subsidizes illegitimacy and promotes personally 
destructive behavior. It tears apart the very fabric of our society--
the American family.
  For too long, liberal lawmakers fooled Americans into believing that 
big Government programs provide the best solution to poverty. Americans 
have seen the disastrous results and will no longer tolerate the 
liberal lie. They know that the so-called welfare safety net is really 
a web which traps welfare recipients in a cycle of dependency and 
despair.
  Hard-working families have poured more than $5 trillion into this 
bureaucratic black hole. They demand and deserve more for their money. 
That is why they overwhelmingly support the Republican Personal 
Responsibility Act.
  Our welfare reform bill works to restore family values by replacing 
the failed welfare system with compassionate solutions. Our bill offers 
tough love reforms based on the dignity of work and the strength of 
family. It breaks the cycle of dependency by promoting personal 
responsibility and self-worth.
  Mr. Chairman, the Personal Responsibility Act emphasizes work and 
life attitudes to rebuild a family-based society. The family represents 
the core of our society. We must act now to mend the tattered values 
blanket before another family gets trapped in the Federal bureaucratic 
safety net.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, the rule governing debate on H.R. 4--the 
welfare reform bill--was narrowly passed yesterday. I voted no on that 
rule with a clear conscience because the rule the Republican majority 
crafted makes certain that we will never debate the fundamental issues 
raised by welfare reform. Worried about their ability to keep their own 
troops in line, the Republicans picked 31--minor and generally non-
controversial--amendments for debate.
  From a policy perspective, their priorities are baffling. Rather than 
debate whether to guarantee a safe foster home for abused or neglected 
children, or discuss whether welfare benefits should be terminated if 
the person is able and willing to work but cannot find a job, the 
Republican majority chose to have us debate ways of tracking down 
deadbeat dads who have died, and sense of the Congress language that 
blames single-parents for crime, violence and most other ills of our 
society.
  In the interest of full disclosure, let me share with you some of the 
important amendments that Democrats sought to debate. In each instance, 
the Republican majority REFUSED to grant our request.
  A Stenholm (TX) amendment to require that net reductions from this 
bill be used for deficit reduction.
  A Matsui (CA) and Kennedy (MA) amendment to guarantee foster care and 
adoption assistance for any child who is abused or neglected.
  A Kleczka (WI) and Rangel (NY) amendment to give States the option of 
waiving the 5-year time limit for any individual who is willing to 
work, but for whom no job is available.
  A Kennelly (CT) amendment stipulating that child care be made 
available for the children of parents required to participate in work, 
training or education programs.
  A Clayton (NC) amendment to require that an individual employed or 
participating in a work or workfare program shall be paid at least the 
minimum wage.
  A Hall (OH) amendment to preserve the WIC and school lunch and 
breakfast programs.
  A Kleczka (WI) and Kennelly (CT) amendment to prevent States from 
reducing cash assistance to a family when the child's paternity has not 
been established due to a State backlog or inefficiency.
  A Levin and Rivers (MI) amendment to pay benefits to a teen mother 
and her child only if she lives under adult supervision, stays in 
school and cooperates with paternity establishment.
  A Levin (MI) amendment to require all States to report child support 
obligations to credit bureaus.
  A McDermott (WA) amendment to require that a State not terminate a 
recipient's benefits unless it had made available necessary counseling, 
education, training, substance abuse treatment, and child care.
  A Torricelli (NJ) amendment to preclude States from providing welfare 
to a family who has not vaccinated their minor children.
  A Miller (CA) amendment to require that States continue to comply 
with national nutritional standards until they develop their own 
standards that the Secretary of Agriculture approves.
  A Rangel (NY) amendment to prohibit the use of Federal funds to 
displace currently employed workers from their jobs.
  These are issues the American people expect us to debate. But we 
can't because the Republican majority has gagged us. That makes me 
wonder, why are the Republicans afraid to vote on these amendments? Are 
they simply playing politics or are they interested in true welfare 
reform? The American people can judge.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, my Republican colleagues have chafed at 
suggestions that their welfare reform bill--H.R. 4--is cruel to 
children. I say again what I have said on the floor: The truth hurts. 
Let me list for you just ten examples of the cruel policies embedded in 
the Republican Contract on America:
  10. It punishes the child (until the mother is 18 years old) for 
being born out-of-wedlock to a young parent (title I). Number of 
children punished: 70,000.
  9. It punishes a child--for his entire childhood--for the sin of 
being born to a family on welfare, even though the child didn't ask to 
be born (title I). Number of children punished: 2.2 million.
  8. It punishes a child--by denying cash aid--when a State drags its 
feet on paternity establishment (title I). Number of children punished: 
3.3 million.
  7. It leaves children holding the bag if the State runs out of 
Federal money (title I). Number of children punished: ?
  6. It does not assure safe child care for children when their parents 
work (title I). Number of children punished: 401,600.
  5. It allows children to die while in State care without requiring 
any State accountability beyond reporting the death (title II). Number 
of children punished: ?
  4. It throws some medically disabled children off SSI because of 
bureaucratic technicalities (title IV). Number of children punished: 
75,943.
  3. It denies SSI benefits to children who didn't become disabled soon 
enough (title IV). Number of children punished: 612,800.
  2. There is no guarantee of foster care for children who are abused 
or neglected (title II). Number of children punished: ?
  1. It cuts aid to poor children to pay for tax cuts for the rich. 
Number of children punished: 15 million.
  Is this a cruel bill? I suggest my colleagues ask those 15 million 
children. There is no question in my mind. Taking $70 billion dollars 
from programs for poor children to pay for tax cuts for the rich is--
without question--cruel.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, since introducing H.R. 4, the Republican 
majority has changed the allocation formula for title I of the welfare 
reform bill four times. Those changes mean millions to the affected 
States.
  For example, Speaker Gingrich's State of Georgia gained $45 million 
after backroom negotiations produced a new formula in the Rules 
Committee. Those same private deals reduced California's block grant 
funding over 5 years by $670 million. In every public discussion of the 
bill, California's share was higher. And, on the way to the Rules 
Committee, New York lost $275 million.
  But that's not all; there's more. After criticism that the 
subcommittee bill looked like a sweetheart deal for two Republican 
Governors--in Michigan and Wisconsin--the formula was revised. Michigan 
lost $430 million and Wisconsin lost $200 million. By the time the bill 
got to the Rules Committee, Michigan had recouped $225 million of what 
they lost. Wisconsin was still nearly $200 million in the hole.
  And, Representative Bill Archer (R-TX) must have been persuasive in 
those behind-closed-doors caucuses that Republicans held. By the time 
the bill left Ways and Means, he had gathered up more than $20 million 
for his home State of Texas and--surprise, surprise--he held on to most 
of it in the Rules Committee.
  [[Page H3700]] The facts are simple. Under the latest formula, 17 
States get less money than the Ways and Means Committee approved; 32 
States are winners. The losers are: Alabama, Arizona, California, 
Colorado, Florida, Guam, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, 
Missouri, New Mexico, New York, Texas, Virgin Islands, and West 
Virginia.
  For the record, every time the Republicans changed the formula, four 
States got less. They are: Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, and West 
Virginia. Eight States were winners every time. They are: District of 
Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Nevada, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, and 
Virginia.
  And the important point for the American people to understand is 
this: All of these changes happened without 1 minute of public 
discussion. So much for government in the sunshine. I guess the 
Republican majority thinks secret closed-door meetings are OK--so long 
as they are the ones having the meetings and making the deals. The 
American people deserve better.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Calvert), having assumed the chair), Mr. Linder, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill, (H.R. 4) to 
restore the American family, reduce illegitimacy, control welfare 
spending and reduce welfare dependence, had come to no resolution 
thereon.

                          ____________________