[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 55 (Friday, March 24, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H3742-H3790]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1995

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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}  1057


                     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 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 Thursday, March 
23, 1995, the amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
text of H.R. 1267 offered by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal], had 
been disposed of.
  For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] rise?


 amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mrs. mink of hawaii

  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, 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 Mrs. 
     Mink of Hawaii:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Family Stability and Work 
     Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. REFERENCE TO SOCIAL SECURITY ACT.

       Except as otherwise specifically provided, wherever in this 
     Act an amendment 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 that section or other provision 
     of the Social Security Act.

     SEC. 3. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Reference to Social Security Act.
Sec. 3. Table of contents.

       TITLE I--IMPROVING AID TO FAMILIES WITH DEPENDENT CHILDREN

Sec. 101. Increase in standard earned income disregard.
Sec. 102. Increase in State flexibility regarding recipient 
              participation in jobs program.
Sec. 103. Elimination of different treatment of 2-parent families.
Sec. 104. Extension of transitional child care guarantee.
Sec. 105. Increase in Federal matching rates for child care.
Sec. 106. Increase in jobs program funding.
Sec. 107. Requirement with respect to jobs program participation rate.
Sec. 108. Increase in matching rates for States whose recipients leave 
              AFDC for paid employment.
Sec. 109. Increase in at-risk child care funding.
Sec. 110. Improvements in jobs program self-sufficiency planning and 
              case management.
Sec. 111. Change in mandatory services and activities under the jobs 
              program.
Sec. 112. Jobs creation and work experience program.
Sec. 113. Provisions generally applicable to the jobs program.

                       TITLE II--MAKING WORK PAY

Sec. 201. Transitional medicaid benefits.
Sec. 202. Temporary exclusion of earned income for purposes of 
              determining rent paid for units in federally assisted 
              housing.
Sec. 203. Continuation of food stamp benefits.
             TITLE III--IMPROVING CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT

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

Sec. 301. State obligation to provide paternity establishment and child 
              support enforcement services.
Sec. 302. Distribution of payments.
Sec. 303. Due process rights.
Sec. 304. Privacy safeguards.

             Subtitle B--Program Administration and Funding

Sec. 311. Federal matching payments.
Sec. 312. Performance-based incentives and penalties.
Sec. 313. Federal and State reviews and audits.
Sec. 314. Required reporting procedures.
Sec. 315. Automated data processing requirements.
Sec. 316. Director of CSE program; staffing study.
Sec. 317. Funding for secretarial assistance to State programs.
Sec. 318. Reports and data collection by the Secretary.

                  Subtitle C--Locate and Case Tracking

Sec. 321. Central State and case registry.
Sec. 322. Centralized collection and disbursement of support payments.
Sec. 323. Amendments concerning income withholding.
Sec. 324. Locator information from interstate networks.
Sec. 325. Expanded Federal Parent Locator Service.
Sec. 326. Use of social security numbers.

         Subtitle D--Streamlining and Uniformity of Procedures

Sec. 331. Adoption of uniform State laws
Sec. 332. Improvements to full faith and credit for child support 
              orders.
Sec. 333. State laws providing expedited procedures

                  Subtitle E--Paternity Establishment

Sec. 341. State laws concerning paternity establishment.
Sec. 342. Outreach for voluntary paternity establishment.
 [[Page H3743]] Subtitle F--Establishment and Modification of Support 
                                 Orders

Sec. 351. National Child Support Guidelines Commission.
Sec. 352. Simplified process for review and adjustment of child support 
              orders.

               Subtitle G--Enforcement of Support Orders

Sec. 361. Federal income tax refund offset.
Sec. 362. Internal revenue service collection of arrears.
Sec. 363. Authority to collect support from Federal employees.
Sec. 364. Enforcement of child support obligations of members of the 
              Armed Forces.
Sec. 365. Motor vehicle liens.
Sec. 366. Voiding of fraudulent transfers.
Sec. 367. State law authorizing suspension of licenses.
Sec. 368. Reporting arrearages to credit bureaus.
Sec. 369. Extended statute of limitation for collection of arrearages.
Sec. 370. Charges for arrearages.
Sec. 371. Denial of passports for nonpayment of child support.
Sec. 372. International child support enforcement.

                      Subtitle H--Medical Support

Sec. 381. Technical correction to ERISA definition of medical child 
              support order.

                    Subtitle I--Effect of Enactment

Sec. 391. Effective dates.
Sec. 392. Severability.

  TITLE IV--REAUTHORIZATION OF CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT

Sec. 431. Reauthorization of child care and development block grant.

            TITLE V--AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE

Sec. 501. Increase in top marginal rate under section 11.

                        TITLE VI--EFFECTIVE DATE

Sec. 601. Effective date.
       TITLE I--IMPROVING AID TO FAMILIES WITH DEPENDENT CHILDREN

     SEC. 101. INCREASE IN STANDARD EARNED INCOME DISREGARD.

       Clause (ii) of section 402(a)(8)(A) (42 U.S.C. 
     602(a)(8)(A)(ii)) is amended by striking ``$90'' and 
     inserting ``$170''.

     SEC. 102. INCREASE IN STATE FLEXIBILITY REGARDING RECIPIENT 
                   PARTICIPATION IN JOBS PROGRAM.

       (a) Changes in State Plan Requirements.--Paragraph (19) of 
     section 402(a) (42 U.S.C. 602(a)(19)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(19) provide--
       ``(A) that the State has in effect and operation a job 
     opportunities and basic skills training program which meets 
     the requirements of part F;
       ``(B) that, not later than 30 days after approving the 
     application of a family for aid under the State plan approved 
     under this part, the State shall--
       ``(i) conduct an initial assessment of the self-sufficiency 
     needs of the family that includes an assessment of the family 
     circumstances, the educational, child care, and other 
     supportive services needs, and the skills, prior work 
     experience, and employability of each recipient;
       ``(ii) determine whether it would be appropriate to require 
     or permit any member of the family to participate in the 
     program of the State under part F; and
       ``(iii) advise the family of the availability of child care 
     assistance under section 402(g) for participation in 
     education, training, and employment;
       ``(C) that--
       ``(i) the costs of attendance by a recipient at an 
     institution of higher education (as defined in section 481(a) 
     of the Higher Education Act of 1965), or a school or course 
     of vocational or technical training, shall not constitute 
     federally reimbursable expenses for purposes of section 403; 
     and
       ``(ii) the costs of day care, transportation, and other 
     services which are necessary (as determined by the State 
     agency) for such attendance in accordance with section 402(g) 
     are eligible for Federal reimbursement so long as the 
     recipient is making satisfactory progress in such 
     institution, school, or course and such attendance is 
     consistent with the employment goals in the recipient's self-
     sufficiency plan developed under part F;
       ``(D) that--
       ``(i) if an individual who is required by the State to 
     participate in the program of the State under part F fails 
     without good cause to participate or refuses without good 
     cause to accept employment in which such individual is able 
     to engage which is offered through the public employment 
     offices of the State, or is otherwise offered by an employer 
     if the offer of such employer is determined to be a bona fide 
     offer of employment--

       ``(I) the family of the individual shall cease to be 
     eligible for aid under this part; unless
       ``(II) such individual is a member of a family in which 
     both parents are living at home, and his or her spouse has 
     not failed to comply under this clause, in which case the 
     needs of such individual shall not be taken into account in 
     making the determination with respect to his or her family 
     under paragraph (7) of this subsection;

       ``(ii) any sanction described in clause (i) shall continue 
     until the failure to comply ceases;
       ``(iii) no sanction shall be imposed under this 
     subparagraph--

       ``(I) on the basis of the refusal of an individual to 
     accept any employment (including any employment offered under 
     the program), if the employment does not pay at least the 
     Federal minimum wage under section 6(a) of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938; or
       ``(II) on the basis of the refusal of an individual to 
     participate in the program or accept employment (including 
     any employment offered under the program), if child care (or 
     day care for any incapacitated individual living in the same 
     home as a dependent child) is necessary for an individual to 
     participate in the program or accept employment, such care is 
     not available, and the State agency fails to provide such 
     care; and

       ``(H) the State agency may require a participant in the 
     program to accept a job only if such agency assures that the 
     family of such participant will experience no net loss of 
     cash income resulting from acceptance of the job; and any 
     costs incurred by the State agency as a result of this 
     subparagraph shall be treated as expenditures with respect to 
     which section 403(a)(1) or 403(a)(2) applies;''.
       (b) Change in Payment to States.--Section 403(l) (42 U.S.C. 
     603(l)) is amended by striking paragraph (2).

     SEC. 103. ELIMINATION OF DIFFERENT TREATMENT OF 2-PARENT 
                   FAMILIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 402(a) (42 U.S.C. 602(a)) is 
     amended by striking paragraph (41).
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 402(a)(38)(B) (42 U.S.C. 602(a)(38)(B)) is 
     amended by striking ``or in section 407(a)''.
       (2) Section 402(a) (42 U.S.C. 602(a)) is amended by 
     striking paragraph (42).
       (3) Section 402(g)(1)(A)(ii) (42 U.S.C. 602(g)(1)(A)(ii)) 
     is amended by striking ``hours of, or increased income 
     from,'' and inserting ``income from''.
       (4) Section 406(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 606(a)(1)) is amended by 
     striking ``who has been deprived'' and all that follows 
     through ``incapacity of a parent''.
       (5) Section 406(b)(1) (42 U.S.C. 606(b)(1)) is amended by 
     striking ``and if such relative'' and all that follows 
     through ``section 407''.
       (6) Section 407 (42 U.S.C. 607) is hereby repealed.
       (7) Section 472(a) (42 U.S.C. 672(a)) is amended by 
     striking ``or of section 407''.
       (8) Section 473(a)(2)(A)(i) (42 U.S.C. 672(a)(2)(A)(i)) is 
     amended by striking ``or section 407''.
       (9) Section 1115(b) (42 U.S.C. 1315(b)) is amended by 
     striking paragraph (5).
       (10) Section 1115 (42 U.S.C. 1315) is amended by striking 
     subsection (d).
       (11) Section 1902(a)(10)(A)(i) (42 U.S.C. 
     1396a(a)(10)(A)(i)) is amended by striking subclause (V) and 
     by redesignating subclauses (VI) and (VII) as subclauses (V) 
     and (VI), respectively.
       (12) Section 1905 (42 U.S.C. 1396d) is amended by striking 
     subsection (m).
       (13) Section 1905(n)(1) (42 U.S.C. 1396d(n)(1)) is 
     amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)--
       (i) by striking ``(or'' and all that follows through 
     ``407)''; and
       (ii) by adding ``or'' at the end; and
       (B) by striking subparagraph (B).
       (14) Section 1925(a) (42 U.S.C. 1396r-6(a)) is amended by 
     striking ``hours of, or income from,'' and inserting ``income 
     from''.
       (15) Section 204(b)(2) of the Family Support Act of 1988 
     (42 U.S.C. 681 note) is amended by striking the semicolon and 
     all that follows through ``1998''.

     SEC. 104. EXTENSION OF TRANSITIONAL CHILD CARE GUARANTEE.

       Clause (iii) of section 402(g)(1)(A) (42 U.S.C. 
     602(g)(1)(A)(iii)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(iii) A family shall only be eligible for child care 
     provided under clause (ii)--
       ``(I) for a period of 24 months after the last month for 
     which the family received aid to families with dependent 
     children under this part; or
       ``(II) until the income of the family exceeds by more than 
     200 percent the income official poverty line (as defined by 
     the Office of Management and Budget, and revised annually in 
     accordance with section 673(2) of the Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1981) applicable to a family of the 
     size involved;

     whichever occurs first.''.

     SEC. 105. INCREASE IN FEDERAL MATCHING RATES FOR CHILD CARE.

       (a) AFDC and Transitional Child Care.--
       (1) Increase in rates for several states and district of 
     columbia.--Clause (i) of section 402(g)(3)(A) (42 U.S.C. 
     602(g)(3)(A)(i)) is amended by striking ``1905(b)).'' and 
     inserting ``1905(b)), increased by 10 percentage points.''.
       (2) Increase in rates for other states.--Clause (ii) of 
     section 402(g)(3)(A) (42 U.S.C. 602(g)(3)(A)(ii)) is amended 
     by striking ``1118).'' and inserting ``1118), increased by 10 
     percentage points.''.
       (b) At-Risk Child Care.--Subparagraph (A) of section 
     403(n)(1) (42 U.S.C. 603(n)(1)(A)) is amended by inserting 
     ``increased by 10 percentage points'' before ``of the 
     expenditures''.

     SEC. 106. INCREASE IN JOBS PROGRAM FUNDING.

       Paragraph (3) of section 403(k) (42 U.S.C. 603(k)(3)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (F), by striking ``and each succeeding 
     fiscal year,'' and inserting a comma at the end; and
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (F) the following:

[[Page H3744]]

       ``(G) $1,500,000,000 in the case of fiscal year 1997,
       ``(H) $1,900,000,000 in the case of fiscal year 1998,
       ``(I) $2,800,000,000 in the case of fiscal year 1999,
       ``(J) $3,700,000,000 in the case of fiscal year 2000, and
       ``(K) $5,000,000,000 in the case of fiscal year 2001,''.

     SEC. 107. REQUIREMENT WITH RESPECT TO JOBS PROGRAM 
                   PARTICIPATION RATE.

       (a) Requirement.--Section 402 (42 U.S.C. 602) is amended by 
     inserting after subsection (c) the following:
       ``(d)(1) With respect to the program established by a State 
     under part F, the State shall achieve a participation rate 
     for the following fiscal years of not less than the following 
     percentage:

``Fiscal year:                                              Percentage:
  1997...........................................................15....

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

  1999...........................................................25....

  2000...........................................................30....

  2001...........................................................35....

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

  2003 or later.................................................50.....

       ``(2) As used in this subsection, the term `participation 
     rate' means, with respect to a State and a fiscal year, an 
     amount equal to--
       ``(A) the average monthly number of individuals who, during 
     the fiscal year, participate in the State program established 
     under part F; divided by
       ``(B) the average monthly number of individuals who, during 
     the fiscal year, are adult recipients of aid under the State 
     plan approved under part A or participate in the State 
     program established under part F.
       ``(3) Each State that operates a program under part F for a 
     fiscal year shall submit to the Secretary a report on the 
     participation rate of the State for the fiscal year.
       ``(4)(A) 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 part F. The 
     State may elect to follow such recommendations, and shall 
     demonstrate to the Secretary how the State will achieve the 
     required participation rates.
       ``(B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), if a State fails to 
     achieve the participation rate required by paragraph (1) for 
     2 consecutive fiscal years, the Secretary may require the 
     State to make changes in the State program established under 
     part F.''.
       (b) Change in Payment to States.--Section 403(l) (42 U.S.C. 
     603(l)) is amended by striking paragraphs (3) and (4).

     SEC. 108. INCREASE IN MATCHING RATES FOR STATES WHOSE 
                   RECIPIENTS LEAVE AFDC FOR PAID EMPLOYMENT.

       (a) Increase in JOBS Matching Rate.--Section 403(l) (42 
     U.S.C. 603(l)), as amended by section 102(b), is amended by 
     inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(2)(A) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Secretary shall 
     pay to a State, with respect to expenditures made by the 
     State that are described in paragraph (1)(A)(ii)(II), an 
     amount equal to the greater of 70 percent or the Federal 
     medical assistance percentage (as defined in section 1118 in 
     the case of any State to which section 1108 applies, or as 
     defined in section 1905(b) in the case of any other State) 
     increased by 10 percent if the number of qualified families 
     with respect to the State for a fiscal year equals or exceeds 
     the proportion specified in subparagraph (B) for such year of 
     the total number of individuals participating in the State 
     program established under part F during such year.
       ``(B) The proportion specified in this subparagraph is--
       ``(i) \1/4\ for fiscal year 1998;
       ``(ii) \1/3\ for fiscal year 1999;
       ``(iii) \1/2\ for fiscal year 2000, and for each fiscal 
     year thereafter.
       ``(C) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the term `qualified 
     family' means, with respect to a State for a fiscal year, a 
     family--
       ``(i) that was receiving aid from the State under this part 
     during such year;
       ``(ii) a member of which ceased to participate in the State 
     program established under part F during such year as the 
     result of the employment of such member in a job (other than 
     a job provided under the job creation and work experience 
     program under section 482(e)); and
       ``(iii) ceased to receive such aid as a result of such 
     employment.''
       (b) Increase in Transitional Child Care Rate.--Paragraph 
     (3) of section 402(g) (42 U.S.C. 602(g)(3)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), in the case of 
     amounts expended for child care pursuant to paragraph 
     (1)(A)(ii) by any State that satisfies the requirement in 
     section 403(l)(2)(A), the applicable rate for purposes of 
     section 403(a) shall be the percentage specified in 
     subparagraph (A) for such amounts, increased by 10 percentage 
     points.''.

     SEC. 109. INCREASE IN AT-RISK CHILD CARE FUNDING.

       Subparagraph (B) of section 403(n)(2) (42 U.S.C. 
     603(n)(2)(B)) of the Social Security Act is amended--
       (1) in clause (iv), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in clause (v), by striking ``1995, and for each fiscal 
     year thereafter.'' and inserting ``1995;''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(vi) $300,000,000 for fiscal year 1996;
       ``(vii) $800,000,000 for fiscal year 1997;
       ``(viii) $1,300,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
       ``(ix) $1,800,000,000 for fiscal year 1999;
       ``(x) $2,300,000,000 for fiscal year 2000; and
       ``(xi) $2,800,000,000 for fiscal year 2001.''.

     SEC. 110. IMPROVEMENTS IN JOBS PROGRAM SELF-SUFFICIENCY 
                   PLANNING AND CASE MANAGEMENT.

       Section 482(b) (42 U.S.C. 682(b)) is amended--
       (1) by amending the subsection heading to read as follows:
       ``(b) Self-Sufficiency Plan.--'';
       (2) by striking paragraph (1)(A), redesignating paragraph 
     (1)(B) as paragraph (1)(A), and adjusting the placement and 
     margins of paragraph (1)(A) (as so redesignated) accordingly;
       (3) in paragraph (1)(A) (as redesignated by paragraph 
     (2))--
       (A) by striking ``such assessment,'' and inserting ``the 
     initial assessment of self-sufficiency under section 
     402(a)(19)(B),''; and
       (B) by striking ``employability plan'' each place such term 
     appears and inserting ``self-sufficiency plan'';
       (4) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by striking ``initial assessment and review and the 
     development of the employability plan'' and inserting 
     ``initial assessment of self-sufficiency and the development 
     of the self-sufficiency plan'';
       (B) by striking ``the State agency may require'' and 
     inserting ``the State agency shall require''; and
       (C) by striking ``If the State agency exercises the option 
     under the preceding sentence, the State agency must'' and 
     inserting ``The State agency must''; and
       (5) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) by striking ``may assign'' and inserting ``shall 
     assign''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:

     ``Case management services under this paragraph shall 
     continue for a period of not fewer than 90 days after a 
     participant becomes employed, and, at the option of the 
     State, the State may extend such period to not more than 365 
     days.''.

     SEC. 111. CHANGE IN MANDATORY SERVICES AND ACTIVITIES UNDER 
                   THE JOBS PROGRAM.

       (a) Mandatory and Permissible Services and Activities.--
     Subparagraph (A) of section 482(d)(1) (42 U.S.C. 
     682(d)(1)(A)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(d) Services and Activities Under the Program.--(1)(A) In 
     carrying out the program, each State shall make available a 
     broad range of services and activities to aid in carrying out 
     the purpose of this part. Such services and activities--
       ``(i) shall include--
       ``(I) educational activities (as appropriate), including 
     high school or equivalent education (combined with training 
     as needed), basic and remedial education to achieve a basic 
     literacy level, and education for individuals with limited 
     English proficiency;
       ``(II) job skills training;
       ``(III) job readiness activities to help prepare 
     participants for work;
       ``(IV) job development and job placement;
       ``(V) a job creation and work experience program as 
     described in subsection (e); and
       ``(VI) group and individual job search as described in 
     subsection (f); and
       ``(ii) may include--
       ``(I) on-the-job training; and
       ``(II) any other work experience program approved by the 
     Secretary.''.
       (b) Elimination of Requirement with Respect to Certain 
     Educational Activities.--Section 482(d) (42 U.S.C. 682(d)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (2); and
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2).

     SEC. 112. JOBS CREATION AND WORK EXPERIENCE PROGRAM.

       Section 482 (42 U.S.C. 682) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsections (e) and (f);
       (2) by redesignating subsections (g), (h), and (i) as 
     subsections (f), (g), and (h); and
       (3) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
       ``(e) Jobs Creation and Work Experience Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--In carrying out the program, each State 
     shall establish a jobs creation and work experience program 
     in accordance with this subsection.
       ``(2) General requirements.--A jobs creation and work 
     experience program is a program that provides employment in 
     the public sector or in the private sector in accordance with 
     the following requirements:
       ``(A) Participation.--A State shall require an individual 
     to participate in the jobs creation and work experience 
     program if the individual--
       ``(i) is eligible to receive aid under the State plan 
     approved under part A;
       ``(ii) is prepared to commence employment, as determined 
     under the self-sufficiency plan developed for the individual 
     under subsection (b)(1)(A); and
       ``(iii) has demonstrated that the individual is not 
     otherwise able to obtain employment in the public or private 
     sectors.
       ``(B) Periodic job search required.--As a continuing 
     condition of eligibility to participate in the jobs creation 
     and work experience program, each participant in the program 
     shall periodically engage in job search.
       ``(C) Entry-level positions.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), the jobs 
     creation and work experience program shall provide entry-
     level positions, to the extent practicable.
       ``(ii) No infringement on promotional opportunities.--A job 
     shall not be created in a promotional line that will infringe 
     in any way upon the promotional opportunities of 
     [[Page H3745]] persons employed in jobs not subsidized under 
     this subsection.
       ``(D) Maximum period of subsidized employment at same 
     position.--The jobs creation and work experience program 
     shall not permit an individual to remain in the program for 
     more than 24 months.
       ``(E) Minimum wage requirement.--An individual 
     participating in the jobs creation and work experience 
     program may not be required to accept any employment if the 
     wage rate for such employment does not equal or exceed the 
     minimum wage rate then in effect under section 6 of the Fair 
     Labor Standards Act of 1938.
       ``(3) Wages treated as earned income.--Wages paid under a 
     program established under this subsection shall be considered 
     to be earned income for purposes of any provision of law.
       ``(4) Preservation of eligibility for child care assistance 
     and medicaid benefits.--Any individual who becomes ineligible 
     to receive aid under a State plan approved under part A by 
     reason of income from employment provided under a program 
     established under this subsection to the caretaker relative 
     of the family of which the individual is a member shall for 
     purposes of eligibility for child care benefits under section 
     402(g)(1)(A)(i) and for purposes of eligibility for medical 
     assistance under the State plan approved under title XIX, be 
     considered to be receiving such aid for so long as the 
     subsidized employment provided to the individual under this 
     subsection continues.''.

     SEC. 113. PROVISIONS GENERALLY APPLICABLE TO THE JOBS 
                   PROGRAM.

       Section 484 (42 U.S.C. 684) is amended by striking 
     subsections (b), (c), and (d) and inserting the following:
       ``(b)(1)(A) Funds provided for a program established under 
     section 482 may be used only for programs that do not 
     duplicate any employment activity otherwise available in the 
     locality of the program.
       ``(B) Funds provided for a program established under 
     section 482 shall not be paid to a private entity to conduct 
     activities that are the same or substantially equivalent to 
     activities provided by a State in which the entity is located 
     or by an agency of local government with jurisdiction over 
     the locality in which the entity is located, unless the 
     requirements of paragraph (2) are met.
       ``(2)(A) An employer shall not displace an employee or 
     position, including partial displacement such as reduction in 
     hours, wages, or employment benefits, as a result of the use 
     by the employer of a participant in a program established 
     under section 482.
       ``(B) No work assignment under a program established under 
     section 482 shall result in any infringement of the 
     promotional opportunities of any employed individual.
       ``(C)(i) A participant in a program established under 
     section 482(e) shall not perform any services or duties or 
     engage in activities that would otherwise be performed by an 
     employee as part of the assigned duties of the employee.
       ``(ii) A participant in a program established under section 
     482 shall not perform any services or duties or engage in 
     activities that--
       ``(I) will supplant the hiring of employed workers; or
       ``(II) are services, duties or activities with respect to 
     which an individual has recall rights pursuant to a 
     collective bargaining agreement or applicable personnel 
     procedures.
       ``(iii) A participant in a program established under 
     section 482 shall not perform services or duties that have 
     been performed by or were assigned to any--
       ``(I) presently employed worker if the participant is in a 
     program established under section 482(e);
       ``(II) employee who recently resigned or was discharged;
       ``(III) employee who--
       ``(aa) is the subject of a reduction in force; or
       ``(bb) has recall rights pursuant to a collective 
     bargaining agreement or applicable personnel procedures;
       ``(IV) employee who is on leave (terminal, temporary, 
     vacation, emergency, or sick); or
       ``(V) employee who is on strike or is being locked out.
       ``(c)(1) Sections 142(a), 143(a)(4), 143(a)(5), and 
     143(c)(2) of the Job Training Partnership Act shall apply to 
     employment provided through any program established under 
     section 482 of this Act.
       ``(2) Sections 130(f) and 176(f) of the National and 
     Community Service Act of 1990 shall apply to employment 
     provided through any program established under section 482 of 
     this Act.
       ``(d)(1) A participant in a program established under 
     subsection (e) of section 482 may not be assigned to fill any 
     established unfilled position vacancy.
       ``(2)(A) A program established under section 482 may not be 
     used to assist, promote, or deter union organizing.
       ``(B) A program established under section 482 may not be 
     used to impair existing contracts for services or collective 
     bargaining agreements.''.
                       TITLE II--MAKING WORK PAY
     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 first or fourth month of such 
     extension period.''.
       (b) Imposition of Premium Permitted Only During Additional 
     Extension Periods.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1925(b)(5)(A) of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1396r-6(b)(5)(A)) is amended by striking ``(D)(i)),'' 
     and inserting ``(D)(i)) occurring during the second or third 
     additional extension period provided under this 
     subsection,''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 1925(b)(1) of such Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1396r-6(b)(1)), as amended by subsection (a)(1), 
     is amended by inserting after ``same conditions'' the 
     following: ``(except as provided in paragraph (5)(A))''.
       (c) Extension of Coverage for Low-Income Children.--Section 
     1925(b) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r-6(b)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) Extension of coverage for low-income children.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this title, each State plan approved under this title shall 
     provide that the State shall offer (in the last month of the 
     third additional extension period provided under paragraph 
     (1)) to each eligible low-income child who has received 
     assistance pursuant to this section during each of the 6-
     month periods described in subsection (a) and paragraph (1) 
     the option of coverage under the State plan, in the same 
     manner and under the same conditions as the option of 
     extending coverage under paragraph (1) for the second and 
     third additional
      extension periods provided under such paragraph.
       ``(B) Eligible low-income child defined.--In subparagraph 
     (A), the term `eligible low-income child' means an individual 
     who has not attained 18 years of age and whose family income 
     does not exceed 200 percent of the official poverty line (as 
     defined by the Office of Management and Budget, and revised 
     annually in accordance with section 673(2) of the Omnibus 
     Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981) applicable to a family of 
     the size involved.''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to calendar quarters beginning on or after 
     October 1, 1996, without regard to whether or not final 
     regulations to carry out such amendments have been 
     promulgated by such date.

     SEC. 202. TEMPORARY EXCLUSION OF EARNED INCOME FOR PURPOSES 
                   OF DETERMINING RENT PAID FOR UNITS IN FEDERALLY 
                   ASSISTED HOUSING.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the amount of rent payable by a qualified family for a 
     qualified dwelling unit may not be increased because of the 
     increased income due to the employment referred to in 
     subsection (b)(2)(A) for the period that begins upon the 
     commencement of such employment and ends--
       (A) 24 months thereafter, or
       (B) upon the first date after the commencement of such 
     employment that the income of the family exceeds 200 percent 
     of the official poverty line (as defined by the Office of 
     Management and Budget and revised periodically in accordance 
     with section 673(2) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 
     of 1981) applicable to a family of the size involved,
     whichever occurs first.
       (b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the 
     following definitions shall apply:
       (1) Qualified dwelling unit.--The term ``qualified dwelling 
     unit'' means a dwelling unit--
       (A) for which assistance is provided by the Secretary of 
     Housing and Urban Development in the form of any grant, 
     contract, loan, loan guarantee, cooperative agreement, rental 
     assistance payment, interest subsidy, insurance, or direct 
     appropriation, or that is located in a project for which such 
     assistance is provided; and
       (B) for which the amount of rent paid by the occupying 
     family is limited, restricted, or determined under law or 
     regulation based on the income of the family.
       (2) Qualified Family.--The term ``qualified family'' means 
     a family--
       (A) whose income increases as a result of employment of a 
     member of the family who was previously unemployed; and
     [[Page H3746]]   (B) who was receiving aid to families with 
     dependent children under a State plan approved under part A 
     of title IV of the Social Security Act immediately before 
     such employment.

     SEC. 203. CONTINUATION OF FOOD STAMP BENEFITS.

       (a) Amendment.--Section 5(c) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 
     (7 U.S.C. 2014(c)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``Notwithstanding any other provision of this subsection, in 
     the case of a household that receives benefits under part A 
     of title IV of the Social Security Act and whose income 
     increases because a member of such household obtains 
     employment, the earned income from such employment shall be 
     excluded during a 2-year period for purposes of determining 
     eligibility under such standards unless the aggregate income 
     of such household exceeds the poverty line by more than 200 
     percent.''.
       (b) Application of Amendment.--The amendment made by 
     subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to certification 
     periods beginning before the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.
             TITLE III--IMPROVING CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
Subtitle A--Eligibility and Other Matters Concerning Title IV-D Program 
                                Clients

     SEC. 301. 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 adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(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 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. 302. 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 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 
     [[Page H3747]] 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 
     Title IV-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 Title 
     IV-E.--Amounts''.
       (e) 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.
       (f) 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).
       (g) Mandatory Child Support Pass-Through.--
       (1) In general.--Section 402(a)(8)(A)(vi) (42 U.S.C. 
     602(a)(8)(A)(vi)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``$50'' each place such term appears and 
     inserting ``$50, or, if greater, $50 adjusted by the CPI (as 
     prescribed in section 406(i));''; and
       (B) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting 
     ``or, in lieu of each dollar amount specified in this clause, 
     such greater amount as the State may choose (and provide for 
     in its State plan);''.
       (2) CPI adjustment.--Section 406 (42 U.S.C. 606) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) For purposes of this part, an amount is `adjusted by 
     the CPI' for any month in a calendar year by multiplying the 
     amount involved by the ratio of--
       ``(1) the Consumer Price Index (as prepared by the 
     Department of Labor) for the third quarter of the preceding 
     calendar year, to
       ``(2) such Consumer Price Index for the third quarter of 
     calendar year 1996,

     and rounding the product, if not a multiple of $10, to the 
     nearer multiple of $10.''.

     SEC. 303. DUE PROCESS RIGHTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 454 (42 U.S.C. 654), as amended by 
     section 102(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)(i) 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; and
       ``(ii) the State may not provide to any noncustodial parent 
     of a child representation relating to the establishment or 
     modification of an order for the payment of child support 
     with respect to that child, unless the State makes provision 
     for such representation outside the State agency;''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall become effective on October 1, 1997.
     SEC. 304. 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. 311. 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. 312. 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 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--
     [[Page H3748]]   ``(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 111(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 the 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. 313. 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 insert 
     ``(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 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, 
     [[Page H3749]] 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. 314. 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 104(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. 315. 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 perform 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 report 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) Montioring of access.--Routine monitoring of access 
     to and use of the automated system, through methods such as 
     audit trails and feedback mechanism, 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 enactment of this 
     subsection.''.
       (4) Implementation timetable.--Section 454(24) (42 U.S.C. 
     654(24)), as amended by sections 304(a)(2) and 314(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 this Act.

     (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 21, 322(c), and 333(d) of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 316. 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 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.
     [[Page H3750]] SEC. 317. FUNDING FOR SECRETARIAL ASSISTANCE 
                   TO STATE PROGRAMS.

       Section 452 (42 U.S.C. 652), as amended by section 
     115(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 the 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. 318. 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. 321. CENTRAL STATE AND CASE REGISTRY.

       Section 454A, as added by section 315(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. 322. CENTRALIZED COLLECTION AND DISBURSEMENT OF SUPPORT 
                   PAYMENTS.

       (a) State Plan Requirement.--Section 454 (42 U.S.C. 654), 
     as amended by sections 304(a) and 314(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--
       ``(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:
  [[Page H3751]] ``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 315(a)(2) of this Act and as amended by section 321 
     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. 323. 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) in 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. 324. LOCATOR INFORMATION FROM INTERSTATE NETWORKS.

       Section 466(a) (42 U.S.C. 666(a)), as amended by section 
     323(a)(2) of this Act, is amended by inserting after 
     paragraph (7) the following new paragraph:
       ``(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. 325. 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:
       ``(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.
     [[Page H3752]]   (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 non-complying 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 Admistration 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--
       ``(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.--
     [[Page H3753]]   (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. 326. USE OF SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS.

       (a) State Law Requirement.--Section 466(a) (42 U.S.C. 
     666(a)), as amended by section 301(a) of this Act, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(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. 331. ADOPTION OF UNIFORM STATE LAWS.

       Section 466(a) (42 U.S.C. 666(a)), as amended by sections 
     301(a) and 328(a) of this Act, is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new paragraph:
       ``(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. 332. 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. 333. 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, 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 
     [[Page H3754]] 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 115(a)(2) of this Act and as amended by 
     sections 121 and 122(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. 341. 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:
       ``(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 punitive 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 
     [[Page H3755]] 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 knowledgment.--(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. 342. 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 as 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. 351. 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.--
       (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 filed 
     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.
      [[Page H3756]]   (f) Termination.--The Commission shall 
     terminate 6 months after the submission of the report 
     described in subsection (e).

     SEC. 352. 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. 361. 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--
       (1) by striking ``The amount'' and inserting
       ``(1) In general.--The amount'';
       (2) by striking ``paid to the State. A reduction'' and 
     inserting ``paid to the State.
       ``(2) Priorities for offset.--A reduction'';
       (3) by striking ``has been assigned'' and inserting ``has 
     not been assigned'', and
       (4) by striking ``and shall be applied'' and all that 
     follows and inserting ``and shall thereafter be applied to 
     satisfy any past-due support that has been so assigned.''.
       (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 302(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. 362. 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. 363. 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
       (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 
     [[Page H3757]] 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 section--''.
       (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 of 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. 364. 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 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--

[[Page H3758]]

       (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 
     satisy the amount of child support set forth in a court 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. 365. 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. 366. VOIDING OF FRAUDULENT TRANSFERS.

       Section 466(a) (42 U.S.C. 666(a)), as amended by sections 
     301(a), 328(a), and 331 of this Act, is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(15) 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. 367. STATE LAW AUTHORIZING SUSPENSION OF LICENSES.

       Section 466(a) (42 U.S.C. 666(a)), as amended by sections 
     301(a), 328(a), 331, and 166 of this Act, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(16) 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, professional and occupational licenses, 
     and recreational 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. 368. 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. 389. 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. 370. CHARGES FOR ARREARAGES.

       (A) State Law Requirement.--Section 466(a) (42 U.S.C. 
     666(a)), as amended by section 301(a), 328(a), 331, 366, and 
     367 of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(17) 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. 371. 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 315(a)(3) and 317 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 171(b) of this 
     Act.
       ``(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 304(a), 314(b), and 
     322(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 
     [[Page H3759]] 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. 372. 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 304(a), 314(b), 322(a), and 371(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.''.
                      Subtitle H--Medical Support

     SEC. 381. TECHNICAL CORRECTION TO ERISA DEFINITION OF MEDICAL 
                   CHILD SUPPORT ORDER.

       (a) 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 retro-actively 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.
                    Subtitle I--Effect of Enactment

     SEC. 391. 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 calender 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. 392. 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 IV--REAUTHORIZATION OF CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT

     SEC. 431. REAUTHORIZATION OF CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT BLOCK 
                   GRANT.

       Section 658B of the Child Care and Development Block Grant 
     Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 658B. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     subchapter--
       ``(1) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 1995;
       ``(2) $1,000,000,000 for fiscal year 1996;
       ``(3) $1,500,000,000 for fiscal year 1997;
       ``(4) $2,000,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
       ``(5) $2,500,000,000 for fiscal year 1999;
       ``(6) $3,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2000; and
       ``(7) $3,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2001.''.
            TITLE V--AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE

     SEC. 501. INCREASE IN TOP MARGINAL RATE UNDER SECTION 11.

       (a) In General.--The following provisions of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 are amended by striking ``35'' and 
     inserting ``36.25'':
       (1) Section 11(b)(1).
       (2) Section 11(b)(2).
       (3) Section 1201(a).
       (4) Paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 1445(e)
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning on or after October 1, 
     1996, except that the amendment made by subsection (a)(4) 
     shall take effect on October 1, 1996.
                        TITLE VI--EFFECTIVE DATE

     SEC. 601. 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 gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. 
Mink] will be recognized for 30 minutes and a Member opposed will be 
recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak for the 
millions of women and children whose lives will be deeply affected by 
what we do. In the name of reform, we are about to destroy the 
foundations which have been built over the years to build a framework 
of support and help. What was a reform effort has now turned into a 
savage effort to cut away needed funds for our most vulnerable children 
in order to pay for the tax cuts for the wealthiest in America. 
Changing the AFDC Program from an entitlement to a block grant means 
that you blow away its foundation of support. Changing the National 
School Lunch Program from an entitlement to a block grant means that 
you place every schoolchild in jeopardy that their school may have to 
drop out of the program. What good is it to say that there are funds 
for needy children if the schools they attend have no school lunch 
program at all? Changing the child care programs from entitlements to 
block grants means that you diminish the level of commitment to child 
care as the most important element required to achieve work and self-
sufficiency.
  The Republican attack against our efforts to build back a future for 
welfare families by job training, job search, and child care argues 
that all we do is defend the status quo. For most of this century 
America has stood tall as a country that helped its poor, and fed its 
children, and nursed its sick. If this is the status quo, I am proud to 
defend it because this is what I believe America is all about.
  It is not about bashing women as illicit and unfit mothers. It is not 
about bashing legal aliens. It is not about bashing children because 
they were born out of wedlock.
  America is about having the greatness to offer help where needed. I 
rise today because I passionately reject the meanness that I see and 
hear. I reject that the poor are less deserving of our love and 
affection.
  The facts my colleagues is what gives me the spirit to fight back 
today. The facts, if you care to read, tell you that 
[[Page H3760]] 50 percent of the adult poor on welfare, work. You don't 
need to force them to get up everyday like you think. They struggle to 
feed their families. They know that they want something better for 
themselves. They don't need a law to force them to love their children. 
More than half of the adults on welfare have 4 years of work 
experience. They are not lazy and seeking dependency as a way of life. 
They are despondent because of events beyond their control, sickness, 
being laid off a job because of corporate downsizing, divorce, or 
death.
  Our substitute bill that we offer is the truth about America. It 
acknowledges that States should have greater flexibility in designing 
the job training and child care programs. But we guarantee the funds 
with which to do it. If Federal funds are to be spent there must be 
uniformity throughout the Nation on such things as eligibility 
standards, but beyond that the States must have the ability to decide 
how to achieve the goals of job placement which are required in this 
bill.
  We reward families that work by not pulling them out of essential 
support like food stamps, housing, and child care.
  We extend support to low-income working families not on welfare, but 
as much in need of help, by providing them with child care services as 
well.
  In truth, Mr. Chairman, this substitute bill which has 75 cosponsors 
is an expression of belief and hope which is the icon of American 
ideology. Best of all it demeans no one because they are poor, and it 
protects children and legal aliens by refusing to segregate their 
rights and privileges because of status, and assures stability of 
Federal support while allowing maximum flexibility to the States to 
provide for jobs, job training and child care. Yes, it cuts off support 
if the parent refuses a job offer, but it does not set an arbitrary 
time limit which could not be met either by the State or by the 
community. To cut off a family in need when there is neither job, nor 
job offer, is cruel. What will the children do to survive? Separate the 
siblings in foster care, in orphanages? A job must be found before any 
funds are cut. That is the object, isn't it? Help families find work 
that earns their way off of welfare. This is our goal. This is the goal 
of an American that cares. This is not the status quo, because there is 
no such goal in current law. Vote for the Mink substitute.
 Family Stability and Work Act (H.R. 1250) Sponsored by Congresswoman 
                             Patsy T. Mink


                                summary

       The Welfare debate has been centered around getting people 
     off of welfare through arbitrary time limits and denying 
     benefits to teenage mothers and children born into welfare 
     families, all in an attempt to reduce federal welfare 
     spending. Very little has centered around what is truly 
     necessary to help families get off of welfare and stay off.
       The Mink plan is a forthright and honest plan which seeks 
     to move welfare families to self-sufficiency through 
     employment. It provides the resources necessary to give 
     welfare recipients the education, job training, job research 
     assistance and child care that they need to find a job and 
     sets them on a course toward employment through the Job 
     Creation and Work Experience program. It also includes a 
     strong work requirement and increases state flexibility.
       Foremost is the fact the Mink plan protects children. It 
     does not allow states to deny benefits to teenage mothers and 
     children born into families already on AFDC. It does not 
     allow children to be out on the street because they have been 
     thrown off of welfare after two years. It helps to keep 
     children and families off of welfare by allowing health care, 
     child care, housing and Food Stamp benefits to continue for a 
     short term after the family is off of AFDC. It increases 
     child support enforcement so that single-parent families have 
     a contribution from the absent parent to help sustain the 
     family. And it eliminates the discrimination of two parent 
     families in the AFDC system.
       The major differences between the Mink plan and other 
     welfare proposals are: retains entitlement status of the 
     program; no arbitrary cut off of benefits (people who refuse 
     to work or turn down a job are denied benefits); protects 
     children because it does not include requirement to deny 
     benefits to teenage mothers or children who are born to 
     families already on AFDC; rewards states for successfully 
     moving welfare recipients into jobs; makes the investments 
     necessary to prepare welfare recipients for work; helps 
     families stay off of welfare by allowing them to retain 
     health, child care, housing and Food Stamp benefits for up to 
     two years, and does not finance welfare by denying benefits 
     to legal immigrants.
                 I. WORK OPPORTUNITIES AND REQUIREMENTS

       Work and preparing for work are essential elements in a 
     welfare reform. The Mink plan provides welfare recipients 
     with the education, job training and child care necessary to 
     obtain a job and stay employed. State are provided more 
     flexibility in implementing the JOBS program to help prepare 
     welfare recipients for work and enhances JOBS with a new work 
     program (The Jobs Creation and Work Experience Program). This 
     is not a one-size fits all approach. It eliminate cumbersome 
     requirements under the JOBS program and allows states 
     flexibility in determining who is required to participate in 
     JOBS and who is exempt. There is no arbitrary time limit for 
     AFDC benefits but allows states to work with individual 
     families to determine what is necessary to get them off of 
     welfare and become self-sufficient through employment.
       The Mink plan includes a strong work requirement. Every 
     recipient with a self-sufficiency plan must be in a job after 
     the education, training or job search activities required in 
     their self-sufficiency plan are completed. If they cannot 
     find a job they must participate in the Job Creation and Work 
     Experience Program for two years. States are given maximum 
     flexibility to design the Work program to fit the needs of 
     their AFDC families and their community.
       The basic components of this program are:
       Participation rates.--States decide who participates and 
     who is exempt, so long as the following participation rates 
     are achieved: 15 percent of AFDC families in FY 1997; 20 
     percent of AFDC families in FY 1998; 25 percent of AFDC 
     families in FY 1999; 30 percent of AFDC families in FY 2000; 
     35 percent of AFDC families in FY 2001; 40 percent of AFDC 
     families in FY 2002; and 50 percent of AFDC families in FY 
     2003 and each succeeding year.
       Self-sufficiency plan.--Within 30 days of being determined 
     eligible for AFDC, a preliminary assessment of the self-
     sufficiency needs of the family and whether they qualify for 
     the JOBS program is required. A more detailed self-
     sufficiency plan must be developed for every participant in 
     the JOBS program. The plan will explain how the State will 
     help and what the recipient will do to pursue employment. It 
     will identify the education, training and support services 
     that will be provided to reach the goal of self-sufficiency, 
     and it will set a timetable for achieving the goals.
       Work Requirement.--Every recipient with a self-sufficiency 
     plan must work after education, training, job search or any 
     other preparatory activity required by their self-sufficiency 
     plan. If the recipient cannot find a job, the state must 
     provide a subsidized job through the Job Creation and Work 
     Experience program for at least two years.
       Components of the Job Creation and Work Experience 
     Program.--Each State designs its own program to provide 
     employment in the public or private sector for AFDC 
     recipients. The jobs must pay at least Federal minimum wage 
     and may be subsidized. Child care and Medicaid eligibility 
     must be sustained throughout the program. Protections against 
     displacing existing employees at a company or organization 
     participating in a subsidized job program are included.
       Time limits.--There are no arbitrary time limits on AFDC 
     benefits. Requires a recipient to get a job once they have 
     completed education or training as determined by their self-
     sufficiency plan. If a job is not available, they must be 
     placed in the Job Creation and Work Experience program for at 
     least two years. Any one who refuses to work or turns down a 
     job will be cut off of welfare. However, AFDC recipients who 
     play by the rules but cannot find a job because there are no 
     jobs do not get punished by being cut off of welfare.
       Jobs and work funding.--The Job Creation and Work 
     Experience Program is a new program under JOBS. Funding for 
     JOBS will continue to be based on a Federal/State share and 
     remain a capped entitlement to the States at the following 
     levels (including the $1 billion currently authorized for 
     JOBS): $1.5 billion in FY 1997; $1.9 billion in FY 1998; $2.8 
     billion in FY 1999; $3.7 billion in FY 2000, and $5.0 billion 
     in FY 2001.
       Rewards success.--Increases Federal share of the JOBS 
     program and Transitional Child Care program by 10 percent for 
     States which meet a certain success rate in moving families 
     on welfare into work (actual rate increase for JOBS program 
     would equal 70% or the Federal Medicaid Match plus 10%). In 
     order to receive the increased federal share the number of 
     JOBS participants who leave the AFDC program due to 
     employment (does not include subsidized employment) within 
     the given year must equal: \1/4\ of JOBS participants in 
     fiscal year 1998, \1/3\ of JOBS participants in fiscal year 
     1999, and \1/2\ of JOBS participants in fiscal year 2000 or 
     any year thereafter.
       Promotes families.--Eliminates requirements discriminating 
     against two-parent families.
                             ii. child care

       Child Care is essential in order for AFDC mothers to work 
     or participate in an education or job training program. Child 
     care is often the most difficult support service for mothers 
     to find and the most expensive. The Mink plan increases the 
     Federal investment in child care so that AFDC mothers can 
     work to support their families and extend transitional child 
     care assistance so that families who have left the AFDC 
     system can stay off of welfare. In addition, the Mink 
     [[Page H3761]] plan makes a significant investment in child 
     care for other low-income families through the At-Risk Child 
     Care program and the Child Care Development Block Grant 
     program.
       Child Care Guarantee.--Retains the Child Care Guarantee for 
     AFDC recipients and JOBS participants. Extends the 
     Transitional Child Care program for families who leave AFDC 
     for an additional year. (current program is one year). 
     Families who leave AFDC would be eligible for transitional 
     child care for two years or until their family income reaches 
     200% of poverty.
       Increase Federal Match.--Increases the federal share for 
     the AFDC & Transitional Child Care by 10%.
       Child Care for Non-AFDC families.--Increases the Federal 
     Match for the At-Risk Child Care program by 10% and increases 
     capped entitlement to: $800 million in fiscal year 1997; $1.3 
     billion in fiscal year 1998; $1.8 billion in fiscal year 
     1999; $2.3 billion in fiscal year 2000, and $2.8 billion in 
     fiscal year 2001.
       Reauthorizes the Child Care Development Block Grant program 
     for five years with the following authorization levels: $1.0 
     billion in fiscal year 1996; $1.5 billion in fiscal year 
     1997; $2.0 billion in fiscal year 1998; $2.5 billion in 
     fiscal year 1999; $3.0 billion in fiscal year 2000, and $3.5 
     billion in fiscal year 2001.
                          iii. making work pay

       Helping former AFDC families stay off of welfare must be 
     one of our primary goals. Currently over \1/2\ of the AFDC 
     population cycles on and off of welfare. Low wage jobs which 
     do not provide enough money to sustain a family coupled with 
     the loss of health care, child care, housing and food stamps, 
     often puts a family right back into the dire financial 
     situation which put them on welfare in the first place. We 
     must reward AFDC recipients who go to work and not punish 
     them by taking away necessary assistance which will help 
     stabilize the family. The Mink plan allows AFDC families to 
     retain short-term assistance in the areas of health, housing, 
     nutrition and child care to help stabilize the family and 
     assure that they will not fall back into welfare, including:
       Rewards work.--Eliminates disincentives for AFDC recipients 
     to work by increasing the amount of earned income not 
     included in calculation of AFDC benefits from $120 per month 
     to $200 per month in the 1st year and $90 to $170 after fir 
     first year.
       Transitional health benefits.--Extends Medicaid benefits 
     for an additional year (with state option to require families 
     to pay a portion of the premium) after a family leaves AFDC 
     and extends Medicaid benefits for the children until they 
     reach 18 years of age or the family's income reaches 200 
     percent of poverty.
       Transitional nutrition benefits.--Income earned by AFDC 
     recipients and former AFDC recipients will not be counted for 
     the purposes of Food Stamp eligibility until the family's 
     income reaches 200% of poverty or for two years after the 
     termination of AFDC benefits.
       Transitional housing benefits.--Income earned by AFDC 
     recipients and former AFDC recipients will not be counted for 
     the purposes of Federal Housing assistance eligibility or 
     rent determination until the family's income reaches 200% of 
     poverty or for two year after the termination of AFDC 
     benefits.


                           iv. child support

       Failure to enforce child payments plays a key role in 
     keeping single parent families in poverty. The FSWA 
     incorporates the child support enforcement provisions 
     developed by the Women's Caucus. It improves state and 
     interstate child support enforcement through:
       Establishment of state automated systems on child support 
     orders;
       Establishment of a Federal automated system which will 
     include state data on child support orders and a directory of 
     new hires;
       Requiring all states to adopt the Uniform Interstate Family 
     Support Act, which establishes a framework for determining 
     which state retains jurisdiction of interstate cases and 
     governs the relationship amongst states in this area.
       Improved sanctions including, state guidelines for driver's 
     license suspension, and the denial of passports for 
     individual who are more than $5000 or 24 months arrears;
       Granting families who are owed child support first right of 
     access to an IRS refund credited to a delinquent non-
     custodial parent;
       Increasing the Federal matching rate from 66% to 75% and 
     including incentive payments of up to 15% for state's based 
     on paternity establishment and overall performance of state 
     program. 80% Federal matching rate for the development of 
     automated systems.


                              v. financing

       Corporate America benefits from billions of dollar worth of 
     corporate welfare--subsidies, tax breaks, credits, direct 
     federal spending--every major corporation and business 
     receives some kind of benefit from the Federal government. 
     Corporations must do their share in investing in our nation's 
     most vulnerable in our society.
       The Mink bill is financed through raising the top corporate 
     income rate by 1.25% to 36.25 percent. This is estimated to 
     raise $20.25 billion over 5 years.

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. For what purpose does the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Goodling] rise?
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] is 
recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Portman].
  Mr. PORTMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Mink substitute. I believe 
it is an expansion of our current system rather than real reform.
  Mr. Chairman the fundamental difference with the substitute, of 
course, is that it retains the entitlement status of the AFDC. But it 
goes beyond that, it increases the administrative burdens and imposes 
costly new unfunded Federal mandates on the States. It is mostly 
deficient for what it does not do. It does not give the States the 
flexibility to respond to the crisis we have before us.
  Mr. Chairman, during our Committee on Ways and Means hearings on 
welfare reform we repeatedly heard from Governors and others closer to 
the delivery of public assistance that in order to affect real welfare 
reform, we need to stop the one-size-fits-all Federal approach and let 
States design welfare programs that are designed to meet the real needs 
of the population.
                              {time}  1100

  Such an approach removes a whole layer of expensive Federal 
bureaucracy that will free up more resources, more resources, Mr. 
Chairman, to try innovative, new approaches at the local level to truly 
change people's lives. This substitute before us does not do that. It 
keeps the same expensive Washington welfare bureaucracy in place, and, 
in fact, increases costs and Federal requirements. It requires States, 
as an example, to provide a public sector or subsidized private sector 
job paying minimum wage for at least 2 years for each recipient. It 
raises the jobs program participation requirements 5 percent annually, 
and it guarantees former AFDC families child care indefinitely, until 
their income reaches 200 percent of poverty. It is the status quo, as 
the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] has said, but it is more than 
that. It is more of the same.
  Again, I believe this substitute traps us in the failed welfare 
system of the past, so what we need to do is we need to end the 
perverse incentives of the past. We need to make people work, we need 
to encourage families to stay together, we need to slash the costly and 
ineffective Federal welfare bureaucracy.
  Thomas Jefferson once said, ``I believe that the States can best 
govern our home concerns.'' I think he was right. Many of today's 
thinkers echo those words, sociologist James Q. Wilson among others. 
Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, we have to oppose this substitute because 
it just increases the bureaucracy and the failed welfare system. We 
need to look ahead. We need to support the committee bill which gives 
our State partners the flexibility they need.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Montana [Mr. Williams], a member of my Committee on Economic and 
Educational Opportunities.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, along with the gentlewoman, I, too, along 
with many of my colleagues, have spent a lot of time thinking about 
welfare and trying to figure out how to reform it, a thing that this 
Congress has done many times, by the way, since welfare was first 
created. It is not easy, but there are some clear conclusions that one 
arrives at.
  First, and the American people agree with this more than anything 
else, we have got to make being off of welfare more profitable than 
being on it. This bill does that better than any bill before us. The 
American people say, ``You've got to educate people, you got to job 
train them to take that job once they get on welfare.''
  Now check it. This bill, Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Hawaii's 
bill, does that better than any bill that is before us. I say to my 
colleagues, ``You have to improve employment 
[[Page H3762]] services so that the former welfare recipients now 
trained for a job can actually find a job.'' No bill does that better 
than this bill offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink], and 
it does something else. It is tough. It requires that the States 
increase the number of recipients who take jobs from the current 15 
percent up to 50 percent, and I think it does that better than any bill 
that is before us.
  I say to my colleagues, ``If you ask the American people what they 
don't want to do in welfare reform, they'd say, `For heaven's sakes, 
don't cut the kids nutrition programs, don't cut school lunch.''' This 
bill does not cut it.
  Mr. Chairman, I voted for the Deal bill last night because I thought 
it was a lot better than the Republican substitute. I say to my 
colleagues, ``I like Mrs. Mink's bill even better than the Deal bill,''
  Now let me finally say a word about the Republican substitute. I know 
it is a major part of the contract, almost the crown jewels of the 
contract, and Republicans talk a lot about change. Now here is their 
great idea for change on welfare reform: Pass the buck to the 
Governors. Let the Governors do it.
  I ask, ``Is that the best you can do in your contract? Is that the 
only change you could think of for welfare reform, if we don't know how 
to do it, let's let the Governors do it?''
  No wonder the American people want their money back on the contract.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my time be 
controlled by the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers].
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose the Mink substitute. It maintains the 
entitlement nature of this program, and I think that is a serious 
mistake. It vastly expands the welfare state. It means a $13 billion 
increase in expanded jobs training programs. It means a $14.9 billion 
increase in expanded child care programs. It extends Medicare coverage 
for an additional year after beneficiary begins working. They already 
have 1 year Medicaid, I believe. It lets welfare beneficiaries earn 
more and still collect welfare.
  Mr. Chairman, all of this will add over $30 billion a year to the $70 
billion that we spend on the AFDC population now.
  After 2 years in a job training program, the Federal Government 
requires States to provide make-work public jobs or subsidized 
employment for at least 2 years under the substitute offered by the 
gentlewoman from Hawaii. Now, while in this make-work job, 
beneficiaries must earn more than they did on AFDC. In other words, the 
Government is required to give them a job. While they are in this make-
work job, they must earn more than they did on AFDC.
  The corporate tax rate is going to be increased by 1.25 percent to 
subsidize welfare workers who are doing make-work jobs.
  The Mink substitutes does not address out-of-wedlock births at all. 
Mr. Chairman, by the year 2000, 80 percent of minority children and 40 
percent of all children in this country are going to be born out of 
wedlock. The younger that a woman has a child, the more likely it will 
be that she will end up on welfare and stay there for at least 8 to 10 
years.
  We know, Mr. Chairman, statistically--I am not saying that welfare 
children are bad. I do not believe that. Many children turn out 
extremely well, but we know from statistics and studies that children 
who get started in the welfare system get a very bad start in life 
sometimes. They do not have a lot of structure in their life. 
Frequently they do not have a father. Sometimes they do not even have 
enough food and clothing, and statistically we know that throughout 
their life they are going to have more trouble with education, health 
and crime. We are consigning people to a very bad life when we expand 
this system, and I vigorously oppose the Mink substitute.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek].
  (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I stand to support the substitute 
offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink]. She definitely 
reforms AFDC, and that is where most of the problems are.
  I say to my colleagues, ``Now, you can put any label on us as you 
want to. You can call us liberals or conservatives. But the main thing 
the children and the people of this country want: Benefits. They want 
services. They don't care what party you're in, and they don't care 
what rhetoric you spout. When a hungry stomach is hungry, they care 
nothing about whether you're conservative or liberal. That's why Patsy 
Mink is saying, `Get a way to get us out of this morass, get some jobs, 
define them, show them how to get there.'''
  Now there are jobs out there, and I say to my colleagues, ``Don't let 
anyone fool you, there are jobs, but you must train people to get to 
the jobs, and that's what Patsy Mink does. She requires them to work, 
but with some skill so they can keep those jobs and not get on this 
hamburger chain from one McDonald's and one Burger King to the other 
because of all these ill-defined job programs that just making the 
people who started this train of illiteracy and poor work habits get on 
the train and not help them as they've never been.''
  So let us make a deal. Deal tried to do it last night. My colleagues 
would not accept his substitute.
  Let us make a deal and show that the substitute offered by the 
gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] delivers a better trail, it 
delivers better jobs, it delivers better work, it delivers better 
benefits for poor people.
  Now let me tell my colleagues something about helping people on 
welfare. The substitute offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii does 
this, does job training, it does education, it will put emphasis on 
quality child care.
  I ask, ``How do you expect people to work, mothers, if they don't 
have child care?'' Knowing that their babies are safe will make them 
have some incentive to go out and find a job. It will put emphasis on 
school lunches, that children are hungry. Go out there in the 
community, and my colleagues will see these hungry children.
  It is time to do the real reform. We do not care about labels. I say 
to my colleagues, ``It's not what you call me, it's what I answer to.''
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Watts].
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, it appears that the Mink 
substitute is yet another form of big government--more money, more 
bureaucracy, fewer answers. For more than 30 years we have tried 
welfare one way. What do we have to show for it?
  We have a system that penalizes families, that penalizes a mother for 
wanting to marry the father of her children, that penalizes savings, 
and penalizes the person who wants to own property.
  The Mink substitute increases spending by at least $1 billion over 5 
years just for transitional child care. And, that's only one tiny part. 
For example, it expands the JOBS program by $14.9 billion and that 
program has not been proven effective. And it also increases taxes to 
the point where business may not be able to provide the very jobs we 
are training them to fill.
  And that is just the beginning.
  I would ask all of us to consider, What do we have to show for 30 
years of throwing money at a problem?
  We have more people on welfare with no hope of getting off. One of 
the other results is an inflated, overextended budget. Currently, the 
bankrupt budget burdens families with excessive taxes.
  We need to get beyond the old law. We're the government and we're to 
help to the point where we can say, we're the government and we're 
going to get out of the way and let you dream your dreams.
  Beyond the problems of the Mink substitute, there is a philosophical 
shift that needs to be made here. We need to make sure that we no 
longer measure compassion by how many people are on welfare and how 
much money we throw at welfare but by how few people are on welfare and 
how little money we take from our citizens to 
[[Page H3763]] get those who are down and out addicted to the 
government dole.
  We have tried it one way for 30 years now and it hasn't worked. 
Throwing more money at the problem and increasing the bureaucracy is 
not the answer.
  The answer lies in restoring hope--offering a helping hand--in the 
form of temporary assistance and then giving a hand up not just a hand 
out. The Mink substitute is not the answer. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to our 
distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay].
  (Mr. CLAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to serve as a cosponsor of the 
Mink substitute because it is the most humane of the three proposals 
before us.
  The Mink substitute is justifiably silent on the nutrition issues 
that have so divided this House during the welfare reform debate. It 
says nothing about these issues because it doesn't need to say 
anything. Existing Federal nutrition programs work remarkably well. 
Leave the system alone. Each day, 26 million children are fed school 
lunches, and 7 million women, infants, and children participate in the 
WIC Program. The Mink substitute reminds us not to throw the baby out 
with the bath water.
  Mr. Chairman, not one witnesses who testified before the Committee on 
Economic and Educational Opportunities this session supported block 
granting Federal nutrition programs.
  Our Republican colleagues keep denying that their bill will hurt 
women and children. In fact they have become rather angry, complaining 
that they are being unfairly accused of cutting WIC and school lunch 
and breakfast programs. But the truth is, the Republican bill doesn't 
just cut these nutrition programs, it decimates them. National 
nutrition standards, gone; summer food programs, gone; child care food 
programs, gone; the guarantee that all children will be protected from 
hunger, gone; the automatic trigger to increase nutrition support when 
the economy worsens, gone. The Republican proposal relieves the Federal 
Government of all responsibility and blame.
  Mr. Chairman, my Republican colleagues claim the will increase funds 
for nutrition programs. This is part of the distortion. It is the big 
lie. They quote authorizations as appropriations.
  At least 6 million children will go to bed hungry every night if this 
bill becomes law. This Republican bill is not designed to address the 
programs of those on welfare, but to relieve the well-to-do of any tax 
obligations. It is nothing more than a money-laundering scheme, a shell 
game; take from the poor and give to the rich.
  Mr. Chairman, if one child goes hungry because of the Republican 
proposal, shame on this Congress. If one child is born prematurely 
because his mother is denied WIC services, shame on this Congress. If 
one child dies from malnourishment because a tax cut was given to the 
rich, shame on this Congress, and on those insensitive voters who are 
supporting the callous provisions of this obnoxious Contract With 
America.
  I urge my Republican colleagues to support the Mink substitute. It 
protects our Nation's children from the nightmare of the Republican 
bill.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder].

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, listening to this debate, I am struck by 
self-doubt. Maybe the Democrats are right. Maybe we are being too rash 
and too impulsive in trying to change the welfare system from the last 
three decades.
  John Lennon said give peace a chance. Maybe my friends are correct 
that we just need to give the welfare state a chance. After all, we 
have only been at it for about 30 years. Nearly two-thirds of the 
households at the lowest one-fifth of the income distribution are 
headed by persons who work. Today that has declined by one-third. But 
maybe we should just give it a little bit more time and spend just a 
little bit more money.
  In 1966 when the war on poverty began, the poverty rate was 14.7 
percent. Today's poverty rate is even worse, 15.1 percent. But maybe we 
are being rash on this side and we should not really try to reform the 
system and just put a little bit more money in and that will help. 
Should we wait until illegitimacy rates reach 95, 100 percent in our 
public housing projects? Should we wait until 50 to 75 percent of white 
babies and over 90 to 100 percent of African-American babies are out of 
wedlock?
  At what point do we decide that the system is broken, that the way we 
are doing it does not require just a little bit more money or a little 
bit more Federal program, but rather that we need a radical overhaul, 
that we need to put it back to the States where people can look at the 
local level, see what is working, see what is not working, tinker with 
the edges rather than having it directed from here in Washington?
  As you go around and see young children and see that hope out of 
their eyes, they are not getting it from this welfare system. Maybe 
this system will not be that much better, but it can not be worse, and 
with economic opportunity and jobs we can at least try to put hope back 
in children's lives.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Ford].
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, can I ask my colleague, what page do you find 
the jobs on that is in the Republicans Personal Responsibility Act, 
because I have been looking for the last week. I have not found these 
jobs that you are talking about.
  We have offered, you know, a work responsibility provision in the 
welfare reform package, but I cannot find it in the Republican bill.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Hawaii for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I proudly stand here for her bill. Her substitute is 
the right substitute, and let me add to what the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Ford] just said. You know, early on the Republicans 
appointed June O'Neill. She is their appointee to be head of the 
Congressional Budget Office, and she says their bill is weaker on work 
than the current system. The Washington Post editorial says theirs is 
weaker on work than the current system.
  The question today, ladies and gentlemen, is do we want reform, which 
is the Mink bill, which helps people go to work, or do we want to be 
totally retro, do we want to go back to orphanages or do we want to go 
back to really making this almost a poor house mentality?
  I do not think so. I think we want to go forward. That is what 
Americans want to do. They want to help teach people to fish. This is 
the teach people to fish bill. We have heard them say there is perverse 
incentives in this bill. Oh, yeah? I do not know what is wrong. How can 
you call a perverse incentive the fact that if you are offered a job 
you have to take it. That is a wonderful incentive. I would not call 
that perverse at all.
  We also hear people saying, ``Oh, well, we like the block grants so 
much better.'' What you are really saying there is let us take all 
these problems and throw them at the Governors and hope it works.
  Let me tell you, it is not going to work in States like mine because 
the block grants are always going to be much lower than the population 
increase. There will be States getting our money based on prior 
censuses, and we got their people.
  So we are going to have a real shortfall. So this reform is really 
going to crunch growing States. But basically this goes to the dignity 
of work. It goes to the dignity of the individual. This goes to what 
this country was about. In other nations you were what your parents 
were. In this Nation you are what your children become. But your 
children cannot become much if you cannot help them work and go 
forward.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to put a poem in the Record from a woman from my 
district.

                      (By Lisa R. Spano, Colorado)
     Such a little thing missing
     The tines on this simple tool
     But you see without them being there
     My food just slips right through
     [[Page H3764]] Noodles won't work and neither will chicken
     And most of us don't like squid
     But how can I expect you to listen to me
     When I'm just a little kid?
     I don't know how it got there
     This hole in the middle of my spoon
     My mommy says it's a budget cut
     But to me it's just less food at noon
     Soup won't work, it just falls right through
     That holes just too darn big
     But how can I expect you to understand
     When I'm just a little kid.

  I thank the gentlewoman from Hawaii for getting the right idea, and I 
hope everybody votes for her amendment.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood].
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Mink substitute. It 
not only retains our failed social welfare system, but embodies the 
tenets that have converted our social safety net into a trap of 
dependency and irresponsibility. The Mink substitute retains AFDC as an 
entitlement program and continues the failed practice of providing cash 
benefits to teenage mothers.
  It is not compassionate to simply give a girl, with a child, a meager 
monthly check. I worked with abused and neglected children, and I know 
from experience that cash assistance is not the only assistance a 
pregnant child needs. She needs guidance to assume the responsibility 
of being a parent.
  In this debate, my party has been unfairly accused of not caring for 
children. But the real brutality, the true cruelty is to turn our eyes 
away from the existing failed system and allow children, trapped in the 
welfare syndrome, to stay there.
  H.R. 4 offers a responsible, humane solution to reducing and 
discouraging out-of-wedlock births. While this bill ends direct cash 
benefits to teenage mothers, it ensures that both children--mother and 
child--receive proper care. H.R. 4 provides teenage mothers with the 
education and parenting skills needed to achieve self-reliance and 
economic independence.
  I encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Mink 
substitute.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson].
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Kansas for 
yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the substitute bill offered by 
Mrs. Mink of Hawaii. As I looked through the Mink substitute I arrived 
at the impression that this bill is simply more ``business as usual'' 
for the current failed welfare system. Indeed, it exacerbates it.
  First, the Mink substitute fails to acknowledge that our Nation's 
current welfare system has failed--it has failed recipients, it has 
failed those who administer the programs, and it has failed taxpayers 
who fund the programs. The Federal programs which make up the welfare 
system have assisted folks with basic needs such as food and shelter. 
However, they have not supported--and in fact have been a major 
roadblock--for people who want to get up, off, and out of public 
assistance.
  The Mink substitute does not fix what is broken. It does not take 
steps to curb fraud and abuse in the Food Stamp Program; it does not 
consolidate and streamline employment and training programs; and it 
does not address the endless cycles of poverty. What this bill does do 
is promise more and more benefits with no end in sight and preserve the 
failed welfare system.
  I urge my colleagues to start measuring compassion by how few people 
are on welfare, and not by how much money the Federal Government pours 
into the welfare system. I urge my colleagues to oppose ``business as 
usual'' and oppose the Mink substitute.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins].
  (Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
the Mink substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the substitute by 
Representative Patsy Mink to H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility Act.
  The Republicans have been claiming that they wish to reform the 
welfare system. Their idea of reform, however, is to cut and slash 
every program that helps feed and care for children and guts every 
attempt to help poor Americans get back on their feet. It fails to 
create a single job and instead hits poor Americans from all sides 
simply because they are in need of a helping hand.
  By contrast, the Mink substitute offer real reform by increasing 
funding for education, job training, employment services, and child 
care in order to provide Americans in poverty a chance to improve their 
lives and their children's lives. Instead of cutting welfare to pay for 
a tax cut for the wealthy, the Mink substitute increases the corporate 
tax on the wealthiest companies to pay for a path out of poverty for 
poor Americans.
  I was in my district for a townhall meeting earlier this month and 
had the opportunity to talk with one of my constituents, Ms. Donna 
McAdams. I would like to relate the story that she shared with me 
because, in my view, it describes exactly why H.R. 4 is so nefarious 
and should be rejected and why the Mink substitute is so important and 
deserves our support.
  Ms. McAdams lives in the Robert Taylor Homes in my district in 
Chicago with her three children. She did not grow up on welfare. She 
was reared by her grandparents in Englewood on Chicago's south side 
because her mother abandoned her when she was 6 months old and she 
never knew her father. her grandmother was a registered surgical nurse 
and her grandfather worked for the railroad. They worked hard to raise 
Ms. McAdams who studied hard and was a member of the National Beta 
Society and National Honors Society in high school. After graduating, 
she took her State nursing boards and became a licensed practical 
nurse. Since she was pregnant at the time and lacked a pharmacology 
certificate, she was not able to take a nursing job. Instead, Ms. 
McAdams began working full time at McDonalds, making $3.35 an hour.
  After the baby was born, Ms. McAdams was on welfare for 2 months, but 
returned to her job at McDonalds when her child was 4 months old. 
However, her $3.50 salary was not enough to make ends meet and pay the 
$350 monthly rent so she obtained a loan to go back to school to become 
a medical assistant. She had completed her program and internship when 
she unexpectedly became pregnant again. Unlike her mother, Ms. McAdams 
decided to keep her babies and not give them up. Unfortunately, at this 
time, her grandmother was recovering from surgery and her grandfather 
from a stroke. Ms. McAdams married her baby's father and they began to 
receive general assistance aid. She soon had to leave her husband 
because of domestic violence and rear her children on her own.
  Currently, Ms. McAdams is going to college 1 day a week to get her 
pharmacology certificate in order to obtain a job as a nurse. She is 
also volunteering at her children's Head Start Program and trying to 
get into Project Chance which would help her with child care and 
transportation while she looks for a job.
  When asked about the welfare reform proposals being debated, Ms. 
McAdams said:

       All the things that the politicians are talking about just 
     makes me tired. They want to cut everything that helps, even 
     housing. Where are we going to go if we lose our apartment? I 
     can't imagine me and my kids out on the street. I'm trying to 
     hurry myself through school, but there's no guarantee that 
     I'll get a job. I'm trying but each time I try it seems like 
     I get another roadblock. I want to be a good role model for 
     my children. I want to have a good job and a better place to 
     live. But I know I can't do it by myself. Sometimes I just 
     get so tired.

  Mr. Chairman, the vast majority of welfare recipients are like Ms. 
McAdams. They are trying as best as they can to make their lives better 
and to provide for their children. Maybe they have hit some roadblocks 
though and need additional assistance to get back on their feet.
  The Mink substitute would help to put Ms. McAdams on a self-
sufficient course because it invests in welfare recipients by preparing 
them for work and rewarding States that successfully move them into 
jobs. It promotes work by providing the training and education needed 
to obtain jobs and guarantees child care for aid recipients and job 
training participants and increases funding for child care for at-risk 
families so that parents do not have to choose between caring for their 
children or maintaining a job. More importantly, the Mink substitute 
does not contain any of the extremist measures of H.R. 4 that punish 
newborns because their parents are not married or are already on 
welfare and have other children. It also does not take away children's 
school nutrition programs to pay for a tax break for wealthy Americans.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the Republicans' tax cut for the 
wealthy out of the mouth of babes plan and support the Mink substitute.

[[Page H3765]]

  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. 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, I rise in strong support of the Mink 
substitute.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Roybal-Allard].
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Mink 
substitute to H.R. 4.
  Mr. Chairman, this substitute provides a realistic framework for 
creating a positive and lasting reform that promotes self-sufficiency 
and the elimination of poverty through job training and supportive 
services, not simply through the reduction of AFDC rolls at any human 
cost.
  As compared to the punitive approach of the Republican bill, the Mink 
substitute is compassionate and recognizes that all people have human 
and civil rights, especially the 68 percent of AFDC recipients across 
this country who are children.
  The Mink substitute helps to move families out of the perpetual cycle 
of poverty by providing opportunities to gain permanent employment with 
sufficient security and advancement. The Mink substitute distinguishes 
itself from other welfare reform proposals through its realism and its 
sensitivity to human need.
  Mr. Chairman, it deserves the support of every Member of Congress who 
values promoting long-term economic self-sufficiency for American 
families over a quick-fix approach based solely on reducing the 
assistance to the neediest in our society. Support the Mink substitute 
for meaningful and effective welfare reform.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to recognize that the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal] has worked in a bipartisan manner in 
the past, but to gain support from the liberal members of his party, he 
had to increase the spending and raise taxes, the liberal answers to 
meet all problems.
  He referred to Cinderella. The Mink bill, and the gentlewoman, I want 
to make clear I am talking about the bill because the gentlewoman is a 
friend, but the bill is the ugly sister of all sisters.
  This bill increases the deficit by even billions of dollars and also 
increases taxes. The question has been should we give to the States the 
power. The States have proven that they have been able to manage the 
welfare programs much better than the Federal Government.
  We happen to believe that the Government works best the closest to 
people. The Karl Marx Democrats want the bureaucracy to control 
everybody's life. Why? Because that gives them the power to dole out 
the money to get reelected. That is what the real answer is here.
  They are fighting to keep their precious bureaucracy. We are 
increasing the amount for kids for food, we are increasing the 
responsibility, we are bringing deadbeat dads together, we are bringing 
families together. What they cannot stand is that we are taking their 
power of big bureaucracy away.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Miller].
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, Members of the House, I want 
to strongly associate myself with the remarks of the gentlewoman from 
Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] a woman of great strength and of great principle. I 
want to associate myself with her remarks and promotion of her 
amendment, because what her amendment does is promote child nutrition 
over the Republican alternative that slashes $7 billion from child 
nutrition programs, $2 billion from the School Lunch Program, $145 
million in 1996 alone.
  It promotes work over the Republican proposal where CBO says none of 
the States, none of the States can make the work program in the 
Republican bill work for people on welfare. It promotes child 
protections for children who are abused over no Federal protections in 
the Republican bill. It promotes protection for severely disabled 
children rather than throwing them off of the SSI rolls, seriously 
disabled children with mental disabilities, with physical disabilities, 
children suffering from cerebral palsy and other afflictions like that.
  No, the Republicans throw them off. What we cannot stand about the 
Republican bill is its cruelty, its concerted attack on America's 
children. Whether they are infants, whether they are in the womb, 
whether they are toddlers, whether they are in child care, whether they 
are in school, the Republicans attack them. That is what we cannot 
stand.
  But we have a choice. We are going to have a choice in a few minutes 
to vote for the Mink substitute, a substitute that promotes work, 
promotes child protection, promotes child nutrition. That is what 
Americans want. They want people on welfare to go to work. And yet the 
Republicans have constructed a dynamic that is not favored by the 
people in the States who run work programs; it is not favored by the 
WIC directors; it is not favored by the school lunch people. And these 
are supposedly the people that know best because they are closest, and 
they are saying do not do what the Republicans want to do to nutrition 
and to work and to the women and infants and children's programs. Stop 
the cruelty, stop the cruelty, and vote for Patsy Mink.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 seconds to say 
that the States will structure the work programs, and what CBO said was 
that our standards were tougher, not easier.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Traficant].
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
                              {time}  1130

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I voted for the Deal substitute. I will 
not vote for this substitute. I will vote for H.R. 4.
  I was raised in a poor home as everybody else. Our policies in the 
welfare system penalize achievement and work, promote illegitimacy, 
reward dependency, destroy family, and have created a class system.
  We have talked about the middle class on this floor. It is not a 
Freudian slip. Is there an upper class, Congress? Is there now a lower 
class in America? We/they, they/we, politics of race, politics of fear, 
politics of division, politics of a welfare system.
  Uncle Sam was never supposed to be mom and dad. We do not have mom 
and dads in America anymore.
  I do not think the Republicans are trying to cut anybody's head off 
at all. We have a system that does not work. Schools now teach 
morality. Police and judges straighten out the kids. Food stamps feed 
our kids. HUD gives them a roof.
  What a sad deal for our country. Where is mom and dad?
  I can remember an interview with Wes Unseld. What was significant, 
they asked him, what is the greatest thing your dad ever did for you? 
And do you know what he said, ``The greatest thing my dad did for me is 
my dad loved my mom.''
  We are destroying families. We are playing politics.
  I liked Deal better and maybe when it comes back from the Senate 
there will be some Democrat language in there. But I am not going to 
stand today and vote for the status quo. I am not going to do that. And 
this vote does not help me. It hurts me politically.
  I think it is time we do what is best for our country. Our kids have 
been left on the street. They are strung out. They need a mom; they 
need a dad.
  I am a Democrat as well as anybody else. But the Democrats have had 
40 years. The problem is, there are no damn jobs. And the Democrats in 
40 years have not done a thing about jobs. Our jobs have gone overseas. 
The Republicans cannot give them any jobs. There is no jobs out there. 
The Democrats cannot give them any jobs. Trade policies have taken our 
work overseas, and then we talk about trying to incentivize work.
  Ladies and gentlemen, let me say this: Uncle Sam is not a good 
parent. Uncle Sam is a great country but was 
[[Page H3766]] not designed to be the parents for the children of this 
Nation. And you are not going to resolve it with any of these bills. 
But I am not going to vote to sustain the status quo, and I am not 
going to demean the bill that has come from the other side of the 
aisle.
  Anybody who supports the status quo, in my opinion, is antifamily, 
antikids and, damn it, anti-American. I will have no part of it.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah].
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, we have some tough cowboys here on the 
floor of the House. This is a new interesting kind of wagon train in 
which the cowboys have decided to throw the women and infants and the 
children and the senior citizens out of the wagon train so they can get 
where they are going faster.
  It is cruel. And for anyone, Democrat or Republican, to defend this 
approach really questions the credibility of this entire Congress, 
because no one among the tough guys have offered to do anything about 
the 85 billion dollars' worth of welfare subsidies for corporate 
America in this year's budget. No one stood up to do anything about the 
$150 billion of tax giveaways and loopholes to American corporations.
  Aid to Dependent Corporations, as the Cato Institute has said, is 
driving a hole in the Federal budget. But we have all of these willing 
people who are so eager to lighten the load of America by casting aside 
the poor.
  This is an unfortunate moment in the history of this country, and I 
would say to some of my millionaire colleagues that they are on the 
wrong side of history today, in this debate and on this subject.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Herger].
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, the Mink substitute substitutes commonsense 
welfare reform with increased taxes. Instead of bringing real change to 
our broken welfare system, this amendment flies in the face of the will 
of the people by increasing taxes by $20 billion. Clearly, a $20 
billion tax increase is not what the voters asked for last November. 
This substitute retains the failed welfare status quo by retaining AFDC 
entitlements that have created a cycle of big Government dependency for 
millions of Americans. It guarantees that former AFDC families will 
continue receiving benefits almost indefinitely. This substitute is 
antigrowth and antijob and does little to fix a failed welfare system 
that has already consumed over $5 trillion in taxpayer dollars since 
its inception 30 years ago. Mr. Chairman, the Republican welfare reform 
proposal promotes personal responsibility and creates incentives for 
families to remain intact instead of creating lifelong dependency on 
welfare. It discourages illegitimacy by not rewarding unwed mothers 
that have additional children. It cuts endless, unnecessary Federal 
regulations and bureaucrats by returning power and flexibility to the 
States and communities where help for the needy can best be delivered. 
Let us not take steps backward. Instead, let us move forward and make 
substantive and fundamental changes in our current welfare system for 
our future generations. Vote ``no'' on the Mink substitute.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I support this substitute. The Mink bill 
corrects a popular misconception. The Mink bill provides a real 
opportunity for people on welfare to demonstrate that they are willing 
to work. They want to work. Throughout this debate, there has been a 
recurring and underlying theme. Members have suggested, and many 
believe, that people on welfare want that status. That belief ignores 
certain, real situations.
  Yesterday morning I was at breakfast with a single mother of six 
children. She was married at one time, then divorced. Her children 
needed to be fed. She got on welfare. She had no choice. But, she was 
willing to work. She wanted to work. Alone, she obtained the G.E.D. She 
then graduated from college, with a 3.7 grade point average. She is now 
pursuing a master's degree at the University of North Carolina. And, 
she is working. She is willing to work. She wants to work. Her's is a 
story that is old and new. There are many like her. They are willing to 
work. They want to work. They prefer a chance over charity.
  The Personal Responsibility Act is weak on work. The Mink bill is 
strong on work. It provides funding to ensure that, when a person 
leaves welfare, a job is available. Welfare reform without a job is no 
reform. The Mink bill does not impose arbitrary time limits on finding 
a job, removing recipients only if there is a job. It recognizes that, 
in this economy, jobs are not easy to find. And, the Mink bill retains 
child care programs. Working mothers need reasonable and affordable 
child care. In short, Mr. Chairman, the Mink bill provides a serious 
and realistic framework for moving from welfare and into work. Mink is 
strong on work.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I support the Mink bill because it does not 
provide for block grants. It does not slash the School Breakfast and 
Lunch Program. It does not remove thousands of women, infants and 
children from the WIC Program. And, it does not eliminate national 
nutrition standards. It retains one standard for our children. The Mink 
bill is strong on work and sensitive to poor families and children. 
And, that is as it should be.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica].
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I represent Florida where we have many lakes 
and natural reserves. If you visit these areas, you may see a sign like 
this that reads, ``do not feed the alligators.''
  We post these signs for several reasons. First, because if left in a 
natural state, alligators can fend for themselves. They work, gather 
food and care for their young.
  Second, we post these warnings because unnatural feeding and 
artificial care creates dependency. When dependency sets in, these 
otherwise able-bodied alligators can no longer survive on their own.
  Now, I know people are not alligators, but I submit to you that with 
our current handout, nonwork welfare system, we have upset the natural 
order. We have failed to understand the simple warning signs. We have 
created a system of dependency.
  The author of our Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, said 
it best in three words: ``Dependence begets servitude.''
  Let us heed these warnings. Today we have a chance to restore that 
natural order, to break the change of dependency and stop the 
enslavement of another generation of Americans.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].
  (Ms. NORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to say, do not feed the alligators 
but please feed the children.
  Seldom, my friends, does this body have the opportunity to make 
wholesale change in a bad and a dysfunctional system, and we are about 
to blow it if we do not support the Mink substitute, because the 
Republican bill fails the reality test.
  It is an invitation to do welfare on the cheap. A State has to do 
nothing, nothing to provide jobs. And they will do nothing. We know 
that from what happened in the 1987 bill.
  If we provide an unemployment office for people who have been 
recently attached to the work force and provide nothing to people who 
have never had a job, how do we expect them to get off of the rolls?
  Do my colleagues know what the inner city unemployment for people who 
have recently had work was in 1993? In this city it was 88.6 percent; 
in Detroit, it was 13.7 percent. And I could go on down that list.
  When I go across the river to Anacostia, my friends, no one ever says 
to me, ``Brother, can you spare a dime'' or ``give me some more 
welfare.'' They say, ``Sister, can you get me a job.''
  This bill will not get anybody a job and that is what we need to do. 
This bill does exactly what the American people told us not to do. It 
repeals the entitlement of children to food and shelter. It is a bill 
that allows a State to refuse to put up a single dollar of its own 
money to support its own children.
  People told us what to do. They told up help get the parents off 
welfare. Do you make things worse for the kids.
  Your bill, the Republican bill, betrays the public trust. It is not 
welfare reform. It is welfare fraud.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time 
to me.
  [[Page H3767]] What I want to do is engage, very briefly, in a 
colloquy with the chairman of the subcommittee on educational and 
economic opportunities.
  A clarification, I am requesting, Mr. Chairman. After considering the 
unique purpose of the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act, I 
understand that the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities 
decided not to authorize the Committee on Ways and Means to consolidate 
the act into the child protection grant.
  I am asking, Mr. Chairman, if you would confirm that this was, in 
fact, the case and that the Committee on Economic and Educational 
Opportunities chose not to consolidate the program into the block grant 
but to keep it as it was intended?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MORELLA. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, because of the importance of the act, 
the gentlewoman is correct.
  Mrs. MORELLA. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, as the House has debated the Personal Responsibility 
Act, H.R. 4, I have been asked to clarify the purpose of certain 
provisions in the new child care block grant which simplifies and 
extends the child care and development block grant.
  I have been asked if it is the intention of the child care block 
grant to retain the preeminence of parent choice through certificates 
to parents. The House strongly believes that parental choice in child 
care should be maintained and that the use of parent certificates is 
preferable over contracts or grants for child care subsidy assistance. 
We have simplified many aspects of the child care and development block 
grant, but the parent choice provisions are sound and have not been 
modified. Because of this, the administration should not need to make 
significant regulatory changes regarding parent choice.
  In addition, we inserted a program goal into the block grant 
regarding consumer information. This was written to ensure that parents 
will be provided with full and accurate information about their right 
to choose child care arrangements, their right to a child care 
certificate, information about complaint procedures and recourse to 
ensure parent choice, and complete information about the child care 
options available to them, including religious providers.
  I would also like to address the important issue of the role of 
extended families in caring for children. We believe a child is best 
cared for by a member of his or her own extended family. We understand 
this is not always possible. But in the interest of encouraging the 
strengthening of families, we encourage States to pursue pro-family 
policies. Applicants for services funded by this block grant should be 
asked whether a qualified family member can provide care before 
counselors direct their child into other settings.
  Regarding directing the States to spend a specific amount of funds 
for direct services, the child care block grant does not take this 
approach. But I want to be clear that the House has removed the current 
law's 25-percent set-aside for the specific purpose of freeing as much 
funding as possible for direct services. H.R. 4 gives States final say 
over this matter, but we believe that in most cases, funding for direct 
services is the best use of funding by the State.
  Finally, regarding quality improvement, accreditation continues to be 
an appropriate means of quality improvement. We would encourage States 
to use a variety of child care program accreditations and various 
teacher training and credential programs in addition to the Child 
Development Association Program.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I am here to speak for the Mink substitute, 
which puts work first, which invests in people, which builds upon what 
is functioning in our society.
  There are many successful examples of programs in place, and they are 
accountable. Problems today in our communities are because they are on 
overload, poverty, unemployment. Job programs, fully funded, will 
accomplish the task and will deal with what has become a growing human 
deficit in our society, not just a fiscal deficit but a human deficit, 
those on poverty.
  Mink incorporates child support and fully funds the program, not just 
paper promises.
  A vote for Mink is a vote for moving families into the world of work, 
in to the mainstream of our society, taxpaying families, independent, 
not dependent.
  The Republican legislation is legislation by negative anecdote. It is 
demonizing people who have devoted their lives to helping those in 
need. The Republican program has no entitlement. The numbers do not 
count. No State match. That money is not going to be put in place. It 
takes 1 million kids and disabled off the Social Security supplemental.
  It gives a new meaning to ``women and children first,'' the wrong 
meaning.
  Welfare is meant to be a safety net for people in times of need. 
Children are 70 percent of the recipients of welfare. The children will 
suffer as a result of this Republican bill. Our focus in reforming the 
system should not destroy the social safety net. Our Nation must 
maintain a safety net while providing the services need to move welfare 
recipients into the work force. Cutting families off without reasonable 
support in terms of child care and education and job training will not 
help the States to achieve the work requirements which the Republicans 
want to establish. The CBO report pointed that fact out explicitly. 
Services help people to achieve a stable lifestyle and independence. 
The Republicans idea of flexibility for the States is to set work 
requirements and cut the funding the States need to achieve such 
standards. The Republican's proposal gives up on people abandoning 
people in need. This bill would have us give up on low-income families, 
give up on noncitizens and give up on disabled children. But giving up 
on the poor will not make the problems evaporate; they will persist as 
the poverty numbers grow; the homeless and a group of folks without 
hope or recourse. That is not the future or vision of the people we 
represent, but is the policy path of this GOP proposal. Despite what 
some would have you think there have been many successes as a result of 
the JOBS Program, which was signed into law in 1988. Unfortunately, the 
program has been underfunded, leaving States unable to move as many 
people into the work force as all had sought. Well, if we pass the 
Republican bill we will be increasing the burden on States while we cut 
the funding for child care, for temporary assistance, for child 
protection and child nutrition. The Mink substitute would help the 
States to achieve the goal of moving people toward independence and 
into the world of work. The Mink substitutes sets a requirement that 
people be in work or in training to work and backs it up with the real 
resources for child care and temporary assistance to families who have 
found it impossible to make it on the minimum of low-wage job, without 
health care benefits that they are able to find. The Mink substitute is 
a realistic approach to the needs of low-income children and families 
struggling to support themselves.
  Individuals in our society are upset about the amount of taxes that 
they pay. We should be looking at the corporations in our country who 
are receiving benefits in the form of corporate welfare and paying less 
in corporate taxes than they were paying 25 years ago. We should not be 
responding to those same interest by further depreciating the programs 
of the poor taking food away from children as an example. We need to 
look at the benefits which the corporations are receiving from the 
Federal Government and whether they are performing for our Nation or 
simply for the bottom line.
  Support a bill that will do something to help children and families 
and reform the current welfare system, support the Mink substitute.
                              {time}  1145

  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson].
  (Mr. GUNDERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, can we make an agreement here this 
morning that we are all for children? Can we start from that premise 
that nobody has a bad motive, that nobody has suspicious intent?
  The question we are going to face here is, What is the delivery 
system? That is the real question here. If you only believe in a 
Washington bureaucracy, if you are only convinced that nobody can 
protect children but Washington, DC, then vote against the Republican 
welfare reform proposal. Then vote for the status quo. If that is what 
you believe, and that is a legitimate opinion, but that is the debate. 
It is not a debate about whether we are for or against children.
  We have these discussions about school lunch. It seems to me that 
pretty soon we are going to agree that we are increasing the numbers on 
school lunch every year.
   [[Page H3768]] I would ask my Democratic colleagues, take a second 
and consider what happens if we do nothing with school lunch in this 
proposal. Is there any one of you who really believes that in the 
context of deficit reduction we should subsidize every school student, 
every full-price-paying student, every banker's child to the tune of 18 
cents a lunch, which is $516 million a year?
  You take $516 million out of the existing school lunch program and 
tell me, how are you going to run that system?
  What have we done? We have eliminated the means testing and we have 
increased by 4.5 percent a year the guarantee to the States to run that 
program.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Velazquez].
  (Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Mink 
substitute. It is the most responsible, comprehensive, and humane 
measure offered in this debate. It addresses the real problems 
confronted by poor families today offering them the tools they need to 
achieve self-sufficiency and dignity through work.
  By contrast, the Republican bill plays a cruel game on many people of 
this country. It is a game where there are clear winners and losers.
  In the Republican bill, by the year 2000, up to 2 million children 
will lose school lunches so that wealthy families with incomes of 
$200,000 will get a $500 tax break for each child.
  The winners? The wealthy.
  The losers? Two million children.
  In the Republican bill, more than 700,000 disabled children will lose 
assistance so that families making over $200,000 will gain from a 
reduced capital gains tax.
  The winners? The wealthy.
  The losers? Seven hundred thousand disabled children.
  In the Republican bill, 15 million children will be punished as a 
result of so-called reform while the contract calls for a $700 billion 
tax cut over 10 years with half the benefits going to families making 
over $100,000 a year.
  The winners? The wealthy.
  The losers? The rest of the American people.
  It is for these reasons that I am supporting the Mink substitute, a 
bill that is strong on work and job training, strong on child care 
opportunities, and strong on giving poor families and children a chance 
to succeed.
  Mr. Chairman, we don't need a public assistance program that is 
strong on homelessness, hunger, and despair. That is not about teaching 
people a lesson.
  The choice is clear: Pork on the fancy china of the wealthy or food 
on our children's plates.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  The system that we have has not worked. We expanded the program in 
1988 by $13 billion. We said we would have job training, job readiness, 
job search, day care, and 5 years later less than 1 percent of the 
welfare population is working. Let us not expand it again.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Bilbray].
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I happen to be an individual that comes 
from a working-class background with a neighborhood where there are a 
lot of welfare recipients but also a lot of middle-class working 
people.
  I also happened to have been privileged to serve as a supervisor of a 
welfare system that was larger than the majority of the States of this 
Union. Let me tell you the frustration those of us that were trying to 
provide programs to the poor, especially when the Federal Government 
would stop us from doing innovative things.
  I think the problem here is a credibility gap. We did not hear about 
this 10 years ago. In 1978 when my county proposed an idea, we were 
called cruel, we were called inhumane, we were called terrible, because 
we proposed a concept called workfare in 1978, and the gentleman and 
the gentlewomen from the other side of the aisle attacked us in San 
Diego County for that.
  We proposed that people who get part-time jobs should not have their 
money taken away from them dollar for dollar in their benefits if they 
try to work out. The Federal bureaucracy has fought us for 10 years in 
this program. We just finally got them to get off our back so we can 
help the poor.
  The fact is my working-class people complain about the abuses of the 
welfare system. It is not the rich, powerful people who complain. It is 
the people that are in the neighborhoods who see the abuses. When they 
say they want to fight the abuses, it is the Federal bureaucracy that 
stands in the way, Mr. Chairman.
  I ask that we oppose the amendment and support the Republicans 
because they are the only ones with credibility.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler].
  (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the substitute offered 
by the gentlewoman from Hawaii. I consider this substitute to be the 
most viable welfare reform bill before us today.
  Mr. Chairman, the Republican welfare reform bill is nothing but an 
assault on America's children, and on America's future. It would cut 
$46 billion from vital family survival programs, denying benefits to 
millions of children who are in desperate need. During this debate, my 
colleagues have eloquently described the great harm to children that 
would result from the Republican bill. From cuts in nutrition programs, 
to eliminating AFDC for children born to unwed mothers younger than 18 
and, if States so choose, 21, the Republican alternative will cause 
suffering--or worse--for millions of innocent children nationwide.
  The costs of the Republican welfare reform proposal would be vast. 
While children would suffer, States would be left to bear the financial 
burden of the long-term damage the bill would cause.
  I authored an amendment which the Rules Committee did not permit to 
be considered on the House floor. The amendment called for the Federal 
Government to pay for the additional direct and indirect costs incurred 
as a result of reduced funding to certain Federal social programs. So, 
for example, States would not be burdened with the additional long-term 
costs of treating the brain damage caused in children by malnutrition 
resulting from elimination of WIC and other nutritional programs. This 
amendment, which would have helped States deal financially with the 
long-range devastation caused by the Republican bill was rejected for 
consideration on the floor of the House. It would seem that some merely 
want to cut benefits for children now, without addressing the long-term 
harm that would result, and the long-term costs that would be incurred.
  The substitute before us now is a much more effective means of 
facilitating and rewarding independence. The Mink substitute emphasizes 
work and education, improves child support collections, and invests in 
child care assistance for low-income working parents. It also invests 
in nutrition programs, and in health coverage to protect the well-being 
of mothers and children. It encourages work by investing in real 
training. It does not discriminate against tax-paying, legal immigrants 
by denying them benefits. And it does not punish children by imposing 
an arbitrary cutoff of benefits. This substitute would result in real 
opportunities for those currently receiving assistance instead of 
arbitrarily penalizing those in need. I urge my colleagues to support 
this very positive amendment.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Engel].
  Mr. ENGEL. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Mink substitute 
and against the mean-spirited Republican bill which takes food out of 
children's mouths and gives tax breaks to the wealthy.
  The Mink substitute provides for education and job training, two 
essential components to get people off welfare. The Republican plan 
does not.
  The Mink proposal provides for child care which is important if 
welfare people are going to go to work. The Republican plan does not.
  The Mink plan maintains child nutrition and school lunches. The 
Republican plan does not.
  The Mink plan ensures that welfare recipients are better off 
economically by taking a job than by staying on welfare. The Republican 
plan does not.
  Block grants, my friends, only work if you fully fund them. If you do 
not fully fund them, you are literally robbing children, particularly 
with this 
[[Page H3769]] proposal that you can take 20 percent of funds and move 
them around.
  I am for welfare reform, Mr. Chairman, but the Republican plan is 
mean-spirited and goes too far. Support the Mink substitute.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Forbes].
  (Mr. FORBES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, the tale being weaved by Democrats, grown 
adults who are misleading the American public, is really a travesty. We 
are talking about building the future, restoring decency and dreams for 
all Americans.
  Children, parents and families who have had a tough go of it deserve 
to have a break. This Republican bill restores hope, it restores 
opportunity, respect, and the Democrats who have been protectors of a 
broken, demeaning system ought to be ashamed of themselves for 
misleading the American public.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, 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 
Democratic alternatives and in strong opposition to the Republican 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, the current welfare system is a national embarrassment 
and outrage. Democrats are committed to reforming a system that 
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 then look for a 
job.
  Economic self-sufficiency must be the primary goal of any valid 
proposal, and the Democrats face this issue head-on.
  The Deal substitute's work requirement for the first year is four 
times higher than the Republicans'.
  Welfare recipients must have the opportunity to learn marketable 
skills to find better jobs--opportunities the Democrats provide. 
Enduring job skills will prevent repeat visits to the welfare rolls and 
end the cycle of dependency.
  Mr. Chairman, the Republican proposal is only an outrageous pretense 
at real welfare reform.
  The Personal Responsibility Act does not create a single viable 
avenue to move families away from dependency and in to work. Instead, 
it cuts essential programs, such as day care services which enable 
parents to go to work while leaving their children in safe, reliable 
day care.
  The Republicans would force the States to create work programs at a 
breakneck speed, without regard to effectiveness. The resulting 
Republican programs could not be anything but sloppy and cheap.
  Tremendous savings can be earned in the long run through an initial 
investment in job preparedness and placement. By providing welfare 
recipients with a real opportunity to find a permanent, well-paying 
job, the Democrats would permanently reduce welfare costs, raise worker 
productivity, and increase revenues.
  The Republican plan ignores this reality, and now does not even 
pretend to use their spending cuts for deficit reduction. Instead, the 
Republicans would give the rich the $69 billion they took from the 
poor.
  Mr. Chairman, I am gravely disappointed in the Republicans and their 
plan. We all want change, but this plan does not begin to break the 
cycle of dependency. It breaks the backs of our families and children, 
and does nothing to demand work.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Rush].
  (Mr. RUSH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Mink 
substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the substitute 
offered by my colleague from Hawaii, Patsy Mink.
  I do so as an original cosponsor of her proposal because in the real 
world, it helps people find real solutions to their real problems: 
Jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the debate surrounding the welfare 
reform bill.
  I have been disturbed to hear the name of a constituent of mine who 
was killed last year, young Eric Morse.
  His name was invoked several times by majority party members as a way 
of compelling support for H.R. 1214.
  I agree with those Members that Eric's death was a senseless tragedy, 
and that Eric and nearly 100,000 of my constituents who reside in 
public housing live--and sometimes die--amidst great hardship.
  However, I vigorously disagree with the conclusions that my 
Republican colleagues draw from his death.
  Mr. Chairman, it escapes me why those who support the coldblooded, 
coldhearted Republican bill feel that anything it contains could have 
prevented Eric's death.
  I also fail to understand why all of the discussions have merely been 
about symptoms rather than diseases.
  There is certainly no better example of that sort of public policy 
nonsense than H.R. 1214.
  I challenge each Member from the other side of the aisle to come to 
the south side of Chicago and ask a dozen of my constituents what is 
the most important missing element in their lives or in their 
communities.
  I guarantee to you that every single one of that random group would 
have one answer and one answer only: We need jobs.
  And that, Mr. Chairman, is the reason why we must attach 
Congresswoman Mink's substitute to the underlying bill.
  For, despite the Republican bill's requirement that recipients work, 
it does nothing to help them find and keep real jobs.
  Nor does this bill make sure that jobs are made available in areas 
like my district which have astronomical unemployment rates.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues, if you indeed have genuine 
respect for the memory of little Eric Morse, to vote in favor of the 
Mink substitute to provide jobs.
  Only by doing so can this Congress bring about genuine welfare reform 
instead of welfare window dressing and fake, sound bite reform.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman].
  (Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Mink amendment.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey].
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. You see, Mr. Chairman, I was on welfare, I know that the 
Mink amendment is the right way to go.
  Mr. Chairman, as the only Member of this body who has actually been a 
single, working mother on welfare, I rise to give my strong support to 
the Mink substitute.
  My ideas about welfare reform do not come from books or theories, Mr. 
Chairman. They come from experience and I know the Mink substitute is 
what we need.
  I know the welfare system is broken. It doesn't work for recipients 
and it doesn't work for taxpayers. It needs fundamental change.
  First, we must have jobs that pay a livable wage. If, in the end, a 
recipient is better off on welfare than in the work force, we have 
wasted the taxpayers' money.
  Second, we must help recipients make the transition from welfare to 
work by increasing funding for education, job training, child care, and 
health care.
  Third, we must be flexible about transition from welfare to work. It 
took me 3 years to get off welfare and I was educated, healthy, and 
working.
  Fourth, if we collected all the child support owed by deadbeat 
parents, we could move 300,000 mothers, and over half a million 
children, off the welfare rolls immediately--tomorrow.
  The Mink substitute meets each of these criteria, and I commend the 
gentlewoman from Hawaii on this excellent bill. It is a fair and just 
plan that moves recipients into work by supporting poor women and 
children, not by punishing them.
  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's do what is 
right for our children. Support the Mink substitute.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano].
  (Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Mink 
amendment and against the mean-spirited, anti-children Republican 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in emphatic opposition to the so-called Personal 
Responsibility Act.
  It has long been clear to most thinking people that our current 
welfare system is failing 
[[Page H3770]] the very people it is meant to help. But the approach of 
the Personal Responsibility Act will make the situation of the poor 
much worse, not better.
  Perhaps the clearest sign that this bill is totally wrong-headed is 
that is saves so much money. Everyone know it takes more spending, not 
less, to give poor mothers the tools they need to get and keep jobs and 
to escape poverty--they need education, training, job search 
assistance, day care for their children, jobs. Cost is the main reason 
Congress has been slow to face welfare reform in the past.
  But this bill cuts the programs that sustain our neediest families at 
the same time it cuts the programs that might give them a hand up. And 
why? To cut taxes for big corporations and the well-to-do. What a 
scandal.
  A very, very big problem with this bill is how it treats our 
children. I hardly know where to begin.
  If we pass this bill, we risk increasing the number of babies born 
too small to thrive.
  We punish the neediest children because we don't approve of their 
parents' conduct.
  We shortchange child care even as we attempt to force more mothers 
into the work force.
  We leave abused and neglected children in grave danger for lack of 
child protection resources.
  We put children's nutrition at risk, threatening their ability to 
learn and grow into healthy adults and productive participants in our 
economy.
  This bill slashes the safety net for poor children and families. It 
removes the entitlement--the guarantee that some modest assistance will 
be there for those families whose desperate circumstances make them 
eligible. If Federal funds run out, what recourse will these wretched 
families have?
  It cuts off whole classes of people--most legal immigrants, babies 
born to unwed mothers under 18, people who have received 5 years of 
assistance--however dire their circumstances. And that is in good 
times, never mind recession.
  Mr. Chairman, another big problem with the bill is title IV, the 
provisions related to immigrants. That the United States is a nation of 
immigrants is a cliche precisely because it is true. We all have roots 
beyond the borders of the United States; we all have ancestors, as near 
as parents or as remote as many-time-great grandparents, who, willingly 
or not, came to America.
  We know that immigrants do not come for public
   assistance; they come to join family members already here and to 
provide a better life for their children. They work, they pay taxes, 
they participate in community life, and they play by the rules. Why 
should they be targeted by this bill?

  If these restrictions were only to affect future immigrants, who 
would know the rules before they immigrated, well, I would disagree 
with the policy but it would be a little fairer. However, title IV, in 
cutting off people who are already here--and who face horrendous 
backlogs when they try to naturalize--makes sense only as a spending 
offset. It is certainly not fair to immigrants or their families and 
sponsors.
  A relatively small problem, Mr. Chairman, but one with a big impact 
is that under this bill, there will be no national nutritional 
standards for the nutrition block grants. Nutritional needs do not vary 
among the States, and 50-plus separate standards will make uniform 
national data collection and evaluation impossible. This bill won't 
just permit States to substitute Kool-Aid for milk if they're short of 
funds, it will make it impossible to tell what the nutrition picture is 
nationally or by State.
  Mr. Chairman, I could go on about the failings of this ugly, mean-
spirited bill--frozen block grants, transfers among grants, 
distribution formulas that stress participation rates but not serving 
the neediest.
  But instead, Mr. Chairman, I will just mention that I am a cosponsor 
and strong supporter of the Family Stability and Work Act, which the 
gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] is offering as a substitute. Her 
approach is, I believe, the right one.
  Mrs. Mink's amendment seeks to move welfare families to self-
sufficiency through work.
  It retains entitlement status for the safety net.
  It protects children.
  It invests in preparing welfare recipients for work.
  It does not automatically cut anyone's benefits unless they refuse to 
work or refuse a job.
  It continues critical benefits for up to 2 years after a family gets 
off welfare.
  It doesn't overreach by fooling around with existing nutrition, child 
care, or child welfare programs.
  It rewards States for success in moving welfare recipients into the 
work force.
  It does not finance itself on the backs of legal immigrants.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe this is the right way to go. I urge all my 
colleagues to reject the Personal Responsibility Act and support the 
Mink substitute.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Guam [Mr. Underwood].
  (Mr. UNDERWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the only welfare 
bill that feeds children, not alligators.
  Mr. Chairman, I join my colleague from Hawaii in strong support of 
her substitute to the Republican welfare reform. The Mink substitute is 
a fair and comprehensive plan devoted to moving people from welfare to 
work. It ensures that adequate funds are available for education, job 
training, employment services, and child care while at the same time 
providing incentives not punishment in order to help welfare recipients 
move into the work force.
  I want to raise two points missing from the current debate: First, 
the impact of the Republican bill on non-State areas such as Guam and, 
second, the denial of SSI benefits to U.S. citizens in the territories.
  Many colleagues are upset about the GOP plan to cap Federal spending 
of antipoverty programs over the next 5 years. Guam is already 
operating under caps on AFDC and the end result is that the local 
government provides 80 percent, with only 20 percent from Federal 
grants.
  If the Republican bill is approved, Guam stands to lose $35 million 
more from existing caps. Local governments take notice--this fate 
awaits you.
  Second, it is not clearly known that not all U.S. citizens 
participate in the SSI Program. Let me repeat this: If you are a U.S. 
citizen from Guam you are ineligible for SSI benefits. Wherever you 
stand on noncitizens qualifying for SSI, we should all support all U.S. 
citizens receiving SSI benefits.
  In this debate, I've heard supporters of the Republican bill have 
argued that they resent people on welfare and that their bill does not 
punish children unfairly. Are we to conclude that welfare policy should 
be based on resentment and punishing children fairly? We must resist 
all efforts to turn welfare reform into an effort to tap into 
resentment, an effort to punish rather than reward; if we have learned 
nothing from rearing children or the development of public policy, it 
is that punishment does not work--and that abuse begets abuse; let us 
work at attacking poverty, not attacking poor people.
  The Democratic alternatives to welfare reform are fair to children, 
realistic on work expectations, and generous on resources that support 
welfare to work programs. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Mink 
substitute and the Deal substitute; let us get off the welfare debate 
and let's get on with the business of helping to improve the lives of 
innocent children, the elderly, and the less fortunate amongst us.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta].
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I support the Mink amendment.
  Why must we divide America to cure welfare?
  Let me give an example of what I am talking about.
  Just recently a township in my State decided to do away with and 
refuse the Federal School Lunch Program. They decided instead to have a 
sharing table where less fortunate children could come to the sharing 
table and take up the scraps, the half sandwiches and the unfinished 
cokes that were left by the more affluent students.
  I believe this is dehumanizing, I believe this is destructive of any 
kind of self-esteem and pride, and I believe that this is what would 
happen when we give the States and localities the authority to handle 
the problems as they see fit.
  I have heard, No. 1, some horrible statements today. I will attempt 
my best to overcome my emotion to ignore the statement comparing 
welfare recipients to alligators made by my very wealthy friend the 
gentleman from Miami.
  Before you vote for final passage, think of your own child or 
grandchild cowering in shame as he approaches the sharing table.
  That's not the America I want to see for our children.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling].
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I was asked whether I wanted to get up 
and correct all the misstatements that were made in relationship to 
school lunch/child nutrition programs. The answer is no.
  [[Page H3771]] If they don't believe what the nonpartisan entities 
tell us, they there is not anything I can do to correct that.
  What I can say, however, is, ``Don't feed the bureaucrats. Feed the 
children.'' That is exactly what we are doing in H.R. 4.
  We can talk about what everybody apparently agrees on, at least that 
is what I get for the last 3 weeks, 4 weeks of our discussion. 
Everybody agrees the present system has failed millions of Americans, 
has enslaved them, has prevented them from ever getting an opportunity 
to get part of the American dream.
  So what can we do?
  Well, there are three approaches, I suppose.
  We can hope and pray. If you think hoping and praying will do it, 
then just hope and pray. I do not believe it will.
  Or we can put more money into the same failed system. That is the 
usual approach the Federal Government has taken. If you just do more 
programs, more money, it will all correct itself. I do not believe that 
will happen.
  There is a third alternative. The third alternative is to admit the 
system failed, which I think everybody is, and then do something to 
correct it.
  I believe that in H.R. 4 we have finally given those who have been 
trapped all these years an opportunity to get a part of that American 
dream. I would hope that that is the approach we would take. We owe it 
to those people who have been trapped.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, one of the speakers on the 
other side said, ``Can we accept that we are all for children?''
  Well, we can't for a couple of reasons. First of all when one of the 
Members on that side used the analogy of feeding alligators as the 
basis for his argument for cutting off welfare entitlements, I heard no 
protests on that side.
  He cited the Declaration of Independence. Apparently in his version 
it says all men are created equal to alligators and we will treat them 
equally. That kind of dehumanizing and degrading analogy is why we 
cannot take seriously that profession.
  There is another reason. You are block-granting everything here and 
you say, ``Well, why is that a problem?'' Because it is very clear. 
When the Republican Party cares about something, they don't block-grant 
it.
  When they were worried about manufacturers' liability, they went into 
the States, took it out, and brought it up.
  When the elderly complained about elderly nutrition being block-
granted, they dropped it out of their bill.
  If taking it and block-granting it is such a good thing for the 
children, are we to believe you are penalizing the elderly?
  I mean, you were originally going to block-grant elderly lunches and 
children's lunches. Now you are only doing it for the children. Is that 
because you are mad at the elderly, you are showing how tough you are?
  Nonsense. It is because they have the political clout to get out of 
your scheme, and I am glad they do.
  The same with food stamps. You almost all voted against an effort to 
really block-grant food stamps yesterday because the farmers did not 
want you to do that.

                              {time}  1200

  As a matter of fact we here all of these arguments against even 
entitlements. I will be waiting to see my friend from Kansas and my 
friend from Wisconsin when we talk about the antimeans testing of 
entitlements in America, the ones that go to wealthy farmers and the 
wealthier you are the more you are entitled to get. Let us see how 
antientitlement you are then.
  Finally, we have a jobs program in this bill and it is a public jobs 
program because we do not believe everybody now on welfare is going to 
be hired in the private sector, especially with the Fed trying to slow 
it down.
  What does that bring forward? Denigration. The gentlewoman from 
Kansas sneers at ``make-work jobs.'' Well, when you sneer at public 
service jobs in that tone you are hardly showing a respect for the work 
ethic.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Christensen].
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, the Mink substitute contains many bad 
provisions, but the one I want to focus on, that I believe is one of 
the worst, is the fact that it is going to increase the tax rate for 
corporations from its current 35 percent to 36.25 percent.
  The Democrats raised income taxes and they raised corporate income 
tax in 1993 and now they want to do it again.
  This income tax rate increase makes absolutely no sense. The point of 
welfare reform is to take people off of the welfare rolls and to put 
them on the tax rolls.
  How are current welfare recipients going to move into the work force 
if we have a job-killing tax increase? This is not a tax increase on 
big corporations. Corporations do not pay taxes. People pay taxes. This 
is a tax increase on the little guy, employees of large corporations, 
the people who own stock through a pension plan or a mutual fund and 
the people who supply products and services to large corporations. They 
are the ones that ultimately will pay for this tax increase.
  Republicans want to create jobs. We need to not pass this bill.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, this is an important debate and I am going 
to ask unanimous consent that we be allowed to extend the debate time 
equally divided by 5 minutes on each side.
  The CHAIRMAN. A unanimous-consent request in the Committee of the 
Whole cannot overrule a resolution from the Committee on Rules adopted 
by the House.
  Mr. GIBBONS. I was under the impression you could ask unanimous 
consent to do almost anything around here. Mr. Chairman. That has 
always been my understanding. Unanimous consent waives all of the rules 
including the Committee on Rules' rules. I think the Chair is wrong, 
Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Parliamentarian has advised me if the time is 
allotted equally on both sides as the rule provides, the Committee of 
the Whole can do that.
  Mr. GIBBONS. I wanted to allocate it. This is an important debate and 
there are lots more speakers.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman making a unanimous-consent request?
  Mr. GIBBONS. Yes, I am making a unanimous-consent request.
  The CHAIRMAN. Five minutes each side?
  Mr. GIBBONS. Five minutes additional on each side.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, 
what is the gentleman requesting, how much additional time?
  Mr. GIBBONS. If the gentlewoman will yield, it gives you 5 minutes 
and gives Mrs. Mink an additional 5 minutes, that is all. That is 
reasonable.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Reserving the right to object----
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Kansas has the reservation.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that the rules 
have been established for debate, and we have already on one occasion 
extended the debate time on a previous bill, and it seems to me that we 
should object to this. And if the gentlewoman will not, I will.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Kansas still controls the time.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, after consultation with the two 
chairmen involved in this, I would request that we have an additional 5 
minutes for each side.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers] has 8 minutes 
remaining, the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] has 7\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Rangel], a member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  [[Page H3772]] (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, the reason I support the Mink substitute is 
because it is about jobs. All I can say is that we did not promise $200 
billion to the richest people in America. We did not promise $780 
billion. We did not promise a 50-percent tax cut in capital gains.
  But we do not blame you for doing it. It worked for you. But worse 
than making a bad campaign promise is keeping it. We cannot afford to 
give away that type of revenue with the deficit we have.
  But more importantly, we cannot do it by taking $68 billion away from 
the poorest among us. If you want people to have jobs, for God's sake, 
give them training, give them an education, a place to live, give them 
hope, give them an opportunity to be productive. But you do not cut off 
a child who did not ask to be born just to show how mean you can be. 
You do not really just tell somebody they cannot get assistance when 
there are no jobs available.
  If you really want a strong America, you do not beat up on 
immigrants, but give them a chance to become participating and 
productive so that we can become competitive.
  There is an opportunity to have a tax cut when we get rid of the 
deficit and we all move forward together in a more equal way. But you 
will have it on your conscience by passing the Government's 
responsibility and say pass it on to the Governors. One day the 
Governors are going to come back and say we do not have the money and 
then what are we going to do?
  This is a great opportunity under the Mink substitute, not for 
welfare but for jobs. That is what we want. And if you are not prepared 
for a job you cannot get employment.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Wyoming [Mrs. Cubin].
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that the alligator 
analogy was hissed and booed, I thought I should bring up another story 
that is near and dear to my State. My home State is Wyoming, and 
recently the Federal Government introduced wolves into the State of 
Wyoming, and they put them in pens and they brought elk and venison to 
them every day.
  This is what I call the wolf welfare program. The Federal Government 
introduced them and they have since then provided shelter and they have 
provided food, they have provided everything that the wolves need for 
their existence.
  Guess what? They opened the gate to let the wolves out and now the 
wolves will not go. They are cutting the fence down to make the wolves 
go out and the wolves will not go.
  What has happened with the wolves, just like what happens with human 
beings, when you take away their incentives, when you take away their 
freedom, when you take away their dignity, they have to be provided 
for.
  The biologists are now giving incentives outside of the gates, trying 
to get them out. What a great idea.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. CUBIN. No, I will not yield. What a great idea. Give more 
welfare.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will suspend. The Committee will be in 
order. This is not adding to the dignity of this debate.
  Mrs. CUBIN. Just like any animal in the species, any mammal, when you 
take away their freedom and their dignity and their ability, they 
cannot provide for themselves, and that is what the Democrats' proposal 
does on welfare.
  Let us give our folks dignity and initiative and jobs.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons].
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, in my 34 years here I thought I had heard 
it all, but we have a millionaire from Florida comparing children to 
alligators and we have a gentlewoman in red over here comparing 
children to wolves. That tops it all.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters].
  (Ms. WATERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Mink proposal. I 
support it because I know something about this subject matter.
  As a little girl growing up in St. Louis in a welfare family, I know 
what it means to be hungry, to be cold, to be without health care, to 
have to put cotton in a cavity because there is no preventive care.
  I know what it means to be a frightened little child, thinking 
everybody hates you. I often said that if I ever had the opportunity to 
support children, to be an advocate, to talk about what you could do to 
get families off welfare, I would do that.
  This proposal gives me that opportunity. It provides child care. That 
is what my mother needed. She needed some training, she needed to be 
educated. This proposal would allow that. She needed a transition 
period in which to wind off welfare. This proposal provides that.
  Do not be mean, do not be cruel, do not knock children on disability 
off welfare. Do not make the children victims.
  I know what it takes and I would ask Members to listen to me. Let us 
have a fair proposal in the form of the Patsy Mink proposal that really 
speaks for the needs of welfare families.
  If you want to make families independent, let a welfare child tell 
you how to do it. It can happen. And let me reiterate, whatever penny, 
whatever dollar, whatever dime was invested in this welfare child, it 
has paid off for America and for our people.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I listen to the Democrats, and 
it sounds like to me they have a corner on the market as far as poverty 
is concerned. Believe it or not, some of the Republicans grew up in 
very difficult situations. I myself did. You do not believe that. 
Listen to this.
  My mother was a waitress for 18 years and I shined shoes at a place 
called J.D. Rushton's Barber Shop and we did not get welfare back in 
those days. They did not have it. You had to go to the township 
trustees.
  But one of the great things we had going for us was we lived in 
America and we were a land of opportunity, and we would pick ourselves 
up by our bootstraps and move out of the white ghetto and make 
something of ourselves. As a result, my brother, my sister, and I have 
succeeded to a degree.
  Now let me just tell you this. The dependency that has been created 
by the Great Society back in the 1960's has led us to the condition we 
are in today where the vast majority of the people on welfare are in a 
cycle of dependency and they cannot get out. That was why the people of 
this country changed the way Congress was made up last November. They 
want that cycle of dependency broken, and we are trying to do it.
  You keep telling the people of this country we are trying to take 
money and food out of the mouths of hungry children. That is insane. We 
are spending 4\1/2\ percent more on the Children's Lunch Program than 
we were before. we are giving more, but we are taking it away from the 
bureaucrats and giving it to the Governors so they can handle it within 
block grants.
  We want to break the cycle of dependency and you do not. You want to 
keep the people of this country dependent on you so you can get 
reelected and reelected and reelected.
  The times have changed. The times have changed.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers] has 5 minutes 
remaining, and the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] has 3\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn].
  Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to some of the comments we have 
heard in this discussion this morning. Americans are a generous people 
and they have long demonstrated their commitment to help their 
neighbors and families and children in need. But the American people 
[[Page H3773]] also demand results for their investment.
  We all know and it is agreed upon that the American welfare system 
right now is a $5 trillion failure. We have talked about the School 
Lunch Program that the Republican plan increases that by 4\1/2\ percent 
a year.
  But I want to mention something else that was inserted as an 
amendment on the floor by the women Republicans, and that is the Day-
Care Program.
  Mr. Chairman, the Day-Care Program in the Republican plan adds $2.1 
billion a year for child day-care for women who are working off of the 
welfare rolls on to work. We know it can be a problem for them, and the 
Republican day-care plan helps individuals meet that responsibility by 
giving them peace of mind as they move off the welfare rolls back into 
work.
  Mr. Chairman, last Saturday at home I met with a group of Head Start 
women who were unanimous and emphatic in their desire to get off AFDC 
and off welfare. The one thing they asked for was help in child care. 
Help them find good, safe, child care and they will find work in the 
private sector.
  I urge rejection of the Mink amendment and support of the Republican 
bill, H.R. 4.
                              {time}  1215

  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega].
  (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Mink 
amendment. Block grant, Mr. Chairman, is a copout.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Payne].
  (Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
the Mink substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of H.R. 1250, the Family 
Stability and Work Act because the Personal Responsibility Act is an 
all-out assault on America's children, on America's elderly, on 
America's poor, on our most vulnerable populations.
  My colleagues claim that they are not out to get women and children, 
that the Personal Responsibility Act does not punish poor people, that 
we need to have an honest discussion about this proposal.
  I don't know that we can have an honest discussion about legislation 
that was built on distortions and misperceptions.
  The truth is that kids are hurt. The Family Stability and Work Act 
does not set arbitrary time limits on poverty, because there is no cut 
off of benefits for those who make a concerted effort to find work. 
There is no pandering to assumptions that poor people have no work 
ethic.
  It protects children because it does not include a requirement to 
deny benefits to teenage mothers or children who are born to families 
already on AFDC.
  H.R. 1250, helps families in the critical transition from welfare to 
work because it retains crucial support systems that allow families to 
keep health, child care, housing, and food stamps for up to 2 years, 
until they accrue the security to do it themselves.
  Three weeks ago, I offered an amendment during Economic and 
Educational Opportunities deliberations on welfare reform that would 
protect our Nation's children. My amendment would allow children, whose 
family income fall under 130 percent of poverty, to continue to receive 
free meals at school. This program was eliminated in H.R. 999, the 
Welfare Reform Consolidation Act. My amendment was unilaterally 
defeated by the supporters of the so-called contract.
  And since under this rule, I am not permitted to offer the amendment 
during this process, I have introduced the measure as a House 
resolution.
  So what if we go into another recession? We can't meet existing need. 
There is no fail-safe approach for American children in the Contract 
With America.
  Are young people, who have no agenda, no vote, any less important 
because they don't vote? If the Personal Responsibility Act, becomes 
law, States or school districts will decide whether or not to provide 
any free meals at all; States will not be required to serve meals to 
children who cannot afford to pay for them.
  As a former teacher, I know that you cannot teach a hungry child, 
because hunger impairs their ability to learn.
  I remember the deep conviction of the American people and their 
compassion for the less fortunate. I urge my colleagues to continue 
that tradition by supporting the Family Stability and Work Act.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Tucker].
  Mr. TUCKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, we are not talking about alligators. We are not talking 
about wolves. We are talking about America's children. We are talking 
about human beings.
  The Republicans have gotten on the floor. They have said that some of 
them have come from less than meritorious beginnings. If that is true, 
then they need to remember those humble beginnings, because but for the 
grace of God, there go you. We are talking about human beings.
  You said that there are no cuts. Sixty-six billion dollars' worth of 
cuts: We are concerned about these cuts, because this is food that 
could go into the mouths of our children. This is money that you are 
going to use to put in the hands of rich people who do not need a tax 
break. This is what we are talking about.
  Mr. Chairman, we are talking about not crippling our Nation's poor, 
but we are talking about empowering them. Yes, we know that welfare can 
be a drug. This is why the Mink substitute is talking about empowering 
our children and our poor by giving them job training, by giving them 
child care, so they can go out and be more productive members of 
society.
  If this bill, this underlying bill, is not mean spirited, I do not 
know what is.
  The way we can help America is by not giving them a handout but a 
hand. This country needs a hand, and the Mink substitute accomplishes 
that.
  The Republicans have said that they have accomplished it, but all we 
see with them is the operation is a success, but the patient dies.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, perhaps not by design, but certainly by 
experience, the welfare system has become corrupt and immoral. The Mink 
substitute seeks not to end that welfare system, not to reform that 
welfare system, but to expand it.
  Why would anyone want to spend more on a system that has not only 
failed but has become corrupt and immoral? It is immoral to take money 
away from hard-working middle-class Americans and give it to people who 
refuse to work.
  The welfare system defines corruption. Study after study has shown it 
is fraught with waste, fraud, and abuse. Studies of the Food Stamp 
Program have shown up to 20 percent of the money ends up in waste, 
fraud, and abuse. Why do we want to expand that system?
  One of the speakers who was on the floor here from the other side a 
few minutes ago proposed a couple of years ago to give $100 a week to 
people to keep well groomed. We cannot afford this, folks. We have got 
to stop the immorality. We have got to stop the corruption.
  Reform the system. Do not vote for the Mink amendment.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman].
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time.
  I cannot think of anything more corrupt than to take from the poor to 
give tax breaks for the rich, and I cannot think of anything more 
immoral than to punish people who are poor just because they are poor.
  Reject the bill before us and support the Mink amendment.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume 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 rise in strong support of the Mink 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Mink amendment.
  [[Page H3774]] This amendment embodies the belief all of us say we 
share: that our welfare system will never be a success until it becomes 
a system which actively works to make itself obsolete.
  The Republican proposal downsizes welfare simply by kicking out the 
most vulnerable in our society to sink or swim. It will succeed only in 
perpetuating the cycle of hopelessness into which far too many American 
families have fallen.
  It would say to immigrants who have chosen to make the United States 
their home that--despite the taxes they pay, despite the businesses 
they have formed, despite the educational success of their children 
which contribute so much to this Nation--their well-being isn't any 
cause for concern.
  Those who have become the most strident in criticizing immigrants in 
America frequently use the same criticism that has been used for 
generations--that immigrants are not assimilating into American society 
quickly enough.
  Yet the Republican bill actively pushes these newest Americans toward 
the margins of our society.
  Well, Mr. Chairman, I can assure every Member of this Chamber that 
the Asian Pacific-American and Latino communities in this Nation will 
never forget that insult.
  In contrast to the punitive proposals in the Republican bill, the 
Mink amendment takes the steps necessary to truly build a system of 
public assistance that moves Americans in need toward independence--
through job training, child care, and educational assistance.
  It is fair, it is workable, and it is just. To me, that is the 
definition of good public policy. I urge my colleagues to support the 
Mink amendment, and enact meaningful welfare reform for America.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to 
the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens] for closing on 
our side.
  (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, of all the proposals on the table, only the 
Mink substitute insures that families are given the tools they need to 
obtain living-wage jobs and achieve self-sufficiency, independence, and 
dignity.
  We have welfare in this country because welfare is so much cheaper 
than full employment. The average welfare payment per month is about 
$350, $350 to survive. That is far different than a minimum-wage job. 
The substitute also contains the most stringent work requirements we 
will see on the House floor. Every welfare recipient with a self-
sufficiency plan must be in a job after the various education and job-
training activities are completed. Investing in jobs is the best 
investment we can make.
  Even the Congressional Budget Office has acknowledged a 1-percent 
reduction in the unemployment rate leads to a net gain of $40 to $50 
billion to the Treasury. Let us put people to work.
  Republicans do not support bills that put people to work. In H.R. 
1214, Republicans are merely continuing a hostile pattern of neglect 
that they have always had toward jobs.
  In order for Republicans to save money, they do not have to take 
money away from the free lunches. We do not have to tell the children 
of America there is a fiscal crunch, and this Nation needs their lunch. 
We do not have to do that.
  We can save money in many other ways. Sixteen billion dollars is 
spent on aid to children; $16 billion is spent on aid to rich farmers. 
Rich farmers receive the welfare without any means-testing. Let us take 
some of the money away from rich farmers to pay for the training and 
job experience in this bill.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill. It is the only effective 
proposal for welfare reform. Vote for the Mink substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Mink substitute for 
H.R. 1214. Congresswoman Mink's substitute is the most comprehensive 
welfare reform plan that we are considering this week because it 
focuses on what welfare recipients need and want most--jobs.
  American voters have spoken loud and clear about their job fears and 
anxiety. In the interviews at the exit polls on November 8, working 
people explained their anger. Wages are too low. Corporate downsizing, 
streamlining, and the pursuit of slave labor in Mexico and China have 
intensified the fears of those who are working today about losing their 
jobs tomorrow. And among the millions who have been unemployed for many 
months, and some for years, all hope of ever getting a decent job is 
fading fast.
  Welfare recipients have the same fears and anxiety. They wonder what 
will happen to them and their children if their benefits are taken 
away, but education, job training, child care, and job search 
assistance are not provided for them. Of all the proposals on the 
table, only the Mink substitute ensures that families are given the 
tools they need to obtain living wage jobs and achieve self-
sufficiency, independence, and dignity.
  Instead of eliminating the current Job Opportunities and Basic Skills 
[JOBS] program, the Mink substitute sensibly enhances it by striking 
cumbersome mandates and increasing the States' flexibility to determine 
who is required to participate in JOBS and who is exempt. There is no 
arbitrary time limit for AFDC benefits, but the substitute allows 
states to work with families to determine what is necessary to get them 
off welfare and into jobs.
  The substitute also contains the most stringent work requirement we 
will see on the House floor. Every welfare recipient with a self-
sufficiency plan must be in a job after the various education and job 
training activities are completed. If they are unable to find a job on 
their own, then they still must go to work at a job that either has 
been created or is subsidized by their State.
  Investing in jobs is the best investment we can make. A full 
employment economy is an economy that grows and can afford to do more. 
People with jobs produce goods and services, generate income, buy goods 
and services, pay taxes, and consume less government transfer payments 
such as Aid to Families with Dependent Children [AFDC] and unemployment 
insurance. Even the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] has acknowledged 
that a 1-percent reduction in the unemployment rate leads to a net gain 
in the U.S. Treasury of $40 to $50 billion.
  In a report to the Ways and Means Committee last Monday, the CBO 
concluded that States will not be able to meet the work requirements in 
H.R. 1214 calling for 50 percent involvement in job training or work 
programs by 2003, and 90 percent involvement for two-parent families. 
That conclusion should not be surprising. Welfare-to-work programs have 
been consistently underfunded. Specifically, the JOBS program has only 
received about $1 billion a year even though it would need $6 billion a 
year to operate at full capacity and enable all eligible AFDC 
recipients to participate.
  In H.R. 1214, Republicans are merely continuing this pattern of 
hostile neglect. In contrast to the Mink Substitute, the Republican 
bill provides no job or job training guarantees, and it is not funded 
with any additional money to make sure that people work.
  CBO has estimates that it will cost $11,440 a year to place just one 
welfare mother in a welfare-to-work program. That includes the costs of 
child care, paying supervisors, job training, and paying wage 
subsidies. But my friends on the other side of the aisle are not 
interested in such details. Their message to the middle- and upper-
income earners in this country is as follows: we are going to save 
money by stripping poor people of the few benefits they have so that we 
can give you a tax cut. We will talk about how we want poor people to 
go to work, but we are not going
 to spend one dime or create a single job to make that happen. That 
would cost too much money, and our economy depends on the existence of 
an underclass of serfs anyway.

  The Republicans have completely skewed the welfare reform debate. We 
should not be talking about cutting one form of welfare in this country 
without talking about cutting all forms of welfare. If sacrifices must 
be made to balance the budget, then everyone must share in the pain.
  In order for the Republicans to save money, they do not have to 
single out AFDC. In 1993, the Federal Government spent $16 billion on 
AFDC, but the Federal Government also spent $16 billion on commodity 
price and farm income support programs.
  Despite the fact that the Government has been spending the same 
amount of money on programs for tobacco and 
[[Page H3775]] peanuts as the AFDC program, Republicans have not 
attacked the agriculture expenditures as vigorously. Somehow, it's 
alright to subsidize agribusiness, but it's not alright to make sure 
that single mothers and their children continue to have food on the 
table, roofs over their heads, and shirts on their backs. There is a 
double standard here that smacks of racism.
  Therefore, the test of a true and comprehensive welfare reform plan 
is not merely whether it is vigilant about reforming the AFDC program, 
but whether it is just as vigilant about reforming our welfare system 
for agribusiness and all other corporations. For, wealthy corporations 
in this country are spoon-fed a whole variety of pork, ranging from 
huge tax breaks for multinational corporations which export American 
jobs overseas, to hundreds of millions of dollars to agribusiness 
corporations to market and promote their products abroad. The Mink 
substitute passes this test.
  The Mink substitute pays for the cost of welfare reform by attacking 
the hundreds of billions of dollars in handouts to corporations by 
increasing the top corporate income tax rate by a modest 1.25 percent. 
That sends the right message to working-class Americans--that the fat-
cat freeloaders can no longer belly-up to the Government trough.
  Mr. Chairman, the Mink substitute represents real welfare reform 
because it ensures that everyone who is willing and able to work will 
obtain a minimum wage job. It therefore addresses the deficit about 
which Americans are most concerned--the jobs deficit. I 
enthusiastically endorse this approach and urge all of my colleagues to 
vote for the Mink substitute.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon].
  (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise to correct obvious 
misstatements by a colleague on the other side about a school district 
in my district.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes, the remainder 
of my time, to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw].
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and 
allowing me to close on this debate.
  The hollering and shouting, the innuendoes and name calling are 
hopefully now over, and we will be asked in not too long to decide 
between the status quo and the Republican welfare reform bill.
  History tells us that they came from farms, they came from all over 
this Nation in search of a better life for themselves and their 
families. They settled in the cities, they settled in the coal mines, 
and they were hard-working because there was a hard-work ethic.
  Then the jobs went away, after these people who they themselves and 
their ancestors built the greatest economic machine on the face of this 
Earth. So when the jobs left the big cities and the mines closed, why 
did not the same people who were the children of the ones who came to 
the factories, who came to the cities seeking a better way of life, why 
did they not follow suit? Why did they not go where there were better 
jobs and better opportunities? They did not because the Congress of the 
United States, this Government, put into place a welfare system that 
was corrupt, although well-meaning, was destructive, although thought 
to be kind and gentle, and for generations now, we have seen this 
destructive welfare system stay in place and keep people where they 
are, a system that is destructive of future self-esteem, destructive of 
family, destructive of the basic moral fiber that has held this Nation 
together and the work ethic that we have been so proud of as Americans.
  Now is the time to sweep this away.
  The gentleman from Georgia yesterday and again the day before said 
that now the Republicans are coming for the poor and the children. Yes, 
they are. We are coming for them to pull them out of the life of 
dependency and poverty, and we are going to ask you the Democrat side, 
after the passage of welfare reform, hopefully some before, to join 
with us, because we are only on the first step to the road of doing 
something about taking people out of poverty. We are sweeping away a 
destructive system, and we are putting in a system that can work.
  But we cannot now walk away from it, because the road of the poor is 
going to be a tough road. It is going to be a treacherous road. It is 
going to be a road that we in the Congress are going to have to do more 
after the passage of welfare reform to take people out of poverty in 
this country.
  For once, after we pass this, let us join together in a new meaning 
of the American spirit and solve the problem of poverty in this country 
to give people back self-dignity, to discourage illegitimacy, to 
promote the family and to promote the values that have made this 
country great.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 4. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Mink 
substitute.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Mink 
substitute, and in opposition to H.R. 3.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit to my distinguished colleagues that the lives 
and well-being of some 21.6 million of our Nation's children are at 
risk if we allow the Republican welfare reform bill to become law.
  We are all in agreement that our welfare programs need reform. And in 
fact, Democrats intended to reform these programs this year; however, 
as the people of this country are seeing, our minority status is now 
working to the detriment of our Nation's children.
  Some of my friends across the aisle have repeatedly said the best way 
to administer our welfare programs is to give block grants to the 
States. Without question, some States have been successful at getting 
people off the welfare rolls and getting them into productive jobs, but 
so have the Federal programs.
  The problem, Mr. Chairman, is that not all States operate with the 
same efficiency, and I can just imagine that with 50 different 
bureaucracies, with 50 different sets of laws and regulations, with 50 
different State court rulings, with 50 different budgetary priorities--
well, let me just say that I suspect the result will be utter chaos and 
confusion. We are going to have people moving from one State to another 
just to obtain better benefits. But of course the States that provide 
the better benefit packages will be overwhelmed and will have to lower 
the quality of their packages to that of their neighbors so they do not 
continue to be overwhelmed. And if I am correct, Mr. Speaker, when you 
block grant a Federal program to a State, the States have considerably 
more latitude with the funds, and they do not necessarily have to spend 
the funds as Congress would like or have intended.
  Unlike H.R. 4, which does nothing more than cut the funds expected to 
be needed to support our nation's children, Congresswoman Mink's 
substitute is an honest plan which seeks to move welfare families off 
welfare by training them and putting them to work.
  Mr. Chairman, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that all 
50 States will likely fail to meet the job requirements contained in 
H.R. 4. Shouldn't that send a message to our friends across the aisle? 
Shouldn't that alert those with the ability to change this bill to do 
so now? Are they simply going to say it's not true, or it doesn't 
matter, we can fix it in conference?
  Mr. Chairman, I would find that position rather embarrassing to be 
associated with, and I want to use this opportunity to state 
unequivocally my strongest opposition to H.R. 4, and my strongest 
support for the Mink substitute.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the 
Family Stability and Work Act. I commend my distinguished colleague 
from Hawaii, Patsy Mink, on her efforts in crafting meaningful 
legislation in response to the issue of welfare reform.
  The Family and Stability Act replaces the punitive measures of H.R. 4 
with a much more realistic and focused alternative. It is sound, 
sensible and compassionate and deserves the full support of this House. 
I am supportive of this legislation because it provides a safety net of 
training and support services to help welfare recipients into gainful 
employment. In addition, this plan does not impose time limits on 
recipients, or repeal the entitlement status of essential nutritional 
and child care programs.
  The Mink substitute logically attempts to reform our Nation's welfare 
system. It demonstrates that we can effectively reform the welfare 
system without hurting the very people that it is designed to help. 
This alternative recognizes that reducing other programs which assist 
the poor is counterproductive.
  Of the 14 million people on AFDC, 10 million are children. This 
substitute sensibly invests in those programs that most benefit our 
Nation's youth. Furthermore, it takes necessary steps toward ensuring 
that recipients are helped out of dependency and into self-sufficiency.
  Work and preparing for work are essential elements in welfare reform. 
The Mink plan provides welfare recipients with education and 
[[Page H3776]] job training necessary to obtain a job and stay 
employed. The Mink substitute guarantees child care to parents who are 
working, or in work preparation programs. According to the Department 
of Health and Human Services, 378,000 children from low-income families 
struggling to get off welfare or remain independent would no longer 
have Federal child care assistance under the Republican proposal. It is 
irrational and unrealistic to expect young mothers to get into the work 
force without adequate child care.
  The welfare plan proposed by my colleague from Hawaii would attempt 
to exercise compassion for welfare recipients without encouraging 
dependency. It includes provisions which do not impose time limits for 
low-income individuals receiving aid to families with dependent 
children [AFDC]. In a congressional district such as mine, more than 40 
percent of the population lives below poverty. I believe the Mink 
substitute addresses this issue by helping families stay off of 
welfare, and allowing them to retain essential health, housing, and 
food stamp benefits for up to 2 years.
  One of the most unjustifiable aspects of the personal responsibility 
act is the block-granting of highly successful nutrition and childcare 
programs. Under the Mink welfare substitute, the entitlement status of 
important services like AFDC, nutrition programs, child care programs 
and child welfare programs would be retained, thereby ensuring that 
poor families and children are protected.
  The challenge that our Nation faces is to provide aid to those in 
need while ensuring adequate training and support to enable recipients 
to move into gainful employment. The welfare reform package proposed by 
Representative Mink addresses this problem by effectively assisting 
recipients to overcome barriers to work.
  As we continue our debate on welfare reform, and stress personal 
responsibility, let us not forget our own responsibility as 
legislators, as leaders, and as a voice for those who cannot speak in 
the this Chamber. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support 
the Mink substitute.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. 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 off welfare and into real jobs.
  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.
  H.R. 4 is the wrong way to go. It eliminates the entitlement status 
of important programs and ends our long-term national commitment to 
make sure that all Americans have a safety net. Block grants to the 
States is not the way to go.
  H.R. 4 is weak on work. The work requirements in the Republican's 
bill are weaker than current law. Even the Congressional Budget Office 
says the GOP plan will not put people to work. It will only hurt 
children, the elderly, and the Nation's veterans.
  Beware Republicans. American's will not be hoodwinked for long.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I rise in strong support of the Mink substitute 
because it addresses the causes of poverty rather than penalizing 
people for falling on hard times.
  The Mink substitute would provide families with real opportunities to 
get off welfare and lead a successful self-sufficient lifestyle.
  Yes, Mr. Chairman, we do need to change the welfare system;
  But it is cruel and mean-spirited to dismantle altogether the safety 
net and basic services for poor families and disadvantaged children.
  The Republican's answer to welfare reform is to drop hungry children 
from the school lunch program, deny basic assistance to lawful 
immigrants
 who pay Federal taxes, pit foster children against victims of domestic 
violence for the same scarce funds, eliminate assistance to disabled 
kids, and cut programs to reduce child abuse.

  In the State of Hawaii, we stand to lost $68 million over the next 5 
years in Aid to Families With Dependent Children under the Personal 
Responsibility Act.
  The Republican plan caps cash assistance with total disregard for the 
unique economic situations in each State.
  Last year Hawaii experienced an unexpected increase in enrollment for 
AFDC.
  In February, Hawaii's Department of Human Services Director Susan 
Chandler testified before the Hawaii State Legislature that this 
increased caseload was the direct result of the depressed economy in 
Hawaii and its growing unemployment rate.
  As a result the Department requested an emergency appropriation of $8 
million for the State share of AFDC payments to be matched by $8 
million from the Federal Government.
  Without this appropriation Hawaii's poor families would have been cut 
off from AFDC for 4 months.
  This emergency appropriation would be impossible under the 
Republican's welfare reform proposal.
  Under their bill, AFDC payments would not increase accordingly with 
changes in the economy or unemployment rate.
  If the Republican proposal had been law, Hawaii's AFDC recipients--
most of them children--would have been left to fend for themselves, 
abandoned by the Government in their time of greatest need.
  The Mink substitute would reform the welfare system without causing 
undue suffering for our poor families.
  It provides the resources necessary to give welfare recipients the 
education, job training, job search assistance, and child care that 
they need to find a job and get off welfare.
  It includes a strong work requirement and increases State 
flexibility.
  It allows children and families to continue to receive vital 
assistance such as health care, child care, housing and food stamp 
benefits for a short term after the family leaves the AFDC rolls.
  We need to recognize that simply eliminating assistance for poor 
families does not eliminate their needs.
  Most importantly, we cannot forget who is receiving the assistance.
  In Hawaii, approximately 42,698 children received AFDC benefits in 
fiscal year 1994.
  If we pass the Republican bill we will be abandoning our children.
  We know that family poverty harms children significantly and places 
young children at risk.
  Ultimately society will suffer for the abandonment of families and 
States will have to shoulder the burden of homelessness, crime, family 
violence, substance abuse, and health problems.
  We have an opportunity to improve the lives of the poor in this 
country by changing the welfare system in a positive, not punitive, 
effort.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Mink substitute.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Mink 
substitute bill because it demands work and responsibility from 
recipients, but does not pay for future tax cuts by punishing legal 
immigrants and children.
  The Mink bill sets aggressive work requirements, and is tough on 
those who do not work--recipients who refuse to work will have their 
benefits terminated.
  Unlike current Republican proposals, the Mink bill makes the 
investments necessary in education and training to prepare recipients 
for work, and this is critical.
  We must not adopt legislation, merely for the sake of change, that 
ignores the root causes of poverty--otherwise we will be faced with 
many more years of failed policy.
  The Mink bill makes work pay. It provides short-term nutrition, 
medical, and housing assistance to stabilize families as they move into 
the work force.
  The Mink bill gives States flexibility: States may design work and 
education programs to fit local needs, and States are not forced to 
interfere with family size or family planning.
  The Mink bill strengthens child support collection methods so that 
primary responsibility for children is where it belongs: With their 
parents.
  Finally, the Mink bill is not financed by denying help to children 
and legal immigrants; rather, it cuts corporate welfare by asking 
companies who make in excess of $10 million in profits per year to pay 
an additional 1.25 percent in taxes.
  Mr. Chairman, the Mink bill departs from the status quo by creating 
responsible, realistic welfare reforms.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that three-fifths 
of those present not having voted in the affirmative, the noes appeared 
to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 96, 
noes 336, not voting 2, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 267]

                                AYES--96

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Barcia
     Becerra
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Brown (FL)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     de la Garza
     Dellums
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Engel
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     [[Page H3777]] Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Jackson-Lee
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Lantos
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meek
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Thompson
     Torres
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--336

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Brown (CA)
     Furse
       

                              {time}  1243

  Messrs. McINTOSH, HEFNER, and MOAKLEY changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  Mr. GEJDENSON changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So, three-fifths of those present not having voted in the 
affirmative, the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the family-based 
nutrition block grant contained in H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility 
Act, which combines funding for WIC, the Child Care Food Program, the 
Summer Food Program, and the Homeless Children Nutrition Program.
  There have been concerns raised regarding the future of the WIC 
program under this proposal. I believe, however, it will work well. 
States are often in a better position than Washington to determine what 
is best for their area and how funds could be used most efficiently.
  Funds under the block grant must be used for those in greatest need--
the low-income families who require assistance, not the administrators. 
A provision caps the percentage of funding that may be used for 
administrative costs, once again less money for bureaucrats. WIC is 
certainly not forgotten--at least 80 percent of the funding under the 
grant is earmarked for the WIC Program.
  The quality of the WIC is also not left behind. The nutrition 
standards provision in the bill provides for the development of model 
nutrition standards for the programs. This makes good nutritional sense 
and will ensure healthy supplemental foods.
  Mr. Chairman, the value of the WIC Program cannot be disputed. It 
finds bipartisan support because it is effective in improving the 
nutrition and health of low-income pregnant, postpartum, and 
breastfeeding women as well as infants and children who are determined 
to be at nutritional risk. This leads to better health and decreased 
medical costs.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4 will help us to continue to meet the needs of 
low-income children and pregnant and nursing mothers and actually 
increase funding by $500 million over 5 years.
  I am pleased to support the family-based nutrition block grant. I 
hope that opponents' fears will be diminished when they see how 
effectively the States can administer these important nutrition 
programs while at the same time retaining the quality demanded of them.
  Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Chairman, everyone agrees that the current welfare 
system in America is broken and needs to be fixed. The American people 
are fed up with inefficient spending and questionable programs that 
result in little or no bang for the taxpayer buck.
  While I support strong efforts to reform our Nation's welfare system, 
I am concerned by the direction in which some have chosen to take this 
debate. Partisan policies and the quest for a quick fix have resulted 
in proposed policies that simply fail to take a long-term view and are 
counterproductive to our country's future.
  Welfare abuses exist today and they need to be dealt with strictly. 
But, many Americans aren't proud to be on welfare and they don't aspire 
to make it a way of life. In many cases, they are on welfare because we 
have failed to create the proper incentives to move them from welfare 
to work. The focus of welfare reform must be on getting these people 
off welfare and to work as quickly as possible. To do this, we need to 
give people the supportive environment necessary to get a job. Welfare 
can then serve as the temporary safety net it was meant to be.
  Representative Nathan Deal's substitute welfare reform bill has the 
necessary ingredients to get people off the welfare rolls and into the 
work force. While setting a time limit in which one can receive 
assistance, it requires people to actively search for a job or get the 
necessary training. The Deal plan rewards work by raising asset 
thresholds which, for years, have been a disincentive to getting a job. 
The plan also consolidates and expands child care opportunities and 
maintains the integrity of the Head Start, school lunch, and Meals on 
Wheels programs. Finally, the Deal substitute works to reduce the 
deficit. By streamlining existing programs, fighting fraud and abuse, 
and moving people into jobs, the Deal plan will cut long-term costs as 
it increases the number of Americans contributing productively in our 
society.
  Let's rise above partisan politics today and restore the opportunity 
for millions of Americans to live a better life than they are living 
today.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, there is no question that our 
welfare system needs to be reformed. The American people want a welfare 
system that is tough, but fair. They want welfare checks to be replaced 
with paychecks and they want vulnerable children protected while their 
parents work.
  But the American people also want the job done right, not a rush job 
like this one, which is being rammed through the House to meet an 
arbitrary deadline set by the Contract With America. The terribly 
flawed bill before us is not reform; it is a sham. It is weak on work, 
but very hard on poor children and pregnant 
[[Page H3778]] women. It punishes the poor instead of helping them to 
move into the mainstream economy.
  The driving force behind the Republican welfare reform bill is not 
concern for the least fortunate in our society--the vast majority of 
whom are children. The real purpose of this bill is not to help poor 
people aggressively prepare for work and look for a job.
  Rather, the purpose of this bill is to scrape up dollars to fund tax 
breaks for the already well-off. Because of this bill, the people of 
Florida will have to pay $3.87 billion over the next 5 years to fund 
tax relief for the wealthy at the expense of the poor. Instead of 
saving money, this bill simply shifts costs onto State and local 
taxpayers.
  This bill also demonstrates to all what the opportunity society 
contemplated by the Contract With America really means--seizing the 
opportunity to exploit the vulnerable and the poor for the benefit of 
privileged special interests.
  It is good policy to promote work and require it of those capable of 
holding a job. But what is needed to help people get off and stay off 
welfare is not to be found in this bill: Education; job training; day 
care so that parents can safely leave their children while they work; 
health care; and counseling for people who have never written a resume 
or called an employer for an interview. This bill assumes that work 
will somehow just happen.
  The bill proposes a new, consolidated child-care block grant program 
that will mean a cut nationally of $2.4 billion in funding over the 
next 5 years. In Florida alone, more than 20,000 children are awaiting 
child care services so that their parents can work. This bill ignores 
the problem, at a loss to Florida of an estimated $388 million.
  This bill merges the National School Lunch Program with other school-
based nutrition programs, completely eliminates Federal nutrition 
standards, and caps the funding. The only reason they are attacking 
these programs, which work quite well, is to fund the Republican tax 
breaks.
  Mr. Chairman, on Monday of this week, I visited Frederick Douglass 
Elementary School in the Overtown neighborhood in Miami. This 
neighborhood is so poor that 97 percent of the children there are 
eligible for free school lunches.
  I ate lunch there with a group of third graders, and I asked them 
what they thought about lunch. One little girl was particularly 
loquacious. ``Oh, the lunches are good,'' she said. ``If we didn't get 
our lunch, we would be hungry.''
  And, Mr. Chairman, I can report that there were no picky eaters in 
that cafeteria; the food was good, and these children ate everything. 
For most, this was their best meal of the day. The authors of this bill 
should come to my district and eat with these children. They are not 
statistics or numbers on some ledger book. They are the little ones who 
need our help the most--and this bill pushed them aside in the name of 
fiscal responsibility.
  The bill also repeals the supplemental nutrition program for women, 
infants, and children [WIC]--widely regarded as one of the most 
effective Federal programs ever--and other child nutrition programs and 
replaces them with a family nutrition block grant. It cuts food stamp 
spending by $14.4 billion over 5 years--more than $1.2 billion from the 
State of Florida alone.
  The authors of this bill boast that it will save $7.2 billion in 
nutrition funding over the next 5 years. But at what cost? This bill 
puts the health and development of little children at risk, needlessly, 
in the name of cost savings. This kind of false economy is 
unconscionable.
  Finally, the bill is terribly unfair to legal U.S. immigrants. These 
are lawful U.S. residents who played by the rules and became legal 
residents by faithfully following our laws.
  Mr. Chairman, U.S. immigration law is a matter of national policy. 
The Federal Government decides how many legal immigrants are allowed 
into our country each year--not Dade County, and not the State of 
Florida. Since these are Federal decisions, the Federal Government must 
pay. But this bill says that local taxpayers must pay.
  Legal immigrants are not a drain on our economy; in fact, they earn 
an estimated $240 billion each year and pay over $90 billion in taxes 
in the United States. Many of them serve in our Armed Forces. By 
working, paying taxes, and creating jobs, legal immigrants more than 
carry their weight. The fact that they are not yet U.S. citizens in no 
way increases the burden on the Government.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill punishes children for the sin of being born 
to a family on welfare. It punishes children, until the mother is 18 
years of age, for being born out of wedlock. It punishes children if a 
State drags its feet on paternity establishment. It eliminates 
guaranteed foster care to any child who is abused or neglected.
  This bill is neither compassionate nor fair. It is not reform. It is 
the legislative equivalent of clearcutting a forest--cut, cut, cut, 
with little regard to the consequences.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support H.R. 4, 
the Personal Responsibility Act. The vast social welfare policies of 
the past 30 years have been a miserable failure. They have failed to 
adequately serve our needy neighbors, and in the process, they have 
ripped apart our communities and hurt us all. This bill is the first 
step on the road to rejecting these policies, healing our communities, 
and helping our children.
  The reality in 1995 is that far too many of our Nation's communities 
contain deep pockets of poverty and dependence. In some urban areas, an 
alarming 8 in 10 children are born out of wedlock, many into a world of 
poverty. The unfortunate fact is that these children are three times 
more likely than children from families with married parents to go on 
welfare as adults. We have learned that a spending policy that is not 
value-driven is a recipe for failure. It is imperative that this cycle 
be broken.
  I have visited Job Corps sites in the South Bronx and met young women 
who had never learned how to open a checking account, write a resume, 
or go on a job interview. The system that fostered this must be changed 
to provide these young people with the incentive and tools to enter the 
job market and become productive members of the community. It is time 
to look to the future. These young people are where our energies must 
lie. They provide us the opportunity to help break the dead-end cycle 
of poverty and dependence. They will be the key to healing our 
communities.
  We must not be deterred by those who claim that we are not 
compassionate. We are compelled to help all Americans, particularly our 
neighbors struggling to survive in the poorest neighborhoods. Our 
current social welfare policies have not demonstrated compassion to 
those trapped by poverty, rather, they have failed them miserably. 
Those who would continue these policies are doing the same. There is no 
compassion in that.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on the subject of the 
Personal Responsibility Act.
  There is considerable disagreement within this body, and certainly 
among the American public at large, about the legislation that we have, 
before us today. Yet there is one point upon which we can all agree--
our present welfare system has failed. It has failed our families in 
poverty, it has failed our children who depend upon it, and it has 
failed the American taxpayers who support it.
  The question than, Mr. Chairman, is not whether we should implement 
far-reaching reforms in our welfare system but how we should implement 
these reforms. After many, many months of debate on this issue, after 
countless meetings with constituents, social workers, ``welfare 
mothers,'' business people, and others, I concluded that the best 
proposal for overhauling our Nation's welfare system was the one 
proposed by Congressman Nathan Deal of Georgia.
  I voted for the Deal proposal because it struck a wise balance 
between the need for comprehensive reform and our duty as a society to 
maintain a basic safety net for our citizens. This proposal, which was 
put forth by a group of respected, moderate Members, embraced the 
center--rather than either the left or the right wing extreme--of the 
welfare debate.
  The Deal bill contained work requirements that were more stringent, 
yet more effective, than those in the Personal Responsibility Act. It 
would have placed a 4-year limit--rather than the 5-year limit 
contained in the Personal Responsibility Act--for individuals to remain 
on AFDC. The Deal bill would have required AFDC recipients to work for 
benefits or participate in mandatory education and training programs 
aimed at transitioning them to private sector employment. The Personal 
Responsibility Act, on the other hand, contains no job training or 
other mechanisms to ensure that individuals can get--and keep--a job. 
If we're not willing to train low-skilled individuals for private 
sector employment, how do we expect them to stay off of welfare?
  Second, the Deal proposal would have guaranteed child care for 
mothers with young children who participate in the bill's mandatory 
work programs. The Personal Responsibility Act, on the other hand, does 
not contain a guarantee of child care. How can we ensure that mothers 
on welfare will enter and stay in the workforce if they have no safe 
place to leave their children during the day? Clearly, without some 
guarantee of child care, our efforts to transition mothers from welfare 
to work cannot succeed.
  Third, the proposal put forth by Mr. Deal preserves the highly 
successful nutritional programs upon which many poor and working class 
Americans have come to depend--in particular, WIC and the school lunch 
program. These programs enjoy broad bipartisan support, and there is 
widespread agreement that they are remarkably effective in their 
current form. These programs work. Millions of poor 
[[Page H3779]] and working class children are fed cheaply and 
nutritiously thorough these programs. We do not need to toss them into 
the jumble of the welfare debate.
  In addition, Mr. Chairman, in its well-intentioned efforts to
   discourage illegitimacy and teen-age births, the Personal 
Responsibility Act contains some measures which are so punitive as to 
be completely illogical. For instance, the bill cuts the cash 
assistance grant of children whose paternity is not legally 
established, yet it makes no distinction between children whose 
paternity is unestablished as a result of their mother's failure to 
cooperate with State officials, and children whose paternity is 
unestablished because, in spite of the mother's full cooperation, the 
father has successfully evaded State officials or managed to escape a 
DNA test. The Deal proposal on the other hand, recognizes that 
parents--not children--are the ones who should be penalized for evading 
their families responsibilities.

  In addition to these points, Mr. Chairman, I believe that the Deal 
substitute is preferable to the Personal Responsibility Act because it 
preserves, subject to time limits and other restrictions, a basic 
safety net to which indigent Americans can turn in times of need. The 
Personal Responsibility Act, on the other hand, goes too far in its 
effort to devolve the Federal Government of responsibility in the realm 
of public assistance. In its effort to seek greater flexibility for 
State governments--a goal with which I wholeheartedly agree--the 
Personal Responsibility Act weakens the modest safety net that we, as a 
society, believe should be in place for our citizenry.
  Finally, the Deal bill contained important and historic reforms in 
our Nation's child support enforcement laws--reforms that, as 
Republican cochair of the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues, I 
have advocated for many years. In particular, the Deal bill adopted 
child support legislation that I had coauthored with the caucus earlier 
this year--the Child Support Responsibility Act of 1995. I also worked 
successfully to incorporate these reforms into the Personal 
Responsibility Act and am gratified that they were, in fact, included 
in the final bill. I commend the Republican leadership for 
incorporating these provisions into the act. On balance, however, the 
child support reforms in the Personal Responsibility Act were not 
enough to overcome my other objections to the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, you can be assured that I will work with my colleagues 
in the Senate to ensure that Congress enacts meaningful, far-reaching, 
and comprehensive welfare reform.
  Mr. OXLEY. I rise today in strong support of the Contract With 
America's Personal Responsibility Act. Welfare has become a way of life 
for too many recipients. By making it easier to collect a hand out than 
to work, the system has destroyed individual initiative and actually 
perpetuated poverty. Bureaucratic barriers frustrate motivated 
recipients who want to get a job or acquire an education. We've seen an 
alarming breakdown of the family occur under programs that simply are 
not working.
  The Personal Responsibility Act will reform our welfare system to 
provide a helping hand, not a handout, to millions of Americans caught 
in this dead-end trap. I've heard a lot of talk lately that the 
Republican plan would be hard on children. This couldn't be further 
from the truth. Our plan will actually increase funding for many 
children's services. For example under our plan funding for school 
lunch and breakfast programs would actually increase by $1 billion over 
5 years. By eliminating the Federal middle man, and block granting 
funds, the savings we achieve now could be used for providing increased 
assistance to needy children.
  Mr. Chairman, in the name of short-term compassion we have inflicted 
long-term cruelty. Let us pass this legislation so we can offer hope 
for our children's future, not despair.
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, why do we have to divide America to cure 
welfare?
  We divide America when we pull families apart.
  We divide America when we make teenage mothers give up their 
children, or encourage them to have abortions.
  We divide America when we use arbitrary deadlines that will move 
families who have depended on welfare because they can't get jobs, into 
homelessness.
  We divide America when we punish children by dismantling the school 
lunch program.
  We divide America when we use hot rhetoric like we heard in this 
debate--when one compares people on welfare to wolves or alligators, 
when one compares welfare to the $600 toilet seat of the Pentagon, when 
one says that he would not let some welfare mothers take care of a cat.
  We didn't need this kind of talk, and we don't need to create two 
Americas to reform welfare.
  Our Republican colleagues may insist that they are not engaging in 
the politics of division, but that's just what happened during this 
debate over welfare reform.
  Let me give you an example of how one aspect of the majority bill 
will encourage a divisive America.
  The Philadelphia Inquirer told a story the other day of a suburban 
township near my district.
  Many years ago, they decided to reject Federal school lunch dollars, 
and do away with reduced price school lunches for low-income children. 
In its place, they use a so-called sharing table--a place where a 
hungry student can pick up a left-over peanut butter and jelly sandwich 
that a better-off student left behind.
  Some people like the idea of the sharing table, but I don't. To me, 
it sounds like ``Oliver Twist.''
  I can't think of anything more humiliating for a young child than 
having to rely on leftovers from their classmates. This deepens the 
divide in our society between the haves and the have nots.
  What's worse, I'm afraid that it will teach kids to beg--that's not 
what American kids should be learning in school. I wanted to share with 
my colleagues an editorial from the Philadelphia Daily News, lest there 
be any confusion about my criticism of this program.
  I supported the Mink substitute because it would have worked to 
accomplish the goal we all want to accomplish--moving people from 
welfare to work. It didn't use gimmicks, or arbitrary deadlines. It 
also didn't feed into the cynical politics of hate, division and making 
children victims.
  What I don't want to see are begging tables at schools across 
America.
  I hoped before my colleagues voted for this legislation, that they 
could think of their own child or grandchild cowering in shame as he 
approaches the sharing table.
  That's not the America I want to see for our children.
           [From the Philadelphia Daily News, Mar. 23, 1995]

                  No Lunch? Try the ``Sharing Table''

       There is a fanciful, down-the-rabbithole quality to 
     Republican welfare ``reform'' legislation being debated in 
     the House of Representatives.
       In the wonderland inhabited by Newt Gingrich and the 
     Contract with America crowd, the outrageous idea that ``less 
     is more'' has become an article of faith.
       But not to worry. Instead of scrambling to close the 
     funding gaps likely to be created by welfare ``reform,'' 
     social-service agencies and public schools can find a model 
     for Life Under the Contract close to home--in Upper Darby, 
     Delaware County.
       Back in 1982, Upper Darby dropped out of the federal school 
     lunch program, and with it, federal nutrition standards. 
     Local officials made the move because the program was losing 
     money, kids didn't like the food and free lunches weren't 
     needed.
       Replacing the free- and reduced-price lunch meals is the 
     ``sharing table'' sort of a give-what-you-can/take-what-you-
     need approach to combating child hunger. On the sharing table 
     sits a ``sharing can'' for spare change.
       It works like this: If Johnny eats only one of his two 
     sandwiches, he leaves the extra on the ``sharing table,'' 
     where Sarah--who perhaps came to school without breakfast--
     can have if free, along with some coins to buy a drink.
       It's a simple neighbor-helping-neighbor kind of thing.
       But what if Sarah is too embarrassed to come to the sharing 
     table? And what if children who regularly show up without 
     lunches or lunch money turn down offers of ``sharing table'' 
     assistance out of pride and fear of being stigmatized?
       Doing without the federal lunch program would be less 
     problematic if Upper Darby were a wealthy community--which it 
     isn't. Welfare rolls are growing--up 15 percent since last 
     year, to 956 children. Yet only 300 kids signed up recently 
     for a free milk program--perhaps a sign of reluctance to 
     expose their need.
       Upper Dabry school officials explain it with denial. The 
     need just isn't that great they say.
       Denial is likely to be a useful tool when the full GOP 
     welfare reform package hits town.
       Following the Upper Darby model, we should start with the 
     premise that those lazy ol'poor people don't need any 
     assistance. And for those who do (destitute teen mothers, for 
     instance), we could erect ``sharing tables'' everywhere--near 
     steam grates, bus stops, homeless shelters, soup kitchens and 
     schools.
       For disable kids cut from SSI, there could be medical 
     sharing tables, from which to borrow walkers, wheelchairs, 
     prescriptions and other medical services.
       The possibilities are endless * * *
       And absurd.
       Every credible analysis of poverty and illegitimacy 
     acknowledges that making the chronically dependent self-
     sufficient will cost more in the near future rather than 
     less--because of multiple expenditures for child care, 
     education and training, and public works jobs if the private 
     sector cannot provide employment.
       ``Sharing tables'' and denial obscure that reality--but 
     can't change it.
   [[Page H3780]] Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, during this debate, the 
Democratic record on welfare reform has been regularly maligned. 
Republicans have frequently suggested that Democrats are simply 
defenders of the status quo--who have done little or nothing in the 40 
years that we controlled the House of Representatives to improve the 
programs that serve our most vulnerable citizens. Any responsible 
examination of the record quickly shows this is not the case.
  In the past decade alone, Democrats have enacted reforms to virtually 
every part of our social safety net--usually without much support from 
Republicans. Those reforms have been carefully crafted to improve the 
system without inflicting irresponsible and unnecessary damage on the 
families who have turned to us for support.
  For example, in the 103d Congress, Democrats passed and the President 
signed into law:
  The Family Preservation and Support Act.--This was the first 
significant reform of child welfare programs in 12 years. It provides 
flexible funds to States to strengthen families and prevent child abuse 
and neglect. It will also help State courts assess and expedite 
judicial child welfare proceedings, so that more foster children find 
permanent homes.
  Legislation making these reforms was vetoed once by President Bush in 
1992 but signed into law in 1993. The reforms are just now taking 
effect, yet the Republican majority wants to dismantle them in favor of 
untested block grants that leave abused and neglected children with no 
guarantee of foster care when they need it.
  OBRA 93.--Amendments included in this budget reconciliation bill 
encouraged marriages for families on welfare by relaxing the rules for 
counting the income of a stepparent, made certain that children owed 
child support also get health insurance when the noncustodial parent 
has such coverage, significantly expanded the earned income tax credit 
to encourage work and offset Federal taxes paid by low-income working 
families. OBRA 93 also authorized empowerment zones and enterprise 
communities to test comprehensive solutions to the problems of 
distressed areas.
  The Social Security Administrative Reform Act of 1994.--This reform 
bill limited the SSI eligibility of substance abusers to no more
 than 3 years. It also created the Commission on Childhood Disability 
to recommend ways to eliminate fraud in the SSI children's program--
report due in 1995. Legislation authorizing the Commission was vetoed 
once by President Bush in 1992. Instead of waiting for the Commission 
report, Republicans are attempting to dismantle the SSI children's 
program in this bill.

  The Social Security Administrative Reform Act of 1994 also included 
reforms to the child welfare and foster care programs. If reduced 
paperwork burdens for State child welfare programs by modifying the 
reviews required under section 427 of the Social Security Act. 
Legislation making these reforms was vetoed once by President Bush in 
1992.
  The Unemployment Compensation Act of 1993.--Miscellaneous amendments 
attached to this unemployment compensation bill reformed the SSI 
program to require that sponsored aliens, for the first 5 years after 
the alien's entry into the United States, be qualified for SSI benefits 
based on the income of their sponsor. The Republican proposal--included 
in this bill--denies virtually all benefits to legally admitted aliens.
  In the 102d Congress, Democrats passed and the President signed into 
law
  The Child Support Recovery Act of 1992.--This bill imposed a Federal 
criminal penalty for willful failure to pay a past-due child support 
obligation.
  Democrats also passed the Revenue Act of 1992 which President Bush 
vetoed. That bill would have established a tax deduction for the costs 
of adopting children with special needs, such as those with a physical 
or mental impairment, encouraged welfare families to save--up to 
$10,000--for education, to purchase a home, or to move to a safer 
neighborhood, and allowed welfare families to save--up to $10,000--to 
start a business.
  In the 101st Congress, Democrats passed and the President signed into 
law:
  OBRA 90.--This law guaranteed child care for low-income families at 
risk of going onto welfare, improved the quality of child care 
services, and required States to report known instances of child abuse 
or neglect of children receiving AFDC, foster care, or adoption 
assistance.
  OBRA 89.--This law reformed the AFDC quality control program to 
improve protections against fraud and abuse in the AFDC system.
  In the 100th Congress, Democrats passed and the President signed into 
law:
  The Family Support Act of 1988.--This comprehensive welfare reform 
measure strengthened work, education, and training requirements for 
welfare recipients and, for the first time, required mothers of young 
children to actively participate in work and training. It also barred 
discrimination against needy two-parent families and guaranteed 
transitional child care and health benefits for families leaving AFDC 
for work. Under the law, increasing numbers of welfare recipients must 
be engaged in work-related activities. As a result, 595,000 families 
are now engaged in work activities.
  The Family Support Act contained child reforms as well. It mandated 
State use of uniform guidelines for child support awards, required 
States to initiate the establishment of paternity for all children 
under the age of 18, set paternity establishment standards for the 
States and encouraged them to create simple civil procedures for 
establishing paternity in contested cases.
  Finally, the act provided Federal financial assistance to States to 
improve the quality and licensing of child care services.
  In the 99th Congress, Democrats passed and the President signed into 
law:
  The Tax Reform Act of 1986.--This comprehensive reform of our 
Nation's tax system eliminated the tax obligations of millions of 
America's poorest families and provided adoptive families with a one-
time payment to offset the costs associated with adopting children with 
special needs, such as those with a mental or physical disability.
  In the 98th Congress, Democrats passed and the President signed into 
law:
  The Social Security Disability Amendments of 1980.--This law 
established the requirement that sponsored aliens, for the first 3 
years after their entry in the United States, must include the income 
of the sponsor to be eligible for SSI.
  The Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984.--These 
comprehensive amendments created the Internal Revenue Service 
collection mechanism to withhold from Federal tax refunds any past-due 
child support owed to children of non-AFDC families, expanded the child 
support enforcement program to nonwelfare families, required States to 
develop uniform guidelines for setting child support award amounts, 
extended research and demonstration authority for States to test 
innovative approaches to child support enforcement, and authorized 
special project grants to improve the collection of interstate child 
support orders.
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4, the 
Personal Responsibility Act as offered. This legislation, the 
Republican version of welfare reform, is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
  This legislation has significant ramifications for Americans both 
poor and nonpoor. We pride ourselves on being one of the most caring, 
compassionate, and advanced countries in the world. Yet, for a variety 
of reasons, this bill takes food from the mouths of babies, and cuts 
mothers off welfare, for the purpose of funding an upcoming tax break 
for the wealthy.
  Clearly, the Nation's welfare system is in need of repair. No 
community yearns more for welfare reform than the people of my 
district. But they have said overwhelmingly, do not support reform for 
the sake of reform.
  Most want, and I support, reform that genuinely allows America's poor 
to move from welfare to work. The House GOP bill will not do that. I 
stand opposed to this bill both for what it will and will not do. This 
bill does not meet our community's desperate need for jobs. Successful 
reform of welfare means jobs, jobs, and more jobs; it means child care 
for both poor women and men, and it means a commitment to ensure the 
rights of all children.
  However, this bill fails to create a single job, but requires welfare 
recipients to work after 24 months and be tossed off the rolls after 5 
years. This bill provides no additional funding to support the welfare-
to-work transition, but requires States to have an increasing 
percentage of their welfare population in the work force.
  Since cash assistance would no longer be an entitlement and States 
could determine who and how many get aid, States could increase their 
work participation rate simply by denying aid to a large number of 
currently eligible families.
  In addition, this bill cuts resources for child care, health care, 
transportation, and other necessary support services; factors keeping 
many on welfare today. Under this act more than 7,500 children would 
lose their
 Federal child care assistance in my State of Maryland alone. Mr. 
Chairman, more than 1,700 children in Maryland will lose all SSI 
benefits and Medicaid benefits under this bill. I am mindful of the 
difficult fiscal choices facing us at this time and must evaluate the 
competing claims on our Nation's diminishing discretionary resources, 
but I do not believe that children should be the losers.

  Furthermore, the bill ignores the Nation's economic trends. In an 
economy in which wages have declined for the working poor since the 
mid-1970's and in which the number of working poor has grown 
phenomenally, this 
[[Page H3781]] bill is a dismal failure. We must consider welfare 
reform in the context of our Nation's overall economic condition.
  This bill forces children, who may be the object of violence and 
sexual abuse in some cases, back to the homes where the abuse took 
place. Our children are our future. Unfortunately, the Personal 
Responsibility Act is not likely to be an investment at our children's 
future. America cannot afford to leave its children dangling in the 
wind.
  We were elected to represent the views of our constituents on issues 
of national, economic, and social significance. The opportunity for 
welfare reform is one of the most important issues facing America. In 
this critical time in our Nation's history, we should not allow 
politics to interfere with the responsibility to be fair to our 
children. Today, we have an opportunity to demonstrate the gravity of 
our commitment to children, the poor, to deficit reduction, and our 
commitment to redirecting our efforts to the critical needs of the 
American people.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for our children, vote for our future, 
and vote against the bill as offered.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
4, the Personal Responsibility Act.
  The American voters spoke last November and demanded a change in the 
way Government operates. For too long, past Congresses saw Washington 
as the solution to every problem, and created Federal program after 
Federal program in an attempt to eliminate poverty. Unfortunately, 
those programs, many which were born during the Great Society push of 
30 years ago, failed. After spending more than $5 trillion on Federal 
welfare programs, the number of welfare recipients, illegitimate 
births, and fraudulent welfare claims have skyrocketed. We have to 
change the welfare system that has failed so badly to meet the needs of 
our society.
  With this legislation, Congress can begin to break the cycle of 
poverty and hopelessness that has trapped generation after generation 
of Americans. It is a welfare system that often penalizes those trying 
to break their reliance on Government subsidies, money doled out by a 
Federal bureaucracy that has become too big, too inefficient, and too 
expensive. To free the next generation of Americans from this trap, the 
Personal Responsibility Act, one of the most critical components of the 
Republican Contract With America, promises comprehensive reform of the 
American welfare system.
  The present system penalizes the working poor, and offers little 
incentive to leave the welfare rolls once they begin receiving 
benefits. We must reform these programs to discourage people from ever 
becoming dependent on welfare in the first place, and do everything we 
can to get them off as quickly as possible. This bill gives States 
broad flexibility to design work training and education programs, and 
tells welfare recipients they will have to work in order to receive 
cash benefits. The Personal Responsibility Act will teach people job 
skills, assist them in assuming more productive roles in society, and 
help them earn the dignity that comes from working for a living.
  For too long, many welfare recipients have taken their benefits for 
granted, and forgotten that their actions have consequences. This bill 
would deter teen pregnancies by ending cash payments to unwed mothers 
under 18. States could use these savings to establish programs to help 
young mothers with pregnancy prevention and counseling, adoption 
services, small-group homes, and other helpful innovations. 
Additionally, the bill streamlines procedures to collect child support 
and implements strict policies to enforce child support orders, to 
ensure that both parents live up to their responsibilities.
  Despite the misleading rhetoric of those opposed to this legislation, 
the Personal Responsibility Act offers far greater hope for children 
than the current system. Aside from its tough enforcement of child 
support--which ensures that parents, not the taxpayers, care for their 
children--the legislation significantly increases the funds that will 
actually go toward serving the needs of our Nation's children.
  Currently, programs that provide school lunches and breakfasts, low-
cost milk for children, and nutritional supplements for pregnant women 
and infants are all run from Washington with separate rules for 
eligibility, regulations for operation, and sources of funding. While 
Congress will continue to fund these programs, their day-to-day 
operations will be left to the States, who know how to meet the needs 
of their own residents far better than bureaucrats in Washington, who 
attempt to design one program that meets the needs of people in 50 very 
different States. As a result, the funds spent helping children, as 
opposed to feeding the bureaucracy, will actually increase under this 
bill.
  For example by capping administrative costs in State agencies 
administering child care programs at 5 percent, the Personal 
Responsibility Act will make 95 cents of every dollar available for 
direct child services. This is in sharp contrast to the 68 cents per 
dollar that currently goes directly for child care services. Thirty-two 
cents of every dollar is being lost in layers of bureaucracy and 
centralized planning activities.
  Eliminating administrative overhead will make available $162 million 
more for direct child care services next year alone. In addition, with 
the adoption of an amendment Wednesday, which I strongly supported, we 
provide another $150 million per year to care for children so their 
parents can work. This means with the additional funding and 
administrative savings, there will be $322 million more available for 
direct child care services next year, an increase of 17.5 percent.
  There are also increases in other areas. Many of my constituents and 
many State and local officials from Florida from whom I have received 
input on this legislation, stress the success
 and importance of the Women, Infants, and Children Program, or WIC. 
This legislation addresses those concerns by guaranteeing that not less 
than 80 percent of the funds provided for family nutritional programs 
will go to WIC, ensuring an increase of $588 million over the next 5 
years.

  With regard to the School Lunch Program, this legislation provides 
for a $1.2 billion, or 17.5-percent increase in funding over the next 5 
years. Moreover, States would be required to devote not less than 80 
percent of these funds to meet the needs of low-income children. No 
more than 2 percent of the funds may be spent on administrative costs.
  By ending cash benefits to certain groups such as noncitizens, unwed 
mothers under 18, and individuals with fraudulent claims, and by 
limiting administrative overhead, section after section of this 
legislation makes greater resources available for those trying to put 
themselves back on their feet. As they do this, by taking advantage of 
the federally-funded--but State and locally run--job training and child 
care programs to get off the welfare rolls, an even smaller pool of 
welfare recipients will have access to even more help.
  By cutting layer upon layer of Washington bureaucracy out of the 
equation and allowing State and local governments to care for their own 
people, we will create a more effective, less costly system that will 
truly put children and families first.
  This legislation does not threaten needy Americans willing to take 
responsibility for their lives. It threatens Washington bureaucrats and 
entrenched lobbyists that make their living tending to the cruel, 
ineffective welfare trap that has developed over 30 years. We have an 
opportunity with this legislation to bring about real reform that makes 
those who have opposed progress for decades uncomfortable. They had 30 
years to change a crumbling and ineffective welfare system, and did 
nothing. Now they are forced to defend the status quo where only one of 
every 250 people on welfare work, where one-third of the children born 
in our country are to unwed mothers, and where the average welfare 
family receives benefits on-and-off for 13 years. This must change.
  Mr. Chairman, the welfare reform provisions of the Contract With 
America are designed to give people a way out of poverty, not surround 
them with it for the rest of their lives. These bold reforms are 
expected to put 1.5 million welfare recipients to work and save the 
American taxpayer almost $80 billion over the next 5 years. The 
emphasis on self-reliance will make welfare a program of temporary 
assistance, not a way of life. Americans who believe in a day's pay for 
a day's work are the cornerstones of our society. The programs Congress 
passes should foster this attitude, instead of encouraging millions of 
people to depend on the American taxpayers for their livelihood. The 
Personal Responsibility Act meets this goal, fulfills our contract 
promise, and responds to the wishes and demands of the American people.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I voted for the rule on H.R. 1214 and I 
support passage of this legislation. I do, however, want to express my 
concern with the Rules Committee failure to make in order an amendment 
which would have reaffirmed our Nation's obligation to American Indian 
communities.
  A bipartisan amendment, offered by Resources Chairman Don Young, 
would have set aside 3 percent of appropriations for block grants to 
native American communities. This amendment was important because it 
would have recognized the unique nature of the Federal Government's 
relationship with native American tribes.
  My concern is that direct block grants to the States may adversely 
affect tribes for two reasons: One, States do not have the same 
obligations to tribes that the Federal Government has; and two, some 
tribes, like the Navajo Nation, cross State borders and would have to 
petition more than one State for funding. The Young amendment would 
have addressed this concern, and I regret that it was not made in 
order.
  [[Page H3782]] Mr. Chairman, I want to assure concerned tribal 
leaders that, although the Rules Committee did not make this amendment 
in order, our bipartisan efforts to secure protections in H.R. 1214 for 
native Americans will continue.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Archer-Kasich 
amendment.
  It is absurd to call this measure a technical correction. In 
actuality, this amendment strikes language in the bill which prohibits 
savings in the bill from being used to pay for tax cuts.
  If we are ever to balance the budget, we must make cuts in Federal 
spending which are difficult, require sacrifice, and reduce benefits to 
individuals. Savings from such spending cuts should reduce the deficit, 
not be spent on tax cuts.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, we all agree that reform of the welfare 
system is long overdue. The current system is costing billions of 
dollars and is not solving the problem. It is not putting people to 
work but instead has created an unhealthy cycle of dependency.


                                  work

  In reforming the welfare system, our focus must be on moving people 
into real jobs. I will vote against the Republican bill for many 
reasons--but primarily because it makes no guarantee that welfare 
recipients will move into work. In fact, a recently released 
Congressional Budget Office report found that their bill is doomed to 
fail in achieving that end. Furthermore, under that bill, there is less 
accountability for the dollars spent than under the current system. 
They do nothing to improve access to and the quality of existing 
education and training, so that people have the skills they need to get 
a job.
  Last year, I introduced my own Work First welfare reform plan that 
was designed to get people off of welfare and into jobs. My bill 
removed the crazy disincentives to work that exist in the current 
welfare system. The majority of Americans get up every morning and go 
to work to support themselves and their families--and they resent the 
fact that billions of tax dollars are spent supporting people who don't 
have to do the same. We must reform welfare to assure able-bodied 
Americans work. That is a matter of simple fairness.


              effective programs--child care and nutrition

  We cannot afford to fail in this effort. But moving to the extreme--
as the majority's proposal will do--will only create another system 
that fails families and taxpayers. Their proposal will push families 
with young children into the street and create a whole class of women 
and children with no hope of becoming self-sufficient. The Republican 
proposal cuts child care and nutrition--programs that are critically 
important to supporting working families. Why does this bill block 
grant the WIC Program--when leaders of corporate America have testified 
to its cost-effective benefits to the health of women and children? Why 
does this bill do away with the School Lunch Program as we know it, 
when this program helps children from working families get the 
nutrition they need to succeed in school? Why does this bill cut 
assistance for child care, when Americans know that child care is 
crucial to the ability of people who truly want to work to stay in the 
work force?


                           teenage pregnancy

  There is another area of critical importance on which this bill fails 
the American people--the crisis of teenage pregnancy. Earlier this 
year, I introduced a bill to: First, require teenagers who are parents 
themselves to live with an adult family member or in an appropriate 
adult-supervised setting in order to receive benefits; and second, 
require teenage parents to continue to receive education and training 
in order to receive assistance. In addition, my bill would provide 
grants to localities to design teen pregnancy prevention programs. This 
approach balances responsibility with opportunity. It promotes 
responsibility so that teenage parents understand that they must assume 
responsibility for the consequences of their action. At the same time, 
it invests in preventing teenage pregnancy so that fewer children are 
born to teens.
  The majority's bill denies most benefits to teenage parents and their 
children, but goes no further. It includes no provisions to encourage 
responsible behavior among teenage parents--and no provisions to 
realistically discourage teenagers from becoming parents in the first 
place. Most troubling, the majority bill punishes innocent newborns for 
the actions of their parents.
                       child support enforcement

  There's another issue of great importance in this debate: Child 
support enforcement. The Republican bill was originally silent on the 
need for parental responsibility for child support--in spite of the 
fact that each year deadbeat parents fail to pay more than $5 billion 
they owe to support their own offspring. Many of their children are 
reliant on welfare as a result. This is more than 40 percent of the 
entire Federal cost of AFDC. At the beginning of this Congress, I 
cosponsored H.R. 785, the Child Support Responsibility Act of 1995, 
along with other members of the Congressional Caucus for Women's 
Issues. The caucus leadership testified on behalf of our bill before 
the Ways and Means Committee. I am pleased that--as a result of 
persistence on our part--the bill has now been modified to include 
strong child support enforcement provisions. I do, of course, support 
these provisions and hope that they will become law through some means 
very soon.


                          the deal substitute

  The Deal substitute provides a balance in this debate. It is tough on 
work, requiring participants to establish contracts detailing what they 
will actually do to secure private sector employment. The substitute 
provides a serious deadline: Participants can participate in a workfare 
program for 2 years. After 2 years are up, States have some flexibility 
to work with these populations--but ultimately people must work, or 
they lose their cash benefits. The Deal substitute also provides States 
with resources to improve existing workfare systems, so that 
participants actually obtain the skills they need to get and hold a 
job. Without those skills, any employer will tell you, they just won't 
find work.
  The Deal amendment increases State resources for child care, so 
families can work while ensuring adequate care for their children. The 
Deal amendment preserves the nutrition programs that are essential 
underpinning for the health of our Nation's children. I support the 
Deal substitute because it reforms welfare programs without destroying 
programs that have proven effective and important to millions of 
working Americans and their families. The Deal amendment includes tough 
provisions to strengthen the current child support enforcement systems 
so that millions of young people will be supported by parents who have 
the means to do so--instead of being supported by taxpayers. Finally, 
the Deal amendment helps address the crisis of teenage pregnancy and 
provides communities with the resources they need to prevent teenage 
pregnancy. In short, the Deal substitute provides sensible responses to 
the American public's demand for reform, but does not in the process 
hurt vulnerable children or simply shift costs to other programs.
  The Deal substitute does reform legal immigrants' eligibility for 
benefits. It builds on good ideas that already exist in the law, but 
which have not worked as they should. First and foremost, legal 
immigrants would be required to have sponsors who agree--in a legally 
binding document--that they will be financially responsible for the 
immigrant for the life of the immigrant or until the immigrant becomes 
a citizen. This amendment recognizes the problems that exist in current 
law--that sponsorship currently ends after 5 years regardless of the 
citizenship status of the immigrant and that sponsorship is not a 
legally binding obligation--and effectively corrects them.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Deal substitute. We must reform 
the welfare system to move people from welfare to work. We cannot 
afford to fail.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, we are in the midst of a historic effort 
to change Government as we know it. Not since the New Deal has Congress 
had such an active legislative agenda to address the most pressing 
problems of our day. But our philosophy of governing is very different 
from the New Deal and different from the President's approach: 
consistent with the Founders of this great country, our goal is to give 
government back to the people.
  In addressing the role of the Federal Government, Thomas Jefferson 
once said, ``I believe that the states can best govern our home 
concerns.'' We share Jefferson's fundamental faith in the ability of 
people to organize in their neighborhoods, towns, cities, counties, and 
States all across our Nation to identify and resolve our toughest 
problems. As a result, we have already begun to shrink the Federal 
Government and return power to communities, to the people back home 
where it does the most good.
  Our new ideas to reduce the size and scope of government and give 
States and communities the freedom to fashion solutions that work are 
embodied in our proposal to fix our failing welfare system. The current 
system is broken, big Government programs are lifeless and impersonal 
and it has become clear that large bureaucracies based in Washington do 
little to uplift the poor. It is a bad system that is cruel to 
children, and cruel to families.
  Republicans recognize that Washington does not have all the answers 
and are willing to give States real flexibility and resources to try 
what they find works. We know today's welfare system is full of 
perverse incentives that destroy families, denigrate the work ethic and 
trap people in a cruel cycle of government dependency. We're committed 
to replacing that failed system of despair with reforms based on the 
dignity of work and the strength of families, and yes, parental 
responsibility. By not accepting the status quo in Washington, we are 
moving solutions closer to home where we offer real hope for the 
future.
  [[Page H3783]] Today, the House passed a new plan to fix welfare that 
returns power and flexibility to States, cutting out a whole level of 
Federal bureaucracy and giving the States the ability to respond in 
innovative ways to real needs. By reducing the role of the large and 
costly bureaucracy, and by slashing redtape, we will free up more 
resources to try new local programs that will help change people's 
lives.
  The defenders of the status quo have had every opportunity to fix the 
failed welfare system. But they chose not to do so. Now, they continue 
to fight change--using irresponsible scare tactics to blur the debate 
and confuse the American people about our plan. It's simple. Our plan 
does three things: it makes people work; it stresses personal and 
parental responsibility and creates incentives for families to remain 
intact; and it cuts the endless, unnecessary Federal regulations and 
bureaucracy typical of the current system.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise to say it is about time. Since 
President Johnson declared a war on poverty 30 years ago, we have spent 
over $5 trillion and created 336 programs to fight this war. So, who 
won? No one. Not the welfare recipient or the taxpayer. The amount we 
spend in a year on welfare is roughly three times the amount needed to 
raise the incomes of all poor Americans above the income thresholds.
  My constituents tell me that the current welfare system does not 
work, they want reform. Those who oppose reform continue to say that 
the number of people on welfare will grow and thus more money is 
needed. If that is the case then this system can only be called a 
massive failure. Misguided policy incentives have resulted in a program 
that encourages economic dependence rather than independence. Welfare 
is supposed to help people become responsible and self sufficient.
  The Personal Responsibility Act will give the decisionmaking back to 
the States. State officials know what will work best. The ``one size 
fits all'' approach of the Federal Government has not worked. The 
States have consistently been the places where new ideas have been 
allowed to grow and work. It is time to allow the States to have the 
flexibility and resources to get people back to work and off the 
dependence treadmill.
  This bill has a tough work requirement, it is tough on illegitimacy, 
and tough on deadbeat parents. No longer will alcoholics and drug 
addicts get cash payments to help them continue their addiction with 
taxpayer money.
  Contrary to what the other side is saying, this bill will not cut off 
assistance to kids. Low-income children will still receive school lunch 
and WIC benefits, but no longer will the money be micromanaged by the 
Federal Government middle man. This means that more money will make it 
to women and children in need, instead of Federal bureaucrats.
  Reforming the welfare system should not cost more money or add more 
people to the rolls. It should save money and be more efficient than 
the current system. The Personal Responsibility Act saves $66.3 billion 
over 5 years by slowing the growth of welfare spending--without 
eliminating the safety net for those who truly need it. We should not 
measure compassion for the poor by how much the Government spends on 
welfare or the number of people collecting checks. We should measure 
compassion by how few people are trapped in welfare and dependent on 
the Government. If we want to protect our children, then we must reduce 
Government spending, balance the budget, and foster an economy that 
will create opportunities and jobs. That is why I am supporting H.R. 4, 
the Personal Responsibility Act.
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of talk about the 
welfare problem plaguing our country. Everyone agrees that something 
must be done; everyone that is, but my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle who seem content with the status quo. I fail to understand 
how opponents can be satisfied with a welfare state that has seen a 25-
percent increase in out-of-wedlock births since 1960. There are areas 
in my hometown of Des Moines, IA, where the illegitimacy rate is as 
high as 60 percent.
  This is totally unacceptable. We must provide incentives that help 
get individuals off of welfare. We can no longer reward young mothers 
for having more children out-of-wedlock. We can no longer be satisfied 
with the lifestyle of welfare dependency being passed from generation 
to generation.
  I was encouraged to see the language added to the Personal 
Responsibility Act which provides an incentive to States to decrease 
their rate of illegitimate births, a provision I recommended during my 
testimony earlier this year before the Ways and Means Committee. This 
is clearly a step in the right direction.
  Let's continue this step in the right direction and pass the Personal 
Responsibility Act.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to add my voice to the debate 
on welfare reform.
  A true welfare reform proposal should seek to end dependency, promote 
employment and offer a helping hand to those who deserve it. What the 
Republican majority has offered us in H.R. 4, the Personal 
Responsibility Act, however, is nothing more than another giveaway to 
big business and the wealthy. By adopting Mr. Archer's amendment 
Republicans assured that the savings from this legislation will go 
directly toward the funding of the GOP tax cut bill.
  The Republican welfare reform bill cuts vital programs that provide 
financial and nutritional assistance to low-income families. According 
to the Congressional Budget Office, the GOP bill will likely cause 
nearly 3 million families to lose $2.8 billion in benefits over the 
next 5 years. After that, the situation only get worse. Cash payments 
are reduced 50 percent by the year 2003. Needy families will suffer 
these losses through the elimination or reduction of programs like aid 
to families with dependent children [AFDC], food stamps, school 
lunches, disability payments, foster care and nutrition supplements for 
pregnant women and infant children.
  Children and legal immigrants are the real victims of this bill. No 
needy child should be denied lunch at school or food stamps at home 
because his or her parents applied after the set allocation had 
dwindled. Withdrawing assurance of help to children who are needy, 
hungry, abused, or disabled is simply unacceptable. Children should not 
suffer because their parents cannot provide.
  Nor should legal immigrants who have played by the rules and paid 
taxes be denied in their time of need. Making legal immigrants 
ineligible for public assistance should they become sick, disabled or 
unemployed 10 or 20 years after their arrival in this country is unfair 
and cruel. If the aim of the Personal Responsibility Act is to teach 
welfare recipients about work, family and responsibility, then why does 
it scapegoat a group that is the embodiment of these values?
  Under the Republican proposal States would get the same amount of 
money block granted to them each year--regardless of changes in the 
number of needy children or newcomers. This would result in some States 
being hurt disproportionately. Fewer immigrants and disabled children 
will be eligible for supplemental security income [SSI], with legal 
immigrants being denied AFDC, food stamps and Medicaid as well.
  This bill would be a disaster for my home State of California, which 
alone stands to lose $15.177 billion over the next 5 years. The House 
Republican welfare proposal would eliminate Federal funding for family 
preservation and support and several other programs that work to 
prevent child abuse and neglect. It would restrict welfare for legal 
immigrants, resulting in a $7.777 billion loss in Federal funding for 
California's residents. California would also receive $2.486 billion 
less in funding for food stamps and $1.099 billion less in nutrition 
assistance.
  Not only does this bill cut much needed assistance, but it does 
shamefully little in the way of moving welfare recipients into the work 
force. Those individuals who can work should work. But the GOP bill 
offers no help to people who need training or other assistance to get 
and hold a job.
  Unfortunately, the Republican bill is filled with rigid guidelines 
and unrealistic mandates. It compounds these drawbacks with a 
surprising lack of practical solutions, such as the opportunity for 
recipients to improve their education or gain practical work 
experience. Simply cutting off assistance will not prepare recipients 
to join the work force or provide them with jobs. True reform would 
offer education, training and transitional assistance to those 
individuals who want to exchange a welfare check for a paycheck.
  The so-called Personal Responsibility Act is nothing more than a tax 
gift for the rich and a surrender of responsibility to the States. It 
attacks the very elements of our society we should most want to help--
needy children who do not vote, have done nothing wrong, and 
desperately need our assistance to survive. It erodes basic American 
values by denying survival assistance to children and equal treatment 
under the law to all. This is certainly not my idea of welfare reform 
and you can be assured that I will oppose it at every turn.
  As a member of the board of supervisors for Santa Clara County for 14 
years, I learned a lot about welfare. The county administers the 
welfare programs for the Federal and State governments. I know very 
well the need to change welfare--to make it more effective, less 
bureaucratic and to promote work. The Republican bill does none of 
this. It is not reform, but is instead just a budget cut and a cost 
shift to local government.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, our current welfare epidemic continues to 
erode the American family and work ethic. For a growing segment of the 
population, America no longer represents the land of opportunity but 
rather the land of the welfare check. Our current welfare system 
discourages work and promotes Government dependency. Republican 
reforms 
[[Page H3784]] work to get people off of the Government dole and back 
on their own feet.
  Currently, there are over 5 million families on welfare. Only 20,000 
of those people work. For 30 years we have been measuring compassion by 
how many people are on welfare. Isn't it time we began measuring 
compassion by how few people are on welfare?
  Our Personal Responsibility Act, H.R. 4 puts the millions of people 
now on the welfare rolls onto payrolls. Republicans replace a failed 
welfare system of despair with a more compassionate solution focusing 
on work and offering hope for the future. Our bill encourages people to 
earn the freedom, responsibility, and dignity that comes with working.
  The welfare message of the past 30 years is clear. Liberal Federal 
handouts promote Government reliance and dependency. We must end this 
depressing trend. Working today prevents welfare despair and dependency 
tomorrow. Our Republican Personal Responsibility Act restores lost 
dignity and promotes a strong work ethic.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I was prepared to vote for true welfare 
reform today. As the only Democrat on the House Ways and Means 
Committee to support that panel's reform proposal earlier this month, I 
believe it represented real change of our welfare system.
  Though well-intentioned, that system is indefensible and in dire need 
of massive changes. It encourages a cycle of poverty, hopelessness, and 
despair. At the same time, it discourages family cohesiveness, 
constructive behavior, and self-reliance.
  The Ways and Means bill, while not perfect, would have started us 
down the path to dramatic, yet meaningful reform. I worked long and 
hard on the plan's SSI reforms and am proud of the outcome in that 
area. Moreover, turning welfare over to the States is a bold step 
forward and it represents an improvement over the status quo.
  Unfortunately, the bill that passed the House today contains a fatal 
flaw that I could not, in good conscience, support. Namely, it reduces 
funds for child nutrition in the name of welfare reform. Because of 
this mean-spirited provision, I will vote against this measure.
  According to Congressional Budget Office statistics--the most 
reliable and non-partisan figures available--this legislation is 
projected to underfund child nutrition programs by $11.77 billion over 
the next 5 years. At that level, funds will not keep pace with demand: 
CBO says child nutrition dollars will increase by only 2.1 percent per 
year, while demand has historically grown at a much higher level. For 
example, the Agriculture Department reports that between the 1990 and 
1994 school years, demand for school lunches increased by 23 percent.
  In my judgement, that lower level is unconscionable. We have the 
compassion to meet the basic nourishment needs of our children. Surely 
feeding children is not too much to ask of this great Nation.
  All along, I have been clear about my opposition to these changes in 
the child nutrition program. In a letter to Speaker Gingrich last week, 
I indicated that while I could support the Ways and Means bill because 
it represents true welfare reform, the school lunch program should not 
be included in the bill. My request unfortunately was ignored by the 
Speaker.
  I deeply regret that we could not vote on just the Ways and Means 
Committee's welfare reform plan today. It is my hope that cooler heads 
will prevail in the Senate and that Chamber will leave child nutrition 
intact while returning to the House true welfare reform. If and when 
that occurs, I stand ready and willing to support it.
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, I have long supported reforming our 
Nation's welfare system, because I believe our current system 
discourages welfare recipients from going to work and encourages our 
children to have children without the means to provide for them in 
their future. I supported President Clinton's efforts last year to 
reform welfare, and I strongly believe we must continue to work to 
create a welfare system that truly assists people.
  Though the Personal Responsibility Act attempts to reform our current 
welfare system, I am afraid it takes us in the wrong direction. This 
bill takes away benefits from our Nation's poor without providing a 
sensible path for them to find and maintain work.
  This bill cuts funding that would provide child care services to 
welfare recipients. How can we expect those on welfare to go to work 
when they are unable to pay for any type of child care? The bill 
mandates States to require welfare recipients to go to work after 
receiving benefits for 2 years, but it fails to provide for increased 
funding for needed welfare-to-work programs.
  Instead, the bill repeals the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills 
Program, which currently provides 90 percent Federal matching funds for 
education, training, and support services for welfare recipients. The 
bill also includes no requirements for States to include education, 
training, and support services in their welfare programs.
  The bill also replaces our Nation's School Lunch and School Breakfast 
Programs with a school-based nutrition block grant. By converting these 
important nutrition programs targeted at our children into a block 
grant, we would be capping these benefits and ultimately, we would be 
cutting access to this program to some 2 million children.
  In the 19th Congressional District, over 1.3 million meals are 
subsidized by this program each year, and I can not imagine having to 
turn away one child who looks to this program for their only nutritious 
meal of the day. As rural Americans face high unemployment in their 
communities, these programs are often necessary to bridging the gap 
between the loss of work and future economic stability.
  Like many of the block grants created in this bill, States would get 
a fixed amount of money to fund school-based nutrition programs. If a 
recession occurred, States would receive no additional Federal funding 
to assist the increased number of children who would be eligible for 
this program. During the last recession, the number of low-income 
children receiving meals under this program increased by 1.2 million.
  I believe the State of Illinois will be seriously affected by this 
block grant legislation that would reduce Federal support for child 
welfare by $5.6 billion over 5 years. This would mean a 5-year loss of 
$512 million in Federal child welfare funds to Illinois between 1996 
and 2000. In an attempt to put parents back to work, we would end up 
only punishing the children caught in this difficult situation.
  Finally, the savings from this bill are not going to deficit 
reduction or even to programs that will help people leave welfare. 
Instead, the $69.4 billion is going to finance a number of tax cuts 
proposed in the Contract With America. I can not support a bill that 
takes from the poor in order to provide tax cuts to businesses and 
wealthy Americans, especially when Congress is working to balance the 
Federal budget.
  I support the Deal substitute for welfare reform, because I feel this 
plan would successfully move recipients from welfare to work. The plan 
helps welfare recipients move into the work force by increasing funding 
for education, job training, and child care. In addition, it creates a 
work first program that puts people back to work, and requires States 
to increase participation by welfare recipients in this program over 8 
years.
  The Deal substitute limits welfare benefits going to a recipient 
after 2 years. Welfare recipients would then be eligible, for an 
additional 2 years, for either a workfare job or a job placement 
voucher. The Deal plan is reasonable and workable, because it contains 
provisions to ensure that welfare recipients are better off 
economically by taking a job rather than staying on welfare.
  It is vital that we pass welfare reform that puts people back to 
work, but it is equally important to do it in a reasonable manner. The 
Republican bill clearly fails to provide an opportunity to welfare 
recipients, because it cuts or eliminates important programs that allow 
people to make the transition into the workplace. Unless we can 
guarantee welfare recipients a fair and sensible chance to go back to 
work, Congress must continue to develop a reform package that helps and 
not hurts people in need.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us today, the 
Personal Responsibility Act, H.R. 4, will drastically alter the welfare 
system in our Nation. I support welfare reform, but there are serious 
flaws in this bill. One of the primary problems of the bill is that it 
does not even mention the 1.2 million Native Americans or the 553 
federally recognized American Indian tribes who reside in this country. 
To remedy this situation, Members from both sides of the aisle worked 
together to develop an amendment to allow Indian tribes access to the 
block grant provisions in the bill. Mr. Young of Alaska, the 
distinguished chairman of the Resources Committee, and I sponsored this 
amendment, but remarkably, the Rules Committee would not accept it for 
presentation on the floor. I am outraged that the Rules Committee has 
chosen to ignore the recommendations of the Resources Committee, and 
more importantly, the vital needs of Native Americans.
  The amendment would restore existing block grants to tribal 
governments that have been repealed by H.R. 4. The amendment is 
consistent with many current Federal statutes, including a 3 percent 
allocation to tribes under the child care and development block grant 
and a 3.3 percent allocation to tribes under the Job Training 
Partnership Act. It is also consistent with longstanding policy, 
endorsed by every administration since the early 1960's, that we must 
maintain government-to-government relationships with tribes, and 
further Native American self-determination.
  These principles take on heightened significance as we restructure 
our welfare system. 
[[Page H3785]] Establishing direct allocations to Native Americans 
provides tribal governments with the same meaningful opportunity to 
develop new assistance programs that is being afforded each of the 50 
States. Indian tribes are not subunits of State governments. Their 
relationship is on a government-to-government basis with the Federal 
Government.
  Tribes and tribal organizations are service providers and are in the 
best position to develop and administer services in their communities. 
Tribal governments are no different than State and local governments in 
understanding they have unique knowledge and qualifications critical to 
providing effective services to their communities. Political leaders 
and program administrators throughout the United States recognize that 
community-based assistance programs are typically cost effective and 
deliver better services, and tribal leaders share these views.
  Tribes have developed local infrastructures to manage funds and 
administer programs despite the fact that their access to Federal 
funding has been inconsistent and below amounts given to States. Tribal 
programs include cash assistance, child care, education, job training, 
and law enforcement.
  I am deeply concerned that State block grants and spending cuts will 
have acute effects on Native Americans. Tribal communities experience 
some of the highest levels of poverty of any group in the United 
States. According to the 1990 census, 31 percent of Indian people live 
below the poverty line, the highest rate of any single group reported. 
Nearly 40 percent of Native American children live in poverty. Certain 
State rates for Indian children living in poverty are astounding: 63 
percent in South Dakota, 58 percent in North Dakota, 57 percent in 
Nebraska, 50 percent in New Mexico, 49 percent in Wyoming, and 47 
percent in Utah. Tribal families face serious challenges to becoming 
self-sufficient: 27 percent are headed by women with no husband 
present, and 50 percent of those families live in poverty. Increased 
funding and locally-based services are critical to improving these 
statistics.
  As currently proposed, State block grants would result in disparate 
treatment for Native Americans. Native Americans will be treated 
differently from State to State, even where their tribal boundaries 
spread across State lines, which is illogical and unfair. Also States 
may overlook the unique cultural, geographic, and economic needs of 
Native Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, the Rules Committee must accept personal responsibility 
for destroying current block grants to Native Americans. By denying 
Members the opportunity to vote on our bipartisan amendment, tribal 
governments have been shut out of welfare reform. Native Americans had 
the first contract with America; once again, we have failed to honor 
that contract.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.

                              {time}  1245
  Accordingly the Committee rose, and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Kolbe) 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, pursuant to House Resolution 119, he 
reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the 
Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any further amendment thereto?
  If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


          motion to recommit offered by Mr. gibbons

  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. GIBBONS. I certainly am, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Gibbons of Florida moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4 to 
     the Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       At the end, add the following new section:

     SEC.  . DEFICIT REDUCTION

       Reductions in outlays from the enactment of this Act shall 
     be used to reduce the deficit and shall not be taken into 
     account for purposes of section 252 of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. GIBBONS. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, as I understand the procedure we are under 
now, the proponents and the opponents of the motion to recommit have a 
total of 5 minutes each.
  Is that correct?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct. Under the rules of the 
House the gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GIBBONS. A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Would it be in order if I were to request by unanimous 
consent that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] have 5 additional 
minutes and that the gentleman from Florida, myself, have 5 additional 
minutes?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's request is in order by a 
unanimous-consent request.
        request for additional debate time on motion to recommit

  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I make a unanimous-consent request.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] is 
making a unanimous-consent request that time for debate on the motion 
to recommit be extended to 10 minutes a side; is that correct?
  Mr. GIBBONS. Yes, I make that unanimous-consent request.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, the motion to 
recommit is very simple. It is an issue that has been debated for hours 
in this House already. I see no reason why the standard rules of 
operation of 10 minutes on a motion to recommit with instructions 
should not be followed as it routinely has been over all the years that 
I have been in this House of Representatives.
  Mr. Speaker, I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.


                        parliamentary inquiries

  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, is it not considered proper under the rules 
of the House for the manager of the majority's time to ask for up to an 
hour of debate on a motion to recommit? Is that not correct?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. If the majority manager of the time requests 
it, yes.
  Mr. ROEMER. So, under the rules, Mr. Speaker, it would be OK to get 
an hour, and we are asking for 5 minutes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unanimous-consent request was to extend 
time by 5 additional minutes on each side. Objection was heard under 
the rules of the House.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GIBBONS. A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Did the Chair say I can ask for an hour?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is incorrect. 
Under the rules the manager of the bill, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Archer], could ask for up to an hour.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Oh, he could?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
  The chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GIBBONS. I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit is very straightforward and very 
easily understood. It has passed this House on record vote on this 
issue by substantial bipartisan support. I hope it will be adopted on a 
bipartisan basis.
  Mr. Speaker, it says simply that the 70 billion dollars' worth of 
savings here 
[[Page H3786]] that comes out of the mouths of hungry children can only 
be spent for deficit reduction.
  Now charges have been made that this $70 billion will be spent for an 
untimely tax reduction for some people whose names I will not mention, 
but this is very simple, very straightforward. It takes this money, 
puts it in a lockbox and says, ``This $70 billion can only be used for 
deficit reduction.''
  It seems fair that, if we are going to take this money from these 
children, we at least ought to not leave them with debt.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
Ford].
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, let us do the math.
  Mr. Speaker, let us see if we can figure out how the Republicans will 
pay for those tax cuts they have promised their rich friends. Look at 
this chart and see how it would work.
  The tax cuts cost about $200 billion over the next 5 years with 
nearly a half of that going to people earning more than $100,000 a 
year.
  Who pays for this gift from Uncle Sam to the privileged few in this 
country? Let us take a look at it.
  Twenty-four billion dollars is donated by poor families with 
children. Food stamp recipients contribute $19 billion. Kids who lose 
school lunches, child care, WIC, ante up another $12 billion. Abused 
and neglected children pay $2 billion. Legal immigrants contribute 
about $21 billion. The only thing we can be certain of now is that the 
$70 billion is going to be taken from the children and the poor of this 
country to go to the rich.
  I say to my Republican colleagues, Pick on someone your own size.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, may I make another parliamentary inquiry?
  The SPEAKER, pro tempore. The gentleman may state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Archer] would like to yield to some Republican at this point.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida must use his time 
now, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] has his 5 minutes after 
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] has completed.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, every 2 minutes this Nation 
spends $1 million on interest on the national debt, every 2 minutes. I 
say to my colleagues:

       In a moment you're going to have an opportunity to say 
     enough is enough, that we're going to save some money, but 
     we're going to take that money and apply to towards the 
     deficit and apply it towards the debt rather than giving 
     millionaires a tax break.

  Mr. Speaker, again I would like to make the point that every 2 
minutes the citizens of this country are paying $1 million on interest 
on the national debt. That is not going toward principal, that is just 
the interest.
  Now in a moment the people in this Chamber will have an opportunity 
to make a vote toward reducing the deficit and, hopefully, reducing the 
debt, or my colleagues can vote no and give millionaires another tax 
break.
  I say to my colleagues:

       If you care about the people of this country, vote to 
     reduce the deficit. If you are what you told the people back 
     home last fall, be a real conservative and vote to reduce the 
     deficit.
                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, may I make another parliamentary inquiry?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman shall state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. GIBBONS. I would like to yield to a few Members for unanimous-
consent requests, but I do not want it to come out of my time. Am I 
correct that unanimous-consent requests do not come out of the 
remaining 3 minutes that I have?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] has 
2 minutes remaining, and the time for unanimous-consent requests does 
not come out of his remaining 2 minutes providing the Members do not 
make speeches when they ask for unanimous consent to revise and extend.
  Mr. GIBBONS. I understand that, Mr. Speaker, yes, that is fair.
  Mr. Speaker, 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. Speaker, I rise to support the motion to 
recommit and in opposition to H.R. 4.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4, it is bad public 
policy and it is bad politics.
  The American people sent both Republicans and Democrats here to 
reform our welfare system.
  As a member of our Democratic task force on welfare reform, I join my 
colleagues in acknowledging that the current welfare system is broken 
and must be fixed.
  We want to reform the system so it can truly fulfill its original 
purposes and promises--to lift people out of poverty, move them into 
real jobs, and empower them to become independent, self-supporting and 
productive citizens.
  To achieve these goals, welfare reform must include a renewed sense 
of individual responsibility through a commitment to work.
  Real jobs, real job training and transitional child care must be a 
part of any bill that we realistically expect to change things for the 
better.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4 ignores all of these critically important aspects 
of true reform.
  I cast my vote against the bill because: It slashes benefits--most of 
which go to children;
  It fails to articulate guidelines and principles for the States as it 
washes the Federal Government's hands of a responsibility that has had 
bipartisan support for decades;
  It makes no provisions for providing real jobs, real training and 
child care that would free the minds of welfare parents from their 
worries about their children's safety and care while they struggle to 
turn their lives around;
  It fails to protect the very health of our children by cutting into 
longstanding, bipartisan school and family nutrition programs that, for 
decades, helped form the foundation of our Nation's very humanity; and
  Most egregious of all, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that the purported 
budget savings of H.R. 4 have been earmarked by my colleagues in the 
majority for tax breaks for many of our most well-to-do citizens.
  This $66-billion redistribution of wealth--from the very poor to the 
rather comfortable--disregards entirely the will of the American people 
who have made it clear that, what they want most, is deficit reduction.
  Mr. Speaker, my Democratic colleagues, Mr. Deal and Mrs. Mink, 
offered welfare bills comprising real reform, and I voted to support 
those bills.
  Mr. Speaker, I also voted to recommit the short-sighted and punitive 
H.R. 4 to the Ways and Means Committee for revisions.
  I will continue to raise my voice in support of effective, 
constructive welfare reform that includes heavy doses of both 
compassion and individual responsibility.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan [Ms. Rivers].
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion to 
recommit. It is a clear choice between bringing down the deficit and 
spending money on tax cuts.
  Make no mistake about it. This is an opportunity to do something good 
for children. A ``no'' vote is an insult to injury. We will hurt 
children today by taking food out of their mouth and the programs they 
need, and we will hurt children tomorrow by leaving them a staggering 
national debt.
  There is no possible justification for a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon].
  (Mr. DIXON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 4, 
the Personal Responsibility Act. The Republicans claim that their bill 
will break the cycle of poverty for welfare families. Nothing can be 
further from the truth. The measure does not provide the education and 
training people need to move from welfare to work, would allow States 
to produce illusory work program participation rates, and punishes 
children. I thought the goal of reforming the welfare system was to 
provide people with real opportunities to become self-sufficient, not 
to set up faulty work requirements and to place children at risk.
  Contrary to the Republican rhetoric, there are no real work 
requirements in this legislation. It only requires States to run 
welfare-to-work programs and increase participation rates to 50 percent 
by 2003. H.R. 4 repeals the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills [JOBS] 
Program under the Family Support Act, which 
[[Page H3787]] provided education and training to enable people to find 
employment. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, 
as of fiscal year 1993, 17 percent of the AFDC caseload is working or 
participating in JOBS. Under H.R. 4, only 4 percent of a State's 
caseload has to be participating in any kind of work activity in fiscal 
year 1996.
  Moreover, in calculating the number of people who must be engaged in 
work activities, States may count people kicked off the rolls as being 
employed or working toward employment. This does not appear to be a 
good incentive for the States to provide work opportunities. Indeed, we 
may be creating a system that encourages States to disqualify as many 
welfare recipients as possible in order to meet participation 
requirements.
  By ending the entitlement status of nutrition programs, such as the 
School Breakfast and Lunch Programs, the Child and Adult Care Food 
Program, and the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, 
and Children [WIC], this legislation removes the safety net for the 
most vulnerable in our society. Over 5 years, the block grants and 
meager funding levels provided in H.R. 4 will have the effect of taking 
$6.6 billion from children's nutrition programs when the number of poor 
increases due to rescissions. According to the Children's Defense Fund, 
cuts to the child care food program alone would result in 1 million 
children losing meals in the fifth year of the act's implementation.
  The bill even eliminates national nutrition standards that guarantee 
America's children access to healthy meals at school, standards 
developed over 50 years of the programs' operations.
  Through their faulty work requirements and the elimination of 
nutritious meals for children, the Republican welfare plan offers 
nothing but continuing unemployment, hunger, and homelessness. I 
strongly urge my colleagues to oppose these misguided efforts to reform 
our welfare system.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake].
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to recommit.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, 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. Speaker, I rise in support of the recommittal motion.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
                              {time}  1300

  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, it is lunchtime in Indiana, and the 
Republican meat ax has fallen, not just on chicken and sausage, but on 
carrots, peas, milk, and orange juice. Now, we can have on this 
amendment, if you are going to take those nickels and dimes and 
quarters from children, you have the opportunity to at least put it to 
deficit reduction if you vote for the motion to recommit. Or if you do 
not, that nickel and dime and quarter will go for tax breaks, tax cuts 
for people making up to $190,000 a year.
  Vote for the motion to recommit. Vote for children.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman].
  (Mr. COLEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of the motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to state my vociferous opposition to the 
Republican welfare bill that is being considered today.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republican welfare reform proposal does not succeed 
in delivering to the American public what they want: a welfare system 
that encourages parents to work to support their families and protects 
vulnerable children.
  The American people want a welfare plan that replaces a welfare check 
with a paycheck. The Republican bill, however, takes the State 
flexibility aspect to the extreme by block granting programs to the 
States with few strings attached. For example, the Republican bill 
subjects only 4 percent of the caseload to a work requirement in 1996. 
It effectively lets the States do nothing for 2 years, then it cuts 
people off without a safety net. Mr. Speaker, this is not a work-based 
welfare system.
  There is also no requirement for education, training, and support 
services. If we truly want welfare families to support themselves, 
education, training, and job placement services must be a part of each 
State program.
  Let me also cite a few facts of the Ways and Means passed version of 
this bill affecting children:
  The Republican bill punishes a child--until the mother is 18 years 
old--for being born out-of-wedlock to a young parent--title I.
  The Republican bill punishes a child--for his or her entire 
childhood--for the sin of being born to a family on welfare, even 
though the child did not ask to be born--title I.
  The Republican bill punishes a child, by denying cash aid, when a 
State does not establish paternity in a reasonable time.
  The Republican bill leaves children out in the cold when a State runs 
out of Federal money--title I.
  The Republican bill throws some medically-disabled children off SSI 
because of bureaucratic technicalities.
  The Republican bill eliminates our most precious national 
entitlement, that foster care will be guaranteed to any child who is 
abused or neglected--title II.
  And finally, the Republican bill cuts aid to poor children to pay for 
tax cuts for the rich, as stated by the Budget Committee chairman the 
other day.
  For my State of Texas, the effects of the Personal Responsibility Act 
could be devastating. By replacing the Aid to Families with Dependent 
Children [AFDC], Emergency Assistance [EA], child care,
 child welfare, and nutrition assistance with block grants to the 
States, this bill will ensure that Texas and its residents will receive 
less funding for welfare related programs.

  A recent Department of Health and Human Services study showed that 
Texas could lose $5.208 billion over 5 years. The number of Texas 
children losing AFDC benefits because of block granting is estimated at 
297,000.
  Further, block grant funding will not make all the States share 
equally in the reduced cost of Federal aid. The formulas 
disproportionately hurt States that have a growing population, 
especially the States with high percentages of young people in poor and 
near-poor families and that have historically been conservative in 
paying for their federally aided social services programs. That 
description fits Texas to a ``T''.
  Texas will lose in welfare-related programs, from Medicaid to AFDC to 
nutrition to nursing homes, while richer, no-growth, higher benefit 
States gain because the block grants are based on what States are doing 
for whom right now. Texas is growing. It is like buying a full wardrobe 
for an adolescent boy. Pretty soon he will need new clothes.
  Even more, the community that I represent, El Paso, TX, has 
historically never done well in block grant funding distributed by our 
State capital. My district, located almost 600 miles from Austin, has 
recently been the focus of a court of inquiry exploring the reasons why 
it has never received funding at the levels of other similarly sized 
Texas cities. When the Federal Government abdicates its 
responsibilities to the States, El Paso will again be the overlooked 
sibling.
  The Republicans finance their plan by cutting welfare to legal 
immigrants. Mr. Speaker, this is the wrong way to go. We are talking 
about taxpaying residents of this country. Legal immigrants are less 
likely than native-born citizens to use welfare. A legal immigrant who 
has worked hard, paid his taxes, and has an unforeseen disaster is 
ineligible for benefits under SSI, temporary family assistance block 
grant [AFDC], the child protection block grant, and the title XX block 
grant regardless of the circumstances. In addition, the Republican bill 
encourages States and localities to deny assistance to legal 
immigrants.
  But there is a provision hidden away in this bill that gives benefits 
to a special category of agricultural workers known as foreign 
agricultural guestworkers [H-2A's]. Mr. Speaker, these H-2A's are made 
eligible for public benefits, while our hardworking and poor American 
farmworkers who are displaced from these very jobs are made ineligible 
for those same benefits. This provision is surely an agribusiness 
handout from the
 committee of jurisdiction.

  Our Nation's welfare system needs an overhaul. It locks many families 
in generational poverty. It creates disincentives for fathers to live 
at home with their families. It fails to offer a clear road back to the 
work force for those who have stumbled along the way. However, the 
Republican proposal is clearly not a better alternative. It would force 
single parents to choose between the dignity of work and safety of 
their children.
  Despite the stereotypes, welfare is not a way of life for most AFDC 
recipients. Most leave welfare within 2 years, and many do not return. 
Much of what lies at the core of this debate is divisive and 
hypocritical. Other national problems burden the Federal Treasury more 
than welfare. Other categories of ``handouts'' extend billions of 
Federal benefits to corporate recipients. Where is the Republican 
outrage over that kind of dependency?
  Mr. Speaker, in their eagerness to deliver on their campaign promise, 
the Republicans are rushing to act on the welfare question 
[[Page H3788]] without taking the time to examine their reforms. This 
bill is so bad that the Rules Committee approved more than 30 
amendments in a vain attempt to fix this bill. Let me tell my 
colleagues on the other side that if they adopt some of these 
amendments, the bill will not be fixed; it will be worse than before. 
The Senate will be forced to start from scratch to develop their 
welfare proposal, because this bill is too extreme.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the wrong bill to address the welfare dilemma. I 
oppose it, and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Ward].
  (Mr. WARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WARD. I rise in support of the motion to recommit for children.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Stenholm], the granddaddy of the economy drive around here, 
and the granddaddy of the balanced budget amendment.
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit could not be more 
clear. It is the exact same motion that I wished to give as part of the 
regular bill, but was denied under the rule. It says simply reductions 
in outlays resulting from this act shall be used to reduce the deficit.
  Proponents of H.R. 4 have claimed impressive savings from their 
welfare reform, trusting that the public will hear the word ``savings'' 
and interpret that to mean deficit reduction. I want to make it 
perfectly clear, on this vote there is not 1 cent of the Republican 
welfare reform guaranteed to go for deficit reduction, unless we 
approve this motion to recommit. Do not be fooled into believing 
anything to the contrary.
  I am appalled that organizations which have claimed to be for deficit 
reduction have now chosen to key vote in opposition to recommittal. It 
is one thing to say you support the reforms in this bill, which many 
do, and that is an honest position to hold. It is entirely different to 
say that you do not want to guarantee deficit reduction.
  My friends who have always claimed that deficit reduction is of the 
highest priority, vote yes on this motion to recommit, and be for 
deficit reduction. We may not have many more opportunities.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). The time of the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Gibbons] has expired.
  The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose the Democrat's latest attempt to dress 
their big spending, big taxing ways in the clothes of a deficit cutter. 
Just yesterday the Democrats' welfare substitute showed their true 
colors. They proposed to increase welfare spending by $70 billion more 
than our proposal, and they raised taxes on middle-income working 
Americans to pay for their extra spending.
  Mr. Speaker, that is going precisely in the wrong direction. 
Government is too big and it spends too much. Republicans intend to cut 
the size of Government and, in doing so, to give the taxpayers a well-
deserved tax refund. The taxpayers should not have to pay again and 
again so that bureaucrats in Washington can add more failure to the 
failed welfare state. That is why I am proud that our bill cuts 
spending by $66 billion, and we do not raise taxes.
  Make no mistake about it, the American people are overtaxed. And when 
you look at the broken welfare system that we stand on the verge of 
fixing, you can see why. As we fix welfare, of course, we intend to 
stop making taxpayers pay for failure. We intend to let the working 
people of this country keep more of the money that they make.
  When it comes to welfare reform, I believe Congress should say to the 
taxpayers and welfare beneficiaries, satisfaction guaranteed or your 
money back. The failed welfare state has not guaranteed satisfaction to 
anyone, not to welfare beneficiaries, and certainly not to taxpayers. 
It is time that taxpayers got their money back. After all, it is their 
money to begin with. It is not ours. We have no business taking it from 
them in the first place if we are only going to spend it on a failed 
program. We are fixing welfare, Mr. Speaker, and the taxpayers deserve 
a piece of the fix.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Kasich], the chairman of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I want everybody on both sides of the aisle 
to know that in May, we are all going to have this great opportunity to 
vote on the largest deficit reduction package achieved by spending cuts 
in the history of this Congress. This May we are going to vote on it, 
and we are going to watch how we all vote.
  Mr. Speaker, it is truly incredible when we come back in April we are 
going to lay down a package that not only give American taxpayers some 
of their money back, but it is going to have $60 billion in greater 
deficit reduction than the President's package. In fact, his package 
when scored under actual 1995 spending, sends up the deficit by over 
$30 billion. We have done better than what the President has done in 
just March, and we have not even got until May, when we are going to 
lay the whole package down.
  Let me suggest to all of you here, come May, and I am not just 
talking to my friends on the Democrat side, I am talking to my 
colleagues as well, in May we are going to come through these doors and 
we are going to have a card and we are going to be able to vote on 
balancing the budget.
  Now, let me tell you, I saw one of my American heroes this morning. I 
see him every morning. You know who he is? He is out in Crystal City. 
He sells newspapers. He runs from one car to another car to another 
car. He is out there when it is raining, he is out there when it is 
snowing, he is out there when it is hot, he is out there when it is 
cold. He is wet. He does his job. And you know what? If we are going to 
take any money out of his pocket, it better be for real good things. 
Government does not have a right to take more than what it needs out of 
that gentleman's pocket. And do you know what we are going to do?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The House will be in order.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] 
yield for a parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, does it go off my time?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Yes, it does.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I will not yield if it goes off my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] has 15 
seconds remaining. The gentleman may proceed.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, my dad carried mail on his back. You know 
why he wants us to have a prosperous country through capital gains? So 
his kid could become educated and become a Congressman.
  Let me tell you one other thing. You know who hates the rich? You 
know who hates the rich? Guilty rich people hate the rich. That is who 
hate the rich.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Armey], the majority leader.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, we have come to the end of a long and arduous task. Over 
3 years our minority leader, Mr. Michel, created the first task force 
on welfare reform because he knew we must do something about this 
system, not because people abuse the system, but because the system so 
much, so often, abuses the people.
  In those days when we were in the minority we had only a task force 
with which to take recourse to try to develop legislative initiatives, 
and we despaired of the unwillingness of the majority to address the 
issue.
  We took heart during the campaign of 1992 when the Democrat candidate 
for President said we must do something to end welfare as we know it, 
because it is as we know it too cruel to the Nation's children, and we 
thought real reform would come forward when they won their majority in 
both houses and the White House.
  It did not happen. It did not come forward. Last November, we had a 
new 
[[Page H3789]] charge and a new responsibility, a new opportunity, a 
new opportunity to move beyond task forces and into the committees, and 
three committees have worked long and hard and worked in a way that has 
been more inclusive than I have ever seen before, including all the 
Governors with whom we would charge this responsibility.
  We have created a truly compassionate reform. This reform effort has 
been assaulted. We have often as individuals been assaulted, all too 
often with language that is neither kind nor gentlemanly.
  Now they use this motion to recommit to try to stop the contract 
because they could not stop this reform.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote no on this motion to 
recommit; vote yes on the bill.


                        parliamentary inquiries

  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida will state it.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, could we possibly get as much time as the 
majority leader spent?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not stated a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas will state it.
  Mr. DeLAY. Has it not been the longstanding tradition of this House 
to allow the majority leaders of both parties, including the Speaker of 
both parties, to have a little extra time when they are speaking?
                              {time}  1315

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). The gentleman is making an 
observation, not stating a parliamentary inquiry.
  All time on the motion to recommit has expired.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, 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 2, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 268]

                               AYES--205

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     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
     Diaz-Balart
     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
     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
     Ros-Lehtinen
     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
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--228

     Allard
     Andrews
     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
     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
     Gingrich
     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
     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--2

     Brown (CA)
     Mollohan
       

                              {time}  1332

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             RECORDED VOTE

  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER. This is a 15-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 234, 
noes 199, not voting 2, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 269]

                               AYES--234

     Allard
     Andrews
     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)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     DeLay
     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
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     [[Page H3790]] Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     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
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     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
     Rose
     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
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--199

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     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)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     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
     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
     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
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Brown (CA)
     Skelton
       

                              {time}  1350

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  

                          ____________________