Congressional Record, Volume 148 Issue 63 (Thursday, May 16, 2002)

[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 63 (Thursday, May 16, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H2517-H2590]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, WORK, AND FAMILY PROMOTION ACT OF 2002

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 422 I call up
the bill (H.R. 4737) to reauthorize and improve the program of block
grants to States for temporary assistance for needy families, improve
access to quality child care, and for other purposes, and ask for its
immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 422, the bill
is considered read for amendment.
The text of H.R. 4737 is as follows:

H.R. 4737

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Personal Responsibility,
Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2002''.

SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

The table of contents of this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.
Sec. 3. References.
Sec. 4. Findings.

TITLE I--TANF

Sec. 101. Purposes.
Sec. 102. Family assistance grants.
Sec. 103. Promotion of family formation and healthy marriage.
Sec. 104. Supplemental grant for population increases in certain
States.
Sec. 105. Bonus to reward employment achievement.
Sec. 106. Contingency fund.
Sec. 107. Use of funds.
Sec. 108. Repeal of Federal loan for State welfare programs.
Sec. 109. Universal engagement and family self-sufficiency plan
requirements.
Sec. 110. Work participation requirements.
Sec. 111. Maintenance of effort.
Sec. 112. Performance improvement.
Sec. 113. Data collection and reporting.
Sec. 114. Direct funding and administration by Indian tribes.
Sec. 115. Research, evaluations, and national studies.
Sec. 116. Studies by the Census Bureau and the General Accounting
Office.
Sec. 117. Definition of assistance.
Sec. 118. Technical corrections.
Sec. 119. Fatherhood program.
Sec. 120. State option to make TANF programs mandatory partners with
one-stop employment training centers.
Sec. 121. Sense of the Congress.

TITLE II--CHILD CARE

Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Goals.
Sec. 203. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 204. Application and plan.
Sec. 205. Activities to improve the quality of child care.
Sec. 206. Report by Secretary.
Sec. 207. Definitions.
Sec. 208. Entitlement funding.

TITLE III--TAXPAYER PROTECTIONS

Sec. 301. Exclusion from gross income for interest on overpayments of
income tax by individuals.
Sec. 302. Deposits made to suspend running of interest on potential
underpayments.
Sec. 303. Partial payment of tax liability in installment agreements.

TITLE IV--CHILD SUPPORT

Sec. 401. Federal matching funds for limited pass through of child
support payments to families receiving TANF.

[[Page H2518]]

Sec. 402. State option to pass through all child support payments to
families that formerly received TANF.
Sec. 403. Mandatory review and adjustment of child support orders for
families receiving TANF.
Sec. 404. Mandatory fee for successful child support collection for
family that has never received TANF.
Sec. 405. Report on undistributed child support payments.
Sec. 406. Use of new hire information to assist in administration of
unemployment compensation programs.
Sec. 407. Decrease in amount of child support arrearage triggering
passport denial.
Sec. 408. Use of tax refund intercept program to collect past-due child
support on behalf of children who are not minors.
Sec. 409. Garnishment of compensation paid to veterans for service-
connected disabilities in order to enforce child support
obligations.
Sec. 410. Improving Federal debt collection practices.
Sec. 411. Maintenance of technical assistance funding.
Sec. 412. Maintenance of Federal Parent Locator Service funding.

TITLE V--CHILD WELFARE

Sec. 501. Extension of authority to approve demonstration projects.
Sec. 502. Elimination of limitation on number of waivers.
Sec. 503. Elimination of limitation on number of States that may be
granted waivers to conduct demonstration projects on same
topic.
Sec. 504. Elimination of limitation on number of waivers that may be
granted to a single State for demonstration projects.
Sec. 505. Streamlined process for consideration of amendments to and
extensions of demonstration projects requiring waivers.
Sec. 506. Availability of reports.
Sec. 507. Technical correction.

TITLE VI--SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME

Sec. 601. Review of State agency blindness and disability
determinations.

TITLE VII--STATE AND LOCAL FLEXIBILITY

Sec. 701. Program coordination demonstration projects.
Sec. 702. State food assistance block grant demonstration project.

TITLE VIII--ABSTINENCE EDUCATION

Sec. 801. Extension of abstinence education funding under maternal and
child health program.

TITLE IX--TRANSITIONAL MEDICAL ASSISTANCE

Sec. 901. One-year reauthorization of transitional medical assistance.
Sec. 902. Adjustment to payments for medicaid administrative costs to
prevent duplicative payments and to fund a 1-year
extension of transitional medical assistance.

TITLE X--EFFECTIVE DATE

Sec. 1001. Effective date.

SEC. 3. REFERENCES.

Except as otherwise expressly provided, wherever in this
Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an
amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the
amendment or repeal shall be considered to be made to a
section or other provision of the Social Security Act.

SEC. 4. FINDINGS.

The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
Program established by the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-193)
has succeeded in moving families from welfare to work and
reducing child poverty.
(A) There has been a dramatic increase in the employment of
current and former welfare recipients. The percentage of
working recipients reached an all-time high in fiscal years
1999 and 2000. In fiscal year 1999, 33 percent of adult
recipients were working, compared to less than 7 percent in
fiscal year 1992, and 11 percent in fiscal year 1996. All
States met the overall participation rate standard in fiscal
year 2000, as did the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.
(B) Earnings for welfare recipients remaining on the rolls
have also increased significantly, as have earnings for
female-headed households. The increases have been
particularly large for the bottom 2 income quintiles, that
is, those women who are most likely to be former or present
welfare recipients.
(C) Welfare dependency has plummeted. As of September 2001,
2,103,000 families and 5,333,000 individuals were receiving
assistance. Accordingly, the number of families in the
welfare caseload and the number of individuals receiving cash
assistance declined 52 percent and 56 percent, respectively,
since the enactment of TANF. These declines have persisted
even as unemployment rates have increased: unemployment rates
nationwide rose 25 percent, from 3.9 percent in September
2000 to 4.9 percent in September 2001, while welfare
caseloads continued to drop by 7 percent.
(D) The child poverty rate continued to decline between
1996 and 2000, falling 21 percent from 20.5 to 16.2 percent.
The 2000 child poverty rate is the lowest since 1979. Child
poverty rates for African-American and Hispanic children have
also fallen dramatically during the past 6 years. African-
American child poverty is at the lowest rate on record and
Hispanic child poverty has had the largest 4-year decrease on
record.
(E) Despite these gains, States have had mixed success in
fully engaging welfare recipients in work activities. While
all States have met the overall work participation rates
required by law, in 2000, in an average month, only about \1/
3\ of all families with an adult participated in work
activities that were countable toward the State's
participation rate. Eight jurisdictions failed to meet the
more rigorous 2-parent work requirements, and about 20 States
are not subject to the 2-parent requirements, most because
they moved their 2-parent cases to separate State programs
where they are not subject to a penalty for failing the 2-
parent rates.
(2) As a Nation, we have made substantial progress in
reducing teen pregnancies and births, slowing increases in
nonmarital childbearing, and improving child support
collections and paternity establishment.
(A) The teen birth rate has fallen continuously since 1991,
down a dramatic 22 percent by 2000. During the period of
1991-2000, teenage birth rates fell in all States and the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
Declines also have spanned age, racial, and ethnic groups.
There has been success in lowering the birth rate for both
younger and older teens. The birth rate for those 15-17 years
of age is down 29 percent since 1991, and the rate for those
18 and 19 is down 16 percent. Between 1991 and 2000, teen
birth rates declined for all women ages 15-19--white, African
American, American Indian, Asian or Pacific Islander, and
Hispanic women ages 15-19. The rate for African American
teens--until recently the highest--experienced the largest
decline, down 31 percent from 1991 to 2000, to reach the
lowest rate ever reported for this group. Most births to
teens are nonmarital; in 2000, about 73 percent of the births
to teens aged 15-19 occurred outside of marriage.
(B) Nonmarital childbearing continued to increase slightly
in 2000, however not at the sharp rates of increase seen in
recent decades. The birth rate among unmarried women in 2000
was 3.5 percent lower than its peak reached in 1994, while
the proportion of births occurring outside of marriage has
remained at approximately 33 percent since 1998.
(C) The negative consequences of out-of-wedlock birth on
the mother, the child, the family, and society are well
documented. These include increased likelihood of welfare
dependency, increased risks of low birth weight, poor
cognitive development, child abuse and neglect, and teen
parenthood, and decreased likelihood of having an intact
marriage during adulthood.
(D) An estimated 23,900,000 children do not live with their
biological father. 16,000,000 children live with their mother
only. These facts are attributable largely to declining
marriage rates, increasing divorce rates, and increasing
rates of nonmarital births during the latter part of the 20th
century.
(E) There has been a dramatic rise in cohabitation as
marriages have declined. Only 40 percent of children of
cohabiting couples will see their parents marry. Those who do
marry experience a 50 percent higher divorce rate. Children
in single-parent households and cohabiting households are at
much higher risk of child abuse than children in intact
married and stepparent families.
(F) Children who live apart from their biological fathers,
on average, are more likely to be poor, experience
educational, health, emotional, and psychological problems,
be victims of child abuse, engage in criminal behavior, and
become involved with the juvenile justice system than their
peers who live with their married, biological mother and
father. A child living in a single-parent family is nearly 5
times as likely to be poor as a child living in a married-
couple family. In married-couple families, the child poverty
rate is 8.1 percent, in households headed by a single mother,
the poverty rate is 39.7 percent.
(G) Since the enactment of the Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, child support
collections within the child support enforcement system have
grown every year, increasing from $12,000,000,000 in fiscal
year 1996 to nearly $19,000,000,000 in fiscal year 2001. The
number of paternities established or acknowledged in fiscal
year 2002 reached an historic high of over 1,500,000--which
includes a nearly 100 percent increase through in-hospital
acknowledgement programs to 688,510 in 2000 from 349,356 in
1996. Child support collections were made in over 7,000,000
cases in fiscal year 2000, significantly more than the almost
4,000,000 cases having a collection in 1996.
(3) The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 gave States great flexibility in
the use of Federal funds to develop innovative programs to
help families leave welfare and begin employment and to
encourage the formation of 2-parent families.
(A) Total Federal and State TANF expenditures in fiscal
year 2000 were $24,000,000,000, up from $22,600,000,000 for
the previous year. This increased spending is attributable to
significant new investments in supportive

[[Page H2519]]

services in the TANF program, such as child care and
activities to support work.
(B) Since the welfare reform effort began there has been a
dramatic increase in work participation (including
employment, community service, and work experience) among
welfare recipients, as well as an unprecedented reduction in
the caseload because recipients have left welfare for work.
(C) States are making policy choices and investment
decisions best suited to the needs of their citizens.
(i) To expand aid to working families, all States disregard
a portion of a family's earned income when determining
benefit levels.
(ii) Most States increased the limits on countable assets
above the former Aid to Families with Dependent Children
(AFDC) program. Every State has increased the vehicle asset
level above the prior AFDC limit for a family's primary
automobile.
(iii) States are experimenting with programs to promote
marriage and father involvement. Over half the States have
eliminated restrictions on 2-parent families. Many States use
TANF, child support, or State funds to support community-
based activities to help fathers become more involved in
their children's lives or strengthen relationships between
mothers and fathers.
(4) Therefore, it is the sense of the Congress that
increasing success in moving families from welfare to work,
as well as in promoting healthy marriage and other means of
improving child well-being, are very important Government
interests and the policy contained in part A of title IV of
the Social Security Act (as amended by this Act) is intended
to serve these ends.

TITLE I--TANF

SEC. 101. PURPOSES.

Section 401(a) (42 U.S.C. 601(a)) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``increase'' and inserting ``improve child well-being by
increasing'';
(2) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``and services'' after
``assistance'';
(3) in paragraph (2), by striking ``parents on government
benefits'' and inserting ``families on government benefits
and reduce poverty''; and
(4) in paragraph (4), by striking ``two-parent families''
and inserting ``healthy, 2-parent married families, and
encourage responsible fatherhood''.

SEC. 102. FAMILY ASSISTANCE GRANTS.

(a) Extension of Authority.--Section 403(a)(1)(A) (42
U.S.C. 603(a)(1)(A)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and
2002'' and inserting ``2003 through 2007''; and
(2) by inserting ``payable to the State for the fiscal
year'' before the period.
(b) State Family Assistance Grant.--Section 403(a)(1) (42
U.S.C. 603(a)(1)) is amended by striking subparagraphs (B)
through (E) and inserting the following:
``(B) State family assistance grant.--The State family
assistance grant payable to a State for a fiscal year shall
be the amount that bears the same ratio to the amount
specified in subparagraph (C) of this paragraph as the amount
required to be paid to the State under this paragraph for
fiscal year 2002 (determined without regard to any reduction
pursuant to section 412(a)(1)) bears to the total amount
required to be paid under this paragraph for fiscal year
2002.
``(C) Appropriation.--Out of any money in the Treasury of
the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are
appropriated for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2007
$16,566,542,000 for grants under this paragraph.''.
(c) Matching Grants for the Territories.--Section
1108(b)(2) (42 U.S.C. 1308(b)(2)) is amended by striking
``1997 through 2002'' and inserting ``2003 through 2007''.

SEC. 103. PROMOTION OF FAMILY FORMATION AND HEALTHY MARRIAGE.

(a) State Plans.--Section 402(a)(1)(A) (42 U.S.C.
602(a)(1)(A)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(vii) Encourage equitable treatment of married, 2-parent
families under the program referred to in clause (i).''.
(b) Healthy Marriage Promotion Grants; Repeal of Bonus for
Reduction of Illegitimacy Ratio.--Section 403(a)(2) (42
U.S.C. 603(a)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Healthy marriage promotion grants.--
``(A) Authority.--The Secretary shall award competitive
grants to States, territories, and tribal organizations for
not more than 50 percent of the cost of developing and
implementing innovative programs to promote and support
healthy, married, 2-parent families.
``(B) Healthy marriage promotion activities.--Funds
provided under subparagraph (A) shall be used to support any
of the following programs or activities:
``(i) Public advertising campaigns on the value of marriage
and the skills needed to increase marital stability and
health.
``(ii) Education in high schools on the value of marriage,
relationship skills, and budgeting.
``(iii) Marriage education, marriage skills, and
relationship skills programs, that may include parenting
skills, financial management, conflict resolution, and job
and career advancement, for non-married pregnant women and
non-married expectant fathers.
``(iv) Pre-marital education and marriage skills training
for engaged couples and for couples interested in marriage.
``(v) Marriage enhancement and marriage skills training
programs for married couples.
``(vi) Divorce reduction programs that teach relationship
skills.
``(vii) Marriage mentoring programs which use married
couples as role models and mentors in at-risk communities.
``(viii) Programs to reduce the disincentives to marriage
in means-tested aid programs, if offered in conjunction with
any activity described in this subparagraph.
``(C) Appropriation.--Out of any money in the Treasury of
the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are
appropriated for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2007
$100,000,000 for grants under this paragraph.''.
(c) Counting of Spending on Non-Eligible Families to
Prevent and Reduce Incidence of Out-of-Wedlock Births,
Encourage Formation and Maintenance of Healthy, 2-Parent
Married Families, or Encourage Responsible Fatherhood.--
Section 409(a)(7)(B)(i) (42 U.S.C. 609(a)(7)(B)(i)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:

``(V) Counting of spending on non-eligible families to
prevent and reduce incidence of out-of-wedlock births,
encourage formation and maintenance of healthy, 2-parent
married families, or encourage responsible fatherhood.--The
term `qualified State expenditures' includes the total
expenditures by the State during the fiscal year under all
State programs for a purpose described in paragraph (3) or
(4) of section 401(a).''.

SEC. 104. SUPPLEMENTAL GRANT FOR POPULATION INCREASES IN
CERTAIN STATES.

Section 403(a)(3)(H) (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(3)(H)) is amended--
(1) in the subparagraph heading, by striking ``of grants
for fiscal year 2002'';
(2) in clause (i), by striking ``fiscal year 2002'' and
inserting ``each of fiscal years 2002 through 2006'';
(3) in clause (ii), by striking ``2002'' and inserting
``2006''; and
(4) in clause (iii), by striking ``fiscal year 2002'' and
inserting ``each of fiscal years 2002 through 2006''.

SEC. 105. BONUS TO REWARD EMPLOYMENT ACHIEVEMENT.

(a) Reallocation of Funding.--Section 403(a)(4) (42 U.S.C.
603(a)(4)) is amended--
(1) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``high
performance states'' and inserting ``employment
achievement'';
(2) in subparagraph (D)(ii)--
(A) in subclause (I), by striking ``equals $200,000,000''
and inserting ``(other than 2003) equals $200,000,000, and
for bonus year 2003 equals $100,000,000''; and
(B) in subclause (II), by striking ``$1,000,000,000'' and
inserting ``$900,000,000''; and
(3) in subparagraph (F), by striking ``$1,000,000,000'' and
inserting ``$900,000,000''.
(b) Bonus to Reward Employment Achievement.--
(1) In general.--Section 403(a)(4) (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(4)) is
amended by striking subparagraphs (A) through (F) and
inserting the following:
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall make a grant
pursuant to this paragraph to each State for each bonus year
for which the State is an employment achievement State.
``(B) Amount of grant.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii) of this
subparagraph, the Secretary shall determine the amount of the
grant payable under this paragraph to an employment
achievement State for a bonus year, which shall be based on
the performance of the State as determined under subparagraph
(D)(i) for the fiscal year that immediately precedes the
bonus year.
``(ii) Limitation.--The amount payable to a State under
this paragraph for a bonus year shall not exceed 5 percent of
the State family assistance grant.
``(C) Formula for measuring state performance.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), not later than
October 1, 2003, the Secretary, in consultation with the
States, shall develop a formula for measuring State
performance in operating the State program funded under this
part so as to achieve the goals of employment entry, job
retention, and increased earnings from employment for
families receiving assistance under the program, as measured
on an absolute basis and on the basis of improvement in State
performance.
``(ii) Special rule for bonus year 2004.--For the purposes
of awarding a bonus under this paragraph for bonus year 2004,
the Secretary may measure the performance of a State in
fiscal year 2003 using the job entry rate, job retention
rate, and earnings gain rate components of the formula
developed under section 403(a)(4)(C) as in effect immediately
before the effective date of this paragraph.
``(D) Determination of state performance.--For each bonus
year, the Secretary shall--
``(i) use the formula developed under subparagraph (C) to
determine the performance of each eligible State for the
fiscal year that precedes the bonus year; and
``(ii) prescribe performance standards in such a manner so
as to ensure that--

``(I) the average annual total amount of grants to be made
under this paragraph for each bonus year equals $100,000,000;
and
``(II) the total amount of grants to be made under this
paragraph for all bonus years equals $500,000,000.

``(E) Definitions.--In this paragraph:

[[Page H2520]]

``(i) Bonus year.--The term `bonus year' means each of
fiscal years 2004 through 2008.
``(ii) Employment achievement state.--The term `employment
achievement State' means, with respect to a bonus year, an
eligible State whose performance determined pursuant to
subparagraph (D)(i) for the fiscal year preceding the bonus
year equals or exceeds the performance standards prescribed
under subparagraph (D)(ii) for such preceding fiscal year.
``(F) Appropriation.--Out of any money in the Treasury of
the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are
appropriated for fiscal years 2004 through 2008 $500,000,000
for grants under this paragraph.
``(G) Grants for tribal organizations.--This paragraph
shall apply with respect to tribal organizations in the same
manner in which this paragraph applies with respect to
States. In determining the criteria under which to make
grants to tribal organizations under this paragraph, the
Secretary shall consult with tribal organizations.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall take effect on October 1, 2003.

SEC. 106. CONTINGENCY FUND.

(a) Deposits Into Fund.--Section 403(b)(2) (42 U.S.C.
603(b)(2)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002''
and inserting ``2003 through 2007''; and
(2) by striking all that follows ``$2,000,000,000'' and
inserting a period.
(b) Grants.--Section 403(b)(3)(C)(ii) (42 U.S.C.
603(b)(3)(C)(ii)) is amended by striking ``fiscal years 1997
through 2002'' and inserting ``fiscal years 2003 through
2007''.
(c) Definition of Needy State.--Clauses (i) and (ii) of
section 403(b)(5)(B) (42 U.S.C. 603(b)(5)(B)) are amended by
inserting after ``1996'' the following: ``, and the Food
Stamp Act of 1977 as in effect during the corresponding 3-
month period in the fiscal year preceding such most recently
concluded 3-month period,''.
(d) Annual Reconciliation: Federal Matching of State
Expenditures Above ``Maintenance of Effort'' Level.--Section
403(b)(6) (42 U.S.C. 603(b)(6)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)(ii)--
(A) by adding ``and'' at the end of subclause (I);
(B) by striking ``; and'' at the end of subclause (II) and
inserting a period; and
(C) by striking subclause (III);
(2) in subparagraph (B)(i)(II), by striking all that
follows ``section 409(a)(7)(B)(iii))'' and inserting a
period;
(3) by amending subparagraph (B)(ii)(I) to read as follows:

``(I) the qualified State expenditures (as defined in
section 409(a)(7)(B)(i)) for the fiscal year; plus''; and

(4) by striking subparagraph (C).
(e) Consideration of Certain Child Care Expenditures in
Determining State Compliance With Contingency Fund
Maintenance of Effort Requirement.--Section 409(a)(10) (42
U.S.C. 609(a)(10)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(other than the expenditures described in
subclause (I)(bb) of that paragraph)) under the State program
funded under this part'' and inserting a close parenthesis;
and
(2) by striking ``excluding any amount expended by the
State for child care under subsection (g) or (i) of section
402 (as in effect during fiscal year 1994) for fiscal year
1994,''.

SEC. 107. USE OF FUNDS.

(a) General Rules.--Section 404(a)(2) (42 U.S.C. 604(a)(2))
is amended by striking ``in any manner that'' and inserting
``for any purposes or activities for which''.
(b) Treatment of Interstate Immigrants.--
(1) State plan provision.--Section 402(a)(1)(B) (42 U.S.C.
602(a)(1)(B)) is amended by striking clause (i) and
redesignating clauses (ii) through (iv) as clauses (i)
through (iii), respectively.
(2) Use of funds.--Section 404 (42 U.S.C. 604) is amended
by striking subsection (c).
(c) Increase in Amount Transferable to Child Care.--Section
404(d)(1) (42 U.S.C. 604(d)(1)) is amended by striking ``30''
and inserting ``50''.
(d) Increase in Amount Transferable to Title XX Programs.--
Section 404(d)(2)(B) (42 U.S.C. 604(d)(2)(B)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(B) Applicable percent.--For purposes of subparagraph
(A), the applicable percent is 10 percent for fiscal year
2003 and each succeeding fiscal year.''.
(e) Clarification of Authority of States To Use TANF Funds
Carried Over From Prior Years To Provide TANF Benefits and
Services.--Section 404(e) (42 U.S.C. 604(e)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(e) Authority To Carryover or Reserve Certain Amounts for
Benefits or Services or for Future Contingencies.--
``(1) Carryover.--A State or tribe may use a grant made to
the State or tribe under this part for any fiscal year to
provide, without fiscal year limitation, any benefit or
service that may be provided under the State or tribal
program funded under this part.
``(2) Contingency reserve.--A State or tribe may designate
any portion of a grant made to the State or tribe under this
part as a contingency reserve for future needs, and may use
any amount so designated to provide, without fiscal year
limitation, any benefit or service that may be provided under
the State or tribal program funded under this part. If a
State or tribe so designates a portion of such a grant, the
State shall, on an annual basis, include in its report under
section 411(a) the amount so designated.''.

SEC. 108. REPEAL OF FEDERAL LOAN FOR STATE WELFARE PROGRAMS.

(a) Repeal.--Section 406 (42 U.S.C. 606) is repealed.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 409(a) (42 U.S.C. 609(a)) is amended by
striking paragraph (6).
(2) Section 412 (42 U.S.C. 612) is amended by striking
subsection (f) and redesignating subsections (g) through (i)
as subsections (f) through (h), respectively.
(3) Section 1108(a)(2) (42 U.S.C. 1308(a)(2)) is amended by
striking ``406,''.

SEC. 109. UNIVERSAL ENGAGEMENT AND FAMILY SELF-SUFFICIENCY
PLAN REQUIREMENTS.

(a) Modification of State Plan Requirements.--Section
402(a)(1)(A) (42 U.S.C. 602(a)(1)(A)) is amended by striking
clauses (ii) and (iii) and inserting the following:
``(ii) Require a parent or caretaker receiving assistance
under the program to engage in work or alternative self-
sufficiency activities (as defined by the State), consistent
with section 407(e)(2).
``(iii) Require families receiving assistance under the
program to engage in activities in accordance with family
self-sufficiency plans developed pursuant to section
408(b).''.
(b) Establishment of Family Self-Sufficiency Plans.--
(1) In general.--Section 408(b) (42 U.S.C. 608(b)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(b) Family Self-Sufficiency Plans.--
``(1) In general.--A State to which a grant is made under
section 403 shall--
``(A) assess, in the manner deemed appropriate by the
State, of the skills, prior work experience, and
employability of each work-eligible individual (as defined in
section 407(b)(2)(C)) receiving assistance under the State
program funded under this part;
``(B) establish for each family that includes such an
individual, in consultation as the State deems appropriate
with the individual, a self-sufficiency plan that specifies
appropriate activities described in the State plan submitted
pursuant to section 402, including direct work activities as
appropriate designed to assist the family in achieving their
maximum degree of self-sufficiency, and that provides for the
ongoing participation of the individual in the activities;
``(C) require, at a minimum, each such individual to
participate in activities in accordance with the self-
sufficiency plan;
``(D) monitor the participation of each such individual in
the activities specified in the self sufficiency plan, and
regularly review the progress of the family toward self-
sufficiency;
``(E) upon such a review, revise the self-sufficiency plan
and activities as the State deems appropriate.
``(2) Timing.--The State shall comply with paragraph (1)
with respect to a family--
``(A) in the case of a family that, as of October 1, 2002,
is not receiving assistance from the State program funded
under this part, not later than 60 days after the family
first receives assistance on the basis of the most recent
application for the assistance; or
``(B) in the case of a family that, as of such date, is
receiving the assistance, not later than 12 months after the
date of enactment of this subsection.
``(3) State discretion.--A State shall have sole
discretion, consistent with section 407, to define and design
activities for families for purposes of this subsection, to
develop methods for monitoring and reviewing progress
pursuant to this subsection, and to make modifications to the
plan as the State deems appropriate to assist the individual
in increasing their degree of self-sufficiency.
``(4) Rule of interpretation.--Nothing in this part shall
preclude a State from requiring participation in work and any
other activities the State deems appropriate for helping
families achieve self-sufficiency and improving child well-
being.''.
(2) Penalty for failure to establish family self-
sufficiency plan.--Section 409(a)(3) (42 U.S.C. 609(a)(3)) is
amended--
(A) in the paragraph heading, by inserting ``or establish
family self-sufficiency plan'' after ``rates''; and
(B) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``or 408(b)'' after
``407(a)''.

SEC. 110. WORK PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS.

(a) In General.--Section 407 (42 U.S.C. 607) is amended by
striking all that precedes subsection (b)(3) and inserting
the following:

``SEC. 407. WORK PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS.

``(a) Participation Rate Requirements.--A State to which a
grant is made under section 403 for a fiscal year shall
achieve a minimum participation rate equal to not less than--
``(1) 50 percent for fiscal year 2003;
``(2) 55 percent for fiscal year 2004;
``(3) 60 percent for fiscal year 2005;
``(4) 65 percent for fiscal year 2006; and
``(5) 70 percent for fiscal year 2007 and each succeeding
fiscal year.
``(b) Calculation of Participation Rates.--
``(1) Average monthly rate.--For purposes of subsection
(a), the participation rate of a State for a fiscal year is
the average of the participation rates of the State for each
month in the fiscal year.
``(2) Monthly participation rates; incorporation of 40-hour
work week standard.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the
participation rate of a State for a month is--
``(i) the total number of countable hours (as defined in
subsection (c)) with respect to the counted families for the
State for the month; divided by

[[Page H2521]]

``(ii) 160 multiplied by the number of counted families for
the State for the month.
``(B) Counted families defined.--
``(i) In general.--In subparagraph (A), the term `counted
family' means, with respect to a State and a month, a family
that includes a work-eligible individual and that receives
assistance in the month under the State program funded under
this part, subject to clause (ii).
``(ii) State option to exclude certain families.--At the
option of a State, the term `counted family' shall not
include--

``(I) a family in the first month for which the family
receives assistance from a State program funded under this
part on the basis of the most recent application for such
assistance; or
``(II) on a case-by-case basis, a family in which the
youngest child has not attained 12 months of age.

``(iii) State option to include individuals receiving
assistance under a tribal family assistance plan or tribal
work program.--At the option of a State, the term `counted
family' may include families in the State that are receiving
assistance under a tribal family assistance plan approved
under section 412 or under a tribal work program to which
funds are provided under this part.
``(C) Work-eligible individual defined.--In this section,
the term `work-eligible individual' means an individual--
``(i) who is married or a single head of household; and
``(ii) whose needs are (or, but for sanctions under this
part that have been in effect for more than 3 months (whether
or not consecutive) in the preceding 12 months or under part
D, would be) included in determining the amount of cash
assistance to be provided to the family under the State
program funded under this part.''.
(b) Recalibration of Caseload Reduction Credit.--Section
407(b)(3)(A)(ii) (42 U.S.C. 607(b)(3)(A)(ii)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(ii) the average monthly number of families that received
assistance under the State program funded under this part
during--

``(I) if the fiscal year is fiscal year 2003, fiscal year
1996;
``(II) if the fiscal year is fiscal year 2004, fiscal year
1998;
``(III) if the fiscal year is fiscal year 2005, fiscal year
2001; or
``(IV) if the fiscal year is fiscal year 2006 or any
succeeding fiscal year, the then 4th preceding fiscal
year.''.

(c) Superachiever Credit.--Section 407(b) (42 U.S.C.
607(b)) is amended by striking paragraphs (4) and (5) and
inserting the following:
``(4) Superachiever credit.--
``(A) In general.--The participation rate, determined under
paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection, of a superachiever
State for a fiscal year shall be increased by the lesser of--
``(i) the amount (if any) of the superachiever credit
applicable to the State; or
``(ii) the number of percentage points (if any) by which
the minimum participation rate required by subsection (a) for
the fiscal year exceeds 50 percent.
``(B) Superachiever state.--For purposes of subparagraph
(A), a State is a superachiever State if the State caseload
for fiscal year 2001 has declined by at least 60 percent from
the State caseload for fiscal year 1995.
``(C) Amount of credit.--The superachiever credit
applicable to a State is the number of percentage points (if
any) by which the decline referred to in subparagraph (B)
exceeds 60 percent.
``(D) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
``(i) State caseload for fiscal year 2001.--The term `State
caseload for fiscal year 2001' means the average monthly
number of families that received assistance during fiscal
year 2001 under the State program funded under this part.
``(ii) State caseload for fiscal year 1995.--The term
`State caseload for fiscal year 1995' means the average
monthly number of families that received aid under the State
plan approved under part A (as in effect on September 30,
1995) during fiscal year 1995.''.
(d) Countable Hours.--Section 407 of such Act (42 U.S.C.
607) is amended by striking subsections (c) and (d) and
inserting the following:
``(c) Countable Hours.--
``(1) Definition.--In subsection (b)(2), the term
`countable hours' means, with respect to a family for a
month, the total number of hours in the month in which any
member of the family who is a work-eligible individual is
engaged in a direct work activity or other activities
specified by the State (excluding an activity that does not
address a purpose specified in section 401(a)), subject to
the other provisions of this subsection.
``(2) Limitations.--Subject to such regulations as the
Secretary may prescribe:
``(A) Minimum weekly average of 24 hours of direct work
activities required.--If the work-eligible individuals in a
family are engaged in a direct work activity for an average
total of fewer than 24 hours per week in a month, then the
number of countable hours with respect to the family for the
month shall be zero.
``(B) Maximum weekly average of 16 hours of other
activities.--An average of not more than 16 hours per week of
activities specified by the State (subject to the exclusion
described in paragraph (1)) may be considered countable hours
in a month with respect to a family.
``(3) Special rules.--For purposes of paragraph (1):
``(A) Participation in qualified activities.--
``(i) In general.--If, with the approval of the State, the
work-eligible individuals in a family are engaged in 1 or
more qualified activities for an average total of at least 24
hours per week in a month, then all such engagement in the
month shall be considered engagement in a direct work
activity, subject to clause (iii).
``(ii) Qualified activity defined.--The term `qualified
activity' means an activity specified by the State (subject
to the exclusion described in paragraph (1)) that meets such
standards and criteria as the State may specify, including--

``(I) substance abuse counseling or treatment;
``(II) rehabilitation treatment and services;
``(III) work-related education or training directed at
enabling the family member to work;
``(IV) job search or job readiness assistance; and
``(V) any other activity that addresses a purpose specified
in section 401(a).

``(iii) Limitation.--

``(I) In general.--Except as provided in subclause (II),
clause (i) shall not apply to a family for more than 3 months
in any period of 24 consecutive months.
``(II) Special rule applicable to education and training.--
A State may, on a case-by-case basis, apply clause (i) to a
work-eligible individual so that participation by the
individual in education or training, if needed to permit the
individual to complete a certificate program or other work-
related education or training directed at enabling the
individual to fill a known job need in a local area, may be
considered countable hours with respect to the family of the
individual for not more than 4 months in any period of 24
consecutive months.

``(B) School attendance by teen head of household.--The
work-eligible members of a family shall be considered to be
engaged in a direct work activity for an average of 40 hours
per week in a month if the family includes an individual who
is married, or is a single head of household, who has not
attained 20 years of age, and the individual--
``(i) maintains satisfactory attendance at secondary school
or the equivalent in the month; or
``(ii) participates in education directly related to
employment for an average of at least 20 hours per week in
the month.
``(d) Direct Work Activity.--In this section, the term
`direct work activity' means--
``(1) unsubsidized employment;
``(2) subsidized private sector employment;
``(3) subsidized public sector employment;
``(4) on-the-job training;
``(5) supervised work experience; or
``(6) supervised community service.''.
(e) Penalties Against Individuals.--Section 407(e)(1) (42
U.S.C. 607(e)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
``(1) Reduction or termination of assistance.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), if
an individual in a family receiving assistance under a State
program funded under this part fails to engage in activities
required in accordance with this section, or other activities
required by the State under the program, and the family does
not otherwise engage in activities in accordance with the
self-sufficiency plan established for the family pursuant to
section 408(b), the State shall--
``(i) if the failure is partial or persists for not more
than 1 month--

``(I) reduce the amount of assistance otherwise payable to
the family pro rata (or more, at the option of the State)
with respect to any period during a month in which the
failure occurs; or
``(II) terminate all assistance to the family, subject to
such good cause exceptions as the State may establish; or

``(ii) if the failure is total and persists for at least 2
consecutive months, terminate all cash payments to the family
including qualified State expenditures (as defined in section
409(a)(7)(B)(i)) for at least 1 month and thereafter until
the State determines that the individual has resumed full
participation in the activities, subject to such good cause
exceptions as the State may establish.
``(B) Special rule.--In the event of a conflict between a
requirement of clause (i)(II) or (ii) of subparagraph (A) and
a requirement of a State constitution, or of a State statute
that, before 1966, obligated local government to provide
assistance to needy parents and children, the State
constitutional or statutory requirement shall control.''.
(f) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 407(f) (42 U.S.C. 607(f)) is amended in each of
paragraphs (1) and (2) by striking ``work activity described
in subsection (d)'' and inserting ``direct work activity''.
(2) The heading of section 409(a)(14) (42 U.S.C.
609(a)(14)) is amended by inserting ``or refusing to engage
in activities under a family self-sufficiency plan'' after
``work''.

SEC. 111. MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT.

(a) In General.--Section 409(a)(7) (42 U.S.C. 609(a)(7)) is
amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``fiscal year 1998,
1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, or 2003'' and inserting ``fiscal year
2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 or 2008''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B)(ii)--
(A) by inserting ``preceding'' before ``fiscal year''; and
(B) by striking ``for fiscal years 1997 through 2002,''.

[[Page H2522]]

(b) State Spending on Promoting Healthy Marriage.--
(1) In general.--Section 404 (42 U.S.C. 604) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(l) Marriage Promotion.--A State, territory, or tribal
organization to which a grant is made under section 403(a)(2)
may use a grant made to the State, territory, or tribal
organization under any other provision of section 403 for
marriage promotion activities, and the amount of any such
grant so used shall be considered State funds for purposes of
section 403(a)(2).''.
(2) Federal tanf funds used for marriage promotion
disregarded for purposes of maintenance of effort
requirement.--Section 409(a)(7)(B)(i) (42 U.S.C.
609(a)(7)(B)(i)), as amended by section 103(c) of this Act,
is amended by adding at the end the following:

``(VI) Exclusion of federal tanf funds used for marriage
promotion activities.--Such term does not include the amount
of any grant made to the State under section 403 that is
expended for a marriage promotion activity.''.

SEC. 112. PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT.

(a) State Plans.--Section 402(a) (42 U.S.C. 602(a)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) by redesignating clause (vi) and clause (vii) (as added
by section 103(a) of this Act) as clauses (vii) and (viii),
respectively; and
(ii) by striking clause (v) and inserting the following:
``(v) The document shall--

``(I) describe how the State will pursue ending dependence
of needy families on government benefits and reducing poverty
by promoting job preparation and work;
``(II) describe how the State will encourage the formation
and maintenance of healthy 2-parent married families,
encourage responsible fatherhood, and prevent and reduce the
incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies;
``(III) include specific, numerical, and measurable
performance objectives for accomplishing subclauses (I) and
(II), and with respect to subclause (I), include objectives
consistent with the criteria used by the Secretary in
establishing performance targets under section 403(a)(4)(B)
if available; and
``(IV) describe the methodology that the State will use to
measure State performance in relation to each such objective.

``(vi) Describe any strategies and programs the State may
be undertaking to address--

``(I) employment retention and advancement for recipients
of assistance under the program, including placement into
high-demand jobs, and whether the jobs are identified using
labor market information;
``(II) efforts to reduce teen pregnancy;
``(III) services for struggling and noncompliant families,
and for clients with special problems; and
``(IV) program integration, including the extent to which
employment and training services under the program are
provided through the One-Stop delivery system created under
the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, and the extent to which
former recipients of such assistance have access to
additional core, intensive, or training services funded
through such Act.''; and

(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking clause (iii) (as so
redesignated by section 107(b)(1) of this Act) and inserting
the following:
``(iii) The document shall describe strategies and programs
the State is undertaking to engage religious organizations in
the provision of services funded under this part and efforts
related to section 104 of the Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconcilation Act of 1996.
``(iv) The document shall describe strategies to improve
program management and performance.''; and
(2) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``and tribal'' after
``that local''.
(b) Consultation With State Regarding Plan and Design of
Tribal Programs.--Section 412(b)(1) (42 U.S.C. 612(b)(1)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (E);
(2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (F)
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(G) provides an assurance that the State in which the
tribe is located has been consulted regarding the plan and
its design.''.
(c) Performance Measures.--Section 413 (42 U.S.C. 613) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(k) Performance Improvement.--The Secretary, in
consultation with the States, shall develop uniform
performance measures designed to assess the degree of
effectiveness, and the degree of improvement, of State
programs funded under this part in accomplishing the purposes
of this part.''.
(d) Annual Ranking of States.--Section 413(d)(1) (42 U.S.C.
613(d)(1)) is amended by striking ``long-term private sector
jobs'' and inserting ``private sector jobs, the success of
the recipients in retaining employment, the ability of the
recipients to increase their wages''.

SEC. 113. DATA COLLECTION AND REPORTING.

(a) Contents of Report.-- Section 411(a)(1)(A) (42 U.S.C.
611(a)(1)(A)) is amended--
(1) in clause (vii), by inserting ``and minor parent''
after ``of each adult'';
(2) in clause (viii), by striking ``and educational
level'';
(3) in clause (ix), by striking ``, and if the latter 2,
the amount received'';
(4) in clause (x)--
(A) by striking ``each type of''; and
(B) by inserting before the period ``and, if applicable,
the reason for receipt of the assistance for a total of more
than 60 months'';
(5) in clause (xi), by striking the subclauses and
inserting the following:

``(I) Subsidized private sector employment.
``(II) Unsubsidized employment.
``(III) Public sector employment, supervised work
experience, or supervised community service.
``(IV) On-the-job training.
``(V) Job search and placement.
``(VI) Training.
``(VII) Education.
``(VIII) Other activities directed at the purposes of this
part, as specified in the State plan submitted pursuant to
section 402.'';

(6) in clause (xii), by inserting ``and progress toward
universal engagement'' after ``participation rates'';
(7) in clause (xiii), by striking ``type and'' before
``amount of assistance'';
(8) in clause (xvi), by striking subclause (II) and
redesignating subclauses (III) through (V) as subclauses (II)
through (IV), respectively; and
(9) by adding at the end the following:
``(xviii) The date the family first received assistance
from the State program on the basis of the most recent
application for such assistance.
``(xix) Whether a self-sufficiency plan is established for
the family in accordance with section 408(b).
``(xx) With respect to any child in the family, the marital
status of the parents at the birth of the child, and if the
parents were not then married, whether the paternity of the
child has been established.''.
(b) Use of Samples.--Section 411(a)(1)(B) (42 U.S.C.
611(a)(1)(B)) is amended--
(1) in clause (i)--
(A) by striking ``a sample'' and inserting ``samples''; and
(B) by inserting before the period ``, except that the
Secretary may designate core data elements that must be
reported on all families''; and
(2) in clause (ii), by striking ``funded under this part''
and inserting ``described in subparagraph (A)''.
(c) Report on Families That Become Ineligible To Receive
Assistance.--Section 411(a) (42 U.S.C. 611(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (5);
(2) by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (5); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (5) (as so redesignated)
the following:
``(6) Report on families that become ineligible to receive
assistance.--The report required by paragraph (1) for a
fiscal quarter shall include for each month in the quarter
the number of families and total number of individuals that,
during the month, became ineligible to receive assistance
under the State program funded under this part (broken down
by the number of families that become so ineligible due to
earnings, changes in family composition that result in
increased earnings, sanctions, time limits, or other
specified reasons).''.
(d) Regulations.--Section 411(a)(7) (42 U.S.C. 611(a)(7))
is amended--
(1) by inserting ``and to collect the necessary data''
before ``with respect to which reports'';
(2) by striking ``subsection'' and inserting ``section'';
and
(3) by striking ``in defining the data elements'' and all
that follows and inserting ``, the National Governors'
Association, the American Public Human Services Association,
the National Conference of State Legislatures, and others in
defining the data elements.''.
(e) Additional Reports by States.--Section 411 (42 U.S.C.
611) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (e); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
``(b) Annual Reports on Program Characteristics.--Not later
than 90 days after the end of fiscal year 2004 and each
succeeding fiscal year, each eligible State shall submit to
the Secretary a report on the characteristics of the State
program funded under this part and other State programs
funded with qualified State expenditures (as defined in
section 409(a)(7)(B)(i)). The report shall include, with
respect to each such program, the program name, a description
of program activities, the program purpose, the program
eligibility criteria, the sources of program funding, the
number of program beneficiaries, sanction policies, and any
program work requirements.
``(c) Monthly Reports on Caseload.--Not later than 3 months
after the end of a calendar month that begins 1 year or more
after the enactment of this subsection, each eligible State
shall submit to the Secretary report on the number of
families and total number of individuals receiving assistance
in the calendar month under the State program funded under
this part.
``(d) Annual Report on Performance Improvement.--Beginning
with fiscal year 2004, not later than January 1 of each
fiscal year, each eligible State shall submit to the
Secretary a report on achievement and improvement during the
preceding fiscal year under the numerical performance goals
and measures under the State program funded under this part
with respect to each of the matters described in section
402(a)(1)(A)(v).''.

[[Page H2523]]

(f) Annual Reports to Congress by the Secretary.--Section
411(e), as so redesignated by subsection (e) of this section,
is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``and each fiscal year thereafter'' and inserting ``and by
July 1 of each fiscal year thereafter'';
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``families applying for
assistance,'' and by striking the last comma; and
(3) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``and other programs
funded with qualified State expenditures (as defined in
section 409(a)(7)(B)(i))'' before the semicolon.
(g) Increased Analysis of State Single Audit Reports.--
Section 411 (42 U.S.C. 611) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(f) Increased Analysis of State Single Audit Reports.--
``(1) In general.--Within 3 months after a State submits to
the Secretary a report pursuant to section 7502(a)(1)(A) of
title 31, United States Code, the Secretary shall analyze the
report for the purpose of identifying the extent and nature
of problems related to the oversight by the State of
nongovernmental entities with respect to contracts entered
into by such entities with the State program funded under
this part, and determining what additional actions may be
appropriate to help prevent and correct the problems.
``(2) Inclusion of program oversight section in annual
report to the congress.--The Secretary shall include in each
report under subsection (a) a section on oversight of State
programs funded under this part, including findings on the
extent and nature of the problems referred to in paragraph
(1), actions taken to resolve the problems, and to the extent
the Secretary deems appropriate make recommendations on
changes needed to resolve the problems.''.

SEC. 114. DIRECT FUNDING AND ADMINISTRATION BY INDIAN TRIBES.

(a) Tribal Family Assistance Grant.--Section 412(a)(1)(A)
(42 U.S.C. 612(a)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``1997, 1998,
1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002'' and inserting ``2003 through
2007''.
(b) Grants for Indian Tribes That Received JOBS funds.--
Section 412(a)(2)(A) (42 U.S.C. 612(a)(2)(A)) is amended by
striking ``1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002'' and
inserting ``2003 through 2007''.

SEC. 115. RESEARCH, EVALUATIONS, AND NATIONAL STUDIES.

(a) Secretary's Fund for Research, Demonstrations, and
Technical Assistance.--Section 413 (42 U.S.C. 613), as
amended by section 112(c) of this Act, is further amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(l) Funding for Research, Demonstrations, and Technical
Assistance.--
``(1) In general.--Out of any money in the Treasury of the
United States not otherwise appropriated, there are
appropriated $102,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2003
through 2007, which shall be available to the Secretary for
the purpose of conducting and supporting research and
demonstration projects by public or private entities, and
providing technical assistance to States, Indian tribal
organizations, and such other entities as the Secretary may
specify that are receiving a grant under this part, which
shall be expended primarily on activities described in
section 403(a)(2)(B), and which shall be in addition to any
other funds made available under this part.
``(2) Set aside for demonstration projects for coordination
of provision of child welfare and tanf services to tribal
families at risk of child abuse or neglect.--
``(A) In general.--Of the amounts made available under
paragraph (1) for a fiscal year, $2,000,000 shall be awarded
on a competitive basis to fund demonstration projects
designed to test the effectiveness of tribal governments or
tribal consortia in coordinating the provision to tribal
families at risk of child abuse or neglect of child welfare
services and services under tribal programs funded under this
part.
``(B) Use of funds.--A grant made to such a project shall
be used--
``(i) to improve case management for families eligible for
assistance from such a tribal program;
``(ii) for supportive services and assistance to tribal
children in out-of-home placements and the tribal families
caring for such children, including families who adopt such
children; and
``(iii) for prevention services and assistance to tribal
families at risk of child abuse and neglect.
``(C) Reports.--The Secretary may require a recipient of
funds awarded under this paragraph to provide the Secretary
with such information as the Secretary deems relevant to
enable the Secretary to facilitate and oversee the
administration of any project for which funds are provided
under this paragraph.''.
(b) Funding of Studies and Demonstrations.--Section
413(h)(1) (42 U.S.C. 613(h)(1)) is amended in the matter
preceding subparagraph (A) by striking ``1997 through 2002''
and inserting ``2003 through 2007''.
(c) Report on Enforcement of Certain Affidavits of Support
and Sponsor Deeming.--Not later than March 31, 2004, the
Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with
the Attorney General, shall submit to the Congress a report
on the enforcement of affidavits of support and sponsor
deeming as required by section 421, 422, and 432 of the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act of 1996.
(d) Report on Coordination.--Not later than 6 months after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Labor shall
jointly submit a report to the Congress describing common or
conflicting data elements, definitions, performance measures,
and reporting requirements in the Workforce Investment Act of
1998 and part A of title IV of the Social Security Act, and,
to the degree each Secretary deems appropriate, at the
discretion of either Secretary, any other program
administered by the respective Secretary, to allow greater
coordination between the welfare and workforce development
systems.

SEC. 116. STUDIES BY THE CENSUS BUREAU AND THE GENERAL
ACCOUNTING OFFICE.

(a) Census Bureau Study.--
(1) In general.--Section 414(a) (42 U.S.C. 614(a)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(a) In General.--The Bureau of the Census shall implement
a new longitudinal survey of program dynamics, developed in
consultation with the Secretary and made available to
interested parties, to allow for the assessment of the
outcomes of continued welfare reform on the economic and
child well-being of low-income families with children,
including those who received assistance or services from a
State program funded under this part, and, to the extent
possible, shall provide State representative samples. The
content of the survey should include such information as may
be necessary to examine the issues of out-of-wedlock
childbearing, marriage, welfare dependency and compliance
with work requirements, the beginning and ending of spells of
assistance, work, earnings and employment stability, and the
well-being of children.''.
(2) Appropriation.--Section 414(b) (42 U.S.C. 614(b)) is
amended by striking ``1996,'' and all that follows through
``2002'' and inserting ``2003 through 2007''.
(b) GAO Study.--
(1) In general.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall conduct a study to determine the combined effect
of the phase-out rates for Federal programs and policies
which provide support to low-income families and individuals
as they move from welfare to work, at all earning levels up
to $35,000 per year, for at least 5 States including
Wisconsin and California, and any potential disincentives the
combined phase-out rates create for families to achieve
independence or to marry.
(2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this subsection, the Comptroller General shall
submit a report to Congress containing the results of the
study conducted under this section and, as appropriate, any
recommendations consistent with the results.

SEC. 117. DEFINITION OF ASSISTANCE.

(a) In General.--Section 419 (42 U.S.C. 619) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(6) Assistance.--
``(A) In general.--The term `assistance' means payment, by
cash, voucher, or other means, to or for an individual or
family for the purpose of meeting a subsistence need of the
individual or family (including food, clothing, shelter, and
related items, but not including costs of transportation or
child care).
``(B) Exception.--The term `assistance' does not include a
payment described in subparagraph (A) to or for an individual
or family on a short-term, nonrecurring basis (as defined by
the State in accordance with regulations prescribed by the
Secretary).''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 404(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 604(a)(1)) is amended by
striking ``assistance'' and inserting ``aid''.
(2) Section 404(f) (42 U.S.C. 604(f)) is amended by
striking ``assistance'' and inserting ``benefits or
services''.
(3) Section 408(a)(5)(B)(i) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)(5)(B)(i)) is
amended in the heading by striking ``assistance'' and
inserting ``aid''.
(4) Section 413(d)(2) (42 U.S.C. 613(d)(2)) is amended by
striking ``assistance'' and inserting ``aid''.

SEC. 118. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.

(a) Section 409(c)(2) (42 U.S.C. 609(c)(2)) is amended by
inserting a comma after ``appropriate''.
(b) Section 411(a)(1)(A)(ii)(III) (42 U.S.C.
611(a)(1)(A)(ii)(III)) is amended by striking the last close
parenthesis.
(c) Section 413(j)(2)(A) (42 U.S.C. 613(j)(2)(A)) is
amended by striking ``section'' and inserting ``sections''.
(d)(1) Section 413 (42 U.S.C. 613) is amended by striking
subsection (g) and redesignating subsections (h) through (j)
and subsections (k) and (l) (as added by sections 112(c) and
115(a) of this Act, respectively) as subsections (g) through
(k), respectively.
(2) Each of the following provisions is amended by striking
``413(j)'' and inserting ``413(i)'':
(A) Section 403(a)(5)(A)(ii)(III) (42 U.S.C.
603(a)(5)(A)(ii)(III)).
(B) Section 403(a)(5)(F) (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(5)(F)).
(C) Section 403(a)(5)(G)(ii) (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(5)(G)(ii)).
(D) Section 412(a)(3)(B)(iv) (42 U.S.C. 612(a)(3)(B)(iv)).

SEC. 119. FATHERHOOD PROGRAM.

(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
``Promotion and Support of Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy
Marriage Act of 2002''.

[[Page H2524]]

(b) Fatherhood Program.--
(1) In general.--Title I of the Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-
193) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 117. FATHERHOOD PROGRAM.

``(a) In General.--Title IV (42 U.S.C. 601-679b) is amended
by inserting after part B the following:

`` `PART C--FATHERHOOD PROGRAM

`` `SEC. 441. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

`` `(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that there is
substantial evidence strongly indicating the urgent need to
promote and support involved, committed, and responsible
fatherhood, and to encourage and support healthy marriages
between parents raising children, including data
demonstrating the following:
`` `(1) In approximately 90 percent of cases where a parent
is absent, that parent is the father.
`` `(2) By some estimates, 60 percent of children born in
the 1990's will spend a significant portion of their
childhood in a home without a father.
`` `(3) Nearly 75 percent of children in single-parent
homes will experience poverty before they are 11 years old,
compared with only 20 percent of children in 2-parent
families.
`` `(4) Low income is positively correlated with children's
difficulties with education, social adjustment, and
delinquency, and single-parent households constitute a
disproportionate share of low-income households.
`` `(5) Where families (whether intact or with a parent
absent) are living in poverty, a significant factor is the
father's lack of job skills.
`` `(6) Children raised in 2-parent married families, on
average, fare better as a group in key areas, including
better school performance, reduced rates of substance abuse,
crime, and delinquency, fewer health, emotional, and
behavioral problems, lower rates of teenage sexual activity,
less risk of abuse or neglect, and lower risk of teen
suicide.
`` `(7) Committed and responsible fathering during infancy
and early childhood contributes to the development of
emotional security, curiosity, and math and verbal skills.
`` `(8) An estimated 24,000,000 children (33.5 percent)
live apart from their biological father.
`` `(9) A recent national survey indicates that of all
children under age 18 not living with their biological
father, 29 percent had not seen their father even once in the
last 12 months.
`` `(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this part are:
`` `(1) To provide for projects and activities by public
entities and by nonprofit community entities, including
religious organizations, designed to test promising
approaches to accomplishing the following objectives:
`` `(A) Promoting responsible, caring, and effective
parenting through counseling, mentoring, and parenting
education, dissemination of educational materials and
information on parenting skills, encouragement of positive
father involvement, including the positive involvement of
nonresident fathers, and other methods.
`` `(B) Enhancing the abilities and commitment of
unemployed or low-income fathers to provide material support
for their families and to avoid or leave welfare programs by
assisting them to take full advantage of education, job
training, and job search programs, to improve work habits and
work skills, to secure career advancement by activities such
as outreach and information dissemination, coordination, as
appropriate, with employment services and job training
programs, including the One-Stop delivery system established
under title I of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998,
encouragement and support of timely payment of current child
support and regular payment toward past due child support
obligations in appropriate cases, and other methods.
`` `(C) Improving fathers' ability to effectively manage
family business affairs by means such as education,
counseling, and mentoring in matters including household
management, budgeting, banking, and handling of financial
transactions, time management, and home maintenance.
`` `(D) Encouraging and supporting healthy marriages and
married fatherhood through such activities as premarital
education, including the use of premarital inventories,
marriage preparation programs, skills-based marriage
education programs, marital therapy, couples counseling,
divorce education and reduction programs, divorce mediation
and counseling, relationship skills enhancement programs,
including those designed to reduce child abuse and domestic
violence, and dissemination of information about the benefits
of marriage for both parents and children.
`` `(2) Through the projects and activities described in
paragraph (1), to improve outcomes for children with respect
to measures such as increased family income and economic
security, improved school performance, better health,
improved emotional and behavioral stability and social
adjustment, and reduced risk of delinquency, crime, substance
abuse, child abuse and neglect, teen sexual activity, and
teen suicide.
`` `(3) To evaluate the effectiveness of various approaches
and to disseminate findings concerning outcomes and other
information in order to encourage and facilitate the
replication of effective approaches to accomplishing these
objectives.

`` `SEC. 442. DEFINITIONS.

`` `In this part, the terms ``Indian tribe'' and ``tribal
organization'' have the meanings given them in subsections
(e) and (l), respectively, of section 4 of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act.

`` `SEC. 443. COMPETITIVE GRANTS FOR SERVICE PROJECTS.

`` `(a) In General.--The Secretary may make grants for
fiscal years 2003 through 2007 to public and nonprofit
community entities, including religious organizations, and to
Indian tribes and tribal organizations, for demonstration
service projects and activities designed to test the
effectiveness of various approaches to accomplish the
objectives specified in section 441(b)(1).
`` `(b) Eligibility Criteria for Full Service Grants.--In
order to be eligible for a grant under this section, except
as specified in subsection (c), an entity shall submit an
application to the Secretary containing the following:
`` `(1) Project description.--A statement including--
`` `(A) a description of the project and how it will be
carried out, including the geographical area to be covered
and the number and characteristics of clients to be served,
and how it will address each of the 4 objectives specified in
section 441(b)(1); and
`` `(B) a description of the methods to be used by the
entity or its contractor to assess the extent to which the
project was successful in accomplishing its specific
objectives and the general objectives specified in section
441(b)(1).
`` `(2) Experience and qualifications.--A demonstration of
ability to carry out the project, by means such as
demonstration of experience in successfully carrying out
projects of similar design and scope, and such other
information as the Secretary may find necessary to
demonstrate the entity's capacity to carry out the project,
including the entity's ability to provide the non-Federal
share of project resources.
`` `(3) Addressing child abuse and neglect and domestic
violence.--A description of how the entity will assess for
the presence of, and intervene to resolve, domestic violence
and child abuse and neglect, including how the entity will
coordinate with State and local child protective service and
domestic violence programs.
`` `(4) Addressing concerns relating to substance abuse and
sexual activity.--A commitment to make available to each
individual participating in the project education about
alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs, and about the health risks
associated with abusing such substances, and information
about diseases and conditions transmitted through substance
abuse and sexual contact, including HIV/AIDS, and to
coordinate with providers of services addressing such
problems, as appropriate.
`` `(5) Coordination with specified programs.--An
undertaking to coordinate, as appropriate, with State and
local entities responsible for the programs under parts A, B,
and D of this title, including programs under title I of the
Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (including the One-Stop
delivery system), and such other programs as the Secretary
may require.
`` `(6) Records, reports, and audits.--An agreement to
maintain such records, make such reports, and cooperate with
such reviews or audits as the Secretary may find necessary
for purposes of oversight of project activities and
expenditures.
`` `(7) Self-initiated evaluation.--If the entity elects to
contract for independent evaluation of the project (part or
all of the cost of which may be paid for using grant funds),
a commitment to submit to the Secretary a copy of the
evaluation report within 30 days after completion of the
report and not more than 1 year after completion of the
project.
`` `(8) Cooperation with secretary's oversight and
evaluation.--An agreement to cooperate with the Secretary's
evaluation of projects assisted under this section, by means
including random assignment of clients to service recipient
and control groups, if determined by the Secretary to be
appropriate, and affording the Secretary access to the
project and to project-related records and documents, staff,
and clients.
`` `(c) Eligibility Criteria for Limited Purpose Grants.--
In order to be eligible for a grant under this section in an
amount under $25,000 per fiscal year, an entity shall submit
an application to the Secretary containing the following:
`` `(1) Project description.--A description of the project
and how it will be carried out, including the number and
characteristics of clients to be served, the proposed
duration of the project, and how it will address at least 1
of the 4 objectives specified in section 441(b)(1).
`` `(2) Qualifications.--Such information as the Secretary
may require as to the capacity of the entity to carry out the
project, including any previous experience with similar
activities.
`` `(3) Coordination with related programs.--As required by
the Secretary in appropriate cases, an undertaking to
coordinate and cooperate with State and local entities
responsible for specific programs relating to the objectives
of the project including, as appropriate, jobs programs and
programs serving children and families.
`` `(4) Records, reports, and audits.--An agreement to
maintain such records, make such reports, and cooperate with
such reviews or audits as the Secretary may find

[[Page H2525]]

necessary for purposes of oversight of project activities and
expenditures.
`` `(5) Cooperation with secretary's oversight and
evaluation.--An agreement to cooperate with the Secretary's
evaluation of projects assisted under this section, by means
including affording the Secretary access to the project and
to project-related records and documents, staff, and clients.
`` `(d) Considerations in Awarding Grants.--
`` `(1) Diversity of projects.--In awarding grants under
this section, the Secretary shall seek to achieve a balance
among entities of differing sizes, entities in differing
geographic areas, entities in urban and in rural areas, and
entities employing differing methods of achieving the
purposes of this section, including working with the State
agency responsible for the administration of part D to help
fathers satisfy child support arrearage obligations.
`` `(2) Preference for projects serving low-income
fathers.--In awarding grants under this section, the
Secretary may give preference to applications for projects in
which a majority of the clients to be served are low-income
fathers.
`` `(e) Federal Share.--
`` `(1) In general.--Grants for a project under this
section for a fiscal year shall be available for a share of
the cost of such project in such fiscal year equal to--
`` `(A) up to 80 percent (or up to 90 percent, if the
entity demonstrates to the Secretary's satisfaction
circumstances limiting the entity's ability to secure non-
Federal resources) in the case of a project under subsection
(b); and
`` `(B) up to 100 percent, in the case of a project under
subsection (c).
`` `(2) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share may be in
cash or in kind. In determining the amount of the non-Federal
share, the Secretary may attribute fair market value to
goods, services, and facilities contributed from non-Federal
sources.

`` `SEC. 444. MULTICITY, MULTISTATE DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.

`` `(a) In General.--The Secretary may make grants under
this section for fiscal years 2003 through 2007 to eligible
entities (as specified in subsection (b)) for 2 multicity,
multistate projects demonstrating approaches to achieving the
objectives specified in section 441(b)(1). One of the
projects shall test the use of married couples to deliver
program services.
`` `(b) Eligible Entities.--An entity eligible for a grant
under this section must be a national nonprofit fatherhood
promotion organization that meets the following requirements:
`` `(1) Experience with fatherhood programs.--The
organization must have substantial experience in designing
and successfully conducting programs that meet the purposes
described in section 441.
`` `(2) Experience with multicity, multistate programs and
government coordination.--The organization must have
experience in simultaneously conducting such programs in more
than 1 major metropolitan area in more than 1 State and in
coordinating such programs, where appropriate, with State and
local government agencies and private, nonprofit agencies
(including community-based and religious organizations),
including State or local agencies responsible for child
support enforcement and workforce development.
`` `(c) Application Requirements.--In order to be eligible
for a grant under this section, an entity must submit to the
Secretary an application that includes the following:
`` `(1) Qualifications.--
`` `(A) Eligible entity.--A demonstration that the entity
meets the requirements of subsection (b).
`` `(B) Other.--Such other information as the Secretary may
find necessary to demonstrate the entity's capacity to carry
out the project, including the entity's ability to provide
the non-Federal share of project resources.
`` `(2) Project description.--A description of and
commitments concerning the project design, including the
following:
`` `(A) In general.--A detailed description of the proposed
project design and how it will be carried out, which shall--
`` `(i) provide for the project to be conducted in at least
3 major metropolitan areas;
`` `(ii) state how it will address each of the 4 objectives
specified in section 441(b)(1);
`` `(iii) demonstrate that there is a sufficient number of
potential clients to allow for the random selection of
individuals to participate in the project and for comparisons
with appropriate control groups composed of individuals who
have not participated in such projects; and
`` `(iv) demonstrate that the project is designed to direct
a majority of project resources to activities serving low-
income fathers (but the project need not make services
available on a means-tested basis).
`` `(B) Oversight, evaluation, and adjustment component.--
An agreement that the entity--
`` `(i) in consultation with the evaluator selected
pursuant to section 445, and as required by the Secretary,
will modify the project design, initially and (if necessary)
subsequently throughout the duration of the project, in order
to facilitate ongoing and final oversight and evaluation of
project operation and outcomes (by means including, to the
maximum extent feasible, random assignment of clients to
service recipient and control groups), and to provide for
mid-course adjustments in project design indicated by interim
evaluations;
`` `(ii) will submit to the Secretary revised descriptions
of the project design as modified in accordance with clause
(i); and
`` `(iii) will cooperate fully with the Secretary's ongoing
oversight and ongoing and final evaluation of the project, by
means including affording the Secretary access to the project
and to project-related records and documents, staff, and
clients.
`` `(3) Addressing child abuse and neglect and domestic
violence.--A description of how the entity will assess for
the presence of, and intervene to resolve, domestic violence
and child abuse and neglect, including how the entity will
coordinate with State and local child protective service and
domestic violence programs.
`` `(4) Addressing concerns relating to substance abuse and
sexual activity.--A commitment to make available to each
individual participating in the project education about
alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs, and about the health risks
associated with abusing such substances, and information
about diseases and conditions transmitted through substance
abuse and sexual contact, including HIV/AIDS, and to
coordinate with providers of services addressing such
problems, as appropriate.
`` `(5) Coordination with specified programs.--An
undertaking to coordinate, as appropriate, with State and
local entities responsible for the programs funded under
parts A, B, and D of this title, programs under title I of
the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (including the One-Stop
delivery system), and such other programs as the Secretary
may require.
`` `(6) Records, reports, and audits.--An agreement to
maintain such records, make such reports, and cooperate with
such reviews or audits (in addition to those required under
the preceding provisions of paragraph (2)) as the Secretary
may find necessary for purposes of oversight of project
activities and expenditures.
`` `(d) Federal Share.--
`` `(1) In general.--Grants for a project under this
section for a fiscal year shall be available for up to 80
percent of the cost of such project in such fiscal year.
`` `(2) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share may be in
cash or in kind. In determining the amount of the non-Federal
share, the Secretary may attribute fair market value to
goods, services, and facilities contributed from non-Federal
sources.

`` `SEC. 445. EVALUATION.

`` `(a) In General.--The Secretary, directly or by contract
or cooperative agreement, shall evaluate the effectiveness of
service projects funded under sections 443 and 444 from the
standpoint of the purposes specified in section 441(b)(1).
`` `(b) Evaluation Methodology.--Evaluations under this
section shall--
`` `(1) include, to the maximum extent feasible, random
assignment of clients to service delivery and control groups
and other appropriate comparisons of groups of individuals
receiving and not receiving services;
`` `(2) describe and measure the effectiveness of the
projects in achieving their specific project goals; and
`` `(3) describe and assess, as appropriate, the impact of
such projects on marriage, parenting, domestic violence,
child abuse and neglect, money management, employment and
earnings, payment of child support, and child well-being,
health, and education.
`` `(c) Evaluation Reports.--The Secretary shall publish
the following reports on the results of the evaluation:
`` `(1) An implementation evaluation report covering the
first 24 months of the activities under this part to be
completed by 36 months after initiation of such activities.
`` `(2) A final report on the evaluation to be completed by
September 30, 2010.

`` `SEC. 446. PROJECTS OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE.

`` `The Secretary is authorized, by grant, contract, or
cooperative agreement, to carry out projects and activities
of national significance relating to fatherhood promotion,
including--
`` `(1) Collection and dissemination of information.--
Assisting States, communities, and private entities,
including religious organizations, in efforts to promote and
support marriage and responsible fatherhood by collecting,
evaluating, developing, and making available (through the
Internet and by other means) to all interested parties
information regarding approaches to accomplishing the
objectives specified in section 441(b)(1).
`` `(2) Media campaign.--Developing, promoting, and
distributing to interested States, local governments, public
agencies, and private nonprofit organizations, including
charitable and religious organizations, a media campaign that
promotes and encourages involved, committed, and responsible
fatherhood and married fatherhood.
`` `(3) Technical assistance.--Providing technical
assistance, including consultation and training, to public
and private entities, including community organizations and
faith-based organizations, in the implementation of local
fatherhood promotion programs.
`` `(4) Research.--Conducting research related to the
purposes of this part.

`` `SEC. 447. NONDISCRIMINATION.

`` `The projects and activities assisted under this part
shall be available on the

[[Page H2526]]

same basis to all fathers and expectant fathers able to
benefit from such projects and activities, including married
and unmarried fathers and custodial and noncustodial fathers,
with particular attention to low-income fathers, and to
mothers and expectant mothers on the same basis as to
fathers.

`` `SEC. 448. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS; RESERVATION
FOR CERTAIN PURPOSE.

`` `(a) Authorization.--There are authorized to be
appropriated $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2003
through 2007 to carry out the provisions of this part.
`` `(b) Reservation.--Of the amount appropriated under this
section for each fiscal year, not more than 15 percent shall
be available for the costs of the multicity, multicounty,
multistate demonstration projects under section 444,
evaluations under section 445, and projects of national
significance under section 446.'.
``(b) Inapplicability of Effective Date Provisions.--
Section 116 shall not apply to the amendment made by
subsection (a) of this section.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--Section 2 of such Act is amended
in the table of contents by inserting after the item relating
to section 116 the following new item:

``Sec. 117. Fatherhood program.''.

SEC. 120. STATE OPTION TO MAKE TANF PROGRAMS MANDATORY
PARTNERS WITH ONE-STOP EMPLOYMENT TRAINING
CENTERS.

Section 408 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 608) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(h) State Option to Make TANF Programs Mandatory Partners
With One-Stop Employment Training Centers.--For purposes of
section 121(b) of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, a
State program funded under part A of title IV of the Social
Security Act shall be considered a program referred to in
paragraph (1)(B) of such section, unless, after the date of
the enactment of this subsection, the Governor of the State
notifies the Secretaries of Health and Human Services and
Labor in writing of the decision of the Governor not to make
the State program a mandatory partner.''.

SEC. 121. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.

It is the sense of the Congress that a State welfare-to-
work program should include a mentoring program.

TITLE II--CHILD CARE

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Caring for Children Act of
2002''.

SEC. 202. GOALS.

(a) Goals.--Section 658A(b) of the Child Care and
Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9801 note) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (3) by striking ``encourage'' and
inserting ``assist'',
(2) by amending paragraph (4) to read as follows:
``(4) to assist State to provide child care to low-income
parents;'',
(3) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (7), and
(4) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
``(5) to encourage States to improve the quality of child
care available to families;
``(6) to promote school readiness by encouraging the
exposure of young children in child care to nurturing
environments and developmentally-appropriate activities,
including activities to foster early cognitive and literacy
development; and''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 658E(c)(3)(B) of the
Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
9858c(c)(3)(B)) is amended by striking ``through (5)'' and
inserting ``through (7)''.

SEC. 203. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

Section 658B of the Child Care and Development Block Grant
Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858) is amended--
(1) by striking ``is'' and inserting ``are'', and
(2) by striking ``$1,000,000,000 for each of the fiscal
years 1996 through 2002'' and inserting ``$2,300,000,000 for
fiscal year 2003, $2,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2004,
$2,700,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, $2,900,000,000 for
fiscal year 2006, and $3,100,000,000 for fiscal year 2007''.

SEC. 204. APPLICATION AND PLAN.

Section 658E(c)(2) of the Child Care and Development Block
Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858C(c)(2)) is amended--
(1) by amending subparagraph (D) to read as follows:
``(D) Consumer and child care provider education
information.--Certify that the State will collect and
disseminate, through resource and referral services and other
means as determined by the State, to parents of eligible
children, child care providers, and the general public,
information regarding--
``(i) the promotion of informed child care choices,
including information about the quality and availability of
child care services;
``(ii) research and best practices on children's
development, including early cognitive development;
``(iii) the availability of assistance to obtain child care
services; and
``(iv) other programs for which families that receive child
care services for which financial assistance is provided
under this subchapter may be eligible, including the food
stamp program, the WIC program under section 17 of the Child
Nutrition Act of 1966, the child and adult care food program
under section 17 of the Richard B. Russell National School
Lunch Act, and the medicaid and CHIP programs under titles
XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act.'', and
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (H) the following:
``(I) Coordination with other early child care services and
early childhood education programs.--Demonstrate how the
State is coordinating child care services provided under this
subchapter with Head Start, Early Reading First, Even Start,
Ready-To-Learn Television, State pre-kindergarten programs,
and other early childhood education programs to expand
accessibility to and continuity of care and early education
without displacing services provided by the current early
care and education delivery system.
``(J) Public-private partnerships.--Demonstrate how the
State encourages partnerships with private and other public
entities to leverage existing service delivery systems of
early childhood education and increase the supply and quality
of child care services.
``(K) Child care service quality.--
``(i) Certification.--For each fiscal year after fiscal
year 2003, certify that during the then preceding fiscal year
the State was in compliance with section 658G and describe
how funds were used to comply with such section during such
preceding fiscal year.
``(ii) Strategy.--For each fiscal year after fiscal year
2003, contain an outline of the strategy the State will
implement during such fiscal year for which the State plan is
submitted, to address the quality of child care services in
child care settings that provide services for which
assistance is made available under this subchapter, and
include in such strategy--

``(I) a statement specifying how the State will address the
activities described in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of
section 658G;
``(II) a description of quantifiable, objective measures
for evaluating the quality of child care services separately
with respect to the activities listed in each of such
paragraphs that the State will use to evaluate its progress
in improving the quality of such child care services;
``(III) a list of State-developed child care service
quality targets for such fiscal year quantified on the basis
of such measures; and
``(IV) for each fiscal year after fiscal year 2003, a
report on the progress made to achieve such targets during
the then preceding fiscal year.

``(iii) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subparagraph
shall be construed to require that the State apply measures
for evaluating quality to specific types of child care
providers.
``(L) Access to care for certain populations.--Demonstrate
how the State is addressing the child care needs of parents
eligible for child care services for which financial
assistance is provided under this subchapter who have
children with special needs, work nontraditional hours, or
require child care services for infants or toddlers.''.

SEC. 205. ACTIVITIES TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF CHILD CARE.

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

``SEC. 658G. ACTIVITIES TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF CHILD CARE
SERVICES.

``A State that receives funds to carry out this subchapter
for a fiscal year, shall use not less than 6 percent of the
amount of such funds for activities provided through resource
and referral services or other means, that are designed to
improve the quality of child care services for which
financial assistance is made available under this subchapter.
Such activities include--
``(1) programs that provide training, education, and other
professional development activities to enhance the skills of
the child care workforce, including training opportunities
for caregivers in informal care settings;
``(2) activities within child care settings to enhance
early learning for young children, to promote early literacy,
and to foster school readiness;
``(3) initiatives to increase the retention and
compensation of child care providers, including tiered
reimbursement rates for providers that meet quality standards
as defined by the State; or
``(4) other activities deemed by the State to improve the
quality of child care services provided in such State.''.

SEC. 206. REPORT BY SECRETARY.

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

``SEC. 658L. REPORT BY SECRETARY.

``(a) Report Required.--Not later than October 1, 2004, and
biennially thereafter, the Secretary shall prepare and submit
to the Committee on Education and the Workforce of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor and Pensions of the Senate a report that contains the
following:
``(1) A summary and analysis of the data and information
provided to the Secretary in the State reports submitted
under section 658K.
``(2) Aggregated statistics on the supply of, demand for,
and quality of child care, early education, and non-school-
hours programs.
``(3) An assessment, and where appropriate, recommendations
for the Congress concerning efforts that should be undertaken
to improve the access of the public to quality and affordable
child care in the United States.

[[Page H2527]]

``(b) Collection of Information.--The Secretary may utilize
the national child care data system available through
resource and referral organizations at the local, State, and
national level to collect the information required by
subsection (a)(2).

SEC. 207. DEFINITIONS.

Section 658P(4)(B) of the Child Care and Development Block
Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858N(4)(B)) is amended by
striking ``85 percent of the State median income'' and
inserting ``income levels as established by the State,
prioritized by need,''.

SEC. 208. ENTITLEMENT FUNDING.

Section 418(a)(3) (42 U.S.C. 618(a)(3)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (E);
(2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (F)
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(G) $2,917,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2003 through
2007.''.

TITLE III--TAXPAYER PROTECTIONS

SEC. 301. EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME FOR INTEREST ON
OVERPAYMENTS OF INCOME TAX BY INDIVIDUALS.

(a) In General.--Part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to items
specifically excluded from gross income) is amended by
inserting after section 139 the following new section:

``SEC. 139A. EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME FOR INTEREST ON
OVERPAYMENTS OF INCOME TAX BY INDIVIDUALS.

``(a) In General.--In the case of an individual, gross
income shall not include interest paid under section 6611 on
any overpayment of tax imposed by this subtitle.
``(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply in the
case of a failure to claim items resulting in the overpayment
on the original return if the Secretary determines that the
principal purpose of such failure is to take advantage of
subsection (a).
``(c) Special Rule for Determining Modified Adjusted Gross
Income.--For purposes of this title, interest not included in
gross income under subsection (a) shall not be treated as
interest which is exempt from tax for purposes of sections
32(i)(2)(B) and 6012(d) or any computation in which interest
exempt from tax under this title is added to adjusted gross
income.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part III
of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by
inserting after the item relating to section 139 the
following new item:

``Sec. 139A. Exclusion from gross income for interest on overpayments
of income tax by individuals.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to interest received after December 31, 2006.

SEC. 302. DEPOSITS MADE TO SUSPEND RUNNING OF INTEREST ON
POTENTIAL UNDERPAYMENTS.

(a) In General.--Subchapter A of chapter 67 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to interest on underpayments)
is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 6603. DEPOSITS MADE TO SUSPEND RUNNING OF INTEREST ON
POTENTIAL UNDERPAYMENTS, ETC.

``(a) Authority To Make Deposits Other Than As Payment of
Tax.--A taxpayer may make a cash deposit with the Secretary
which may be used by the Secretary to pay any tax imposed
under subtitle A or B or chapter 41, 42, 43, or 44 which has
not been assessed at the time of the deposit. Such a deposit
shall be made in such manner as the Secretary shall
prescribe.
``(b) No Interest Imposed.--To the extent that such deposit
is used by the Secretary to pay tax, for purposes of section
6601 (relating to interest on underpayments), the tax shall
be treated as paid when the deposit is made.
``(c) Return of Deposit.--Except in a case where the
Secretary determines that collection of tax is in jeopardy,
the Secretary shall return to the taxpayer any amount of the
deposit (to the extent not used for a payment of tax) which
the taxpayer requests in writing.
``(d) Payment of Interest.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of section 6611 (relating
to interest on overpayments), a deposit which is returned to
a taxpayer shall be treated as a payment of tax for any
period to the extent (and only to the extent) attributable to
a disputable tax for such period. Under regulations
prescribed by the Secretary, rules similar to the rules of
section 6611(b)(2) shall apply.
``(2) Disputable tax.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of this section, the term
`disputable tax' means the amount of tax specified at the
time of the deposit as the taxpayer's reasonable estimate of
the maximum amount of any tax attributable to disputable
items.
``(B) Safe harbor based on 30-day letter.--In the case of a
taxpayer who has been issued a 30-day letter, the maximum
amount of tax under subparagraph (A) shall not be less than
the amount of the proposed deficiency specified in such
letter.
``(3) Other definitions.--For purposes of paragraph (2)--
``(A) Disputable item.--The term `disputable item' means
any item of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit if the
taxpayer--
``(i) has a reasonable basis for its treatment of such
item, and
``(ii) reasonably believes that the Secretary also has a
reasonable basis for disallowing the taxpayer's treatment of
such item.
``(B) 30-day letter.--The term `30-day letter' means the
first letter of proposed deficiency which allows the taxpayer
an opportunity for administrative review in the Internal
Revenue Service Office of Appeals.
``(4) Rate of interest.--The rate of interest allowable
under this subsection shall be the Federal short-term rate
determined under section 6621(b), compounded daily.
``(e) Use of Deposits.--
``(1) Payment of tax.--Except as otherwise provided by the
taxpayer, deposits shall be treated as used for the payment
of tax in the order deposited.
``(2) Returns of deposits.--Deposits shall be treated as
returned to the taxpayer on a last-in, first-out basis.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for
subchapter A of chapter 67 of such Code is amended by adding
at the end the following new item:

``Sec. 6603. Deposits made to suspend running of interest on potential
underpayments, etc.''.
(c) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall
apply to deposits made after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
(2) Coordination with deposits made under revenue procedure
84-58.--In the case of an amount held by the Secretary of the
Treasury or his delegate on the date of the enactment of this
Act as a deposit in the nature of a cash bond deposit
pursuant to Revenue Procedure 84-58, the date that the
taxpayer identifies such amount as a deposit made pursuant to
section 6603 of the Internal Revenue Code (as added by this
Act) shall be treated as the date such amount is deposited
for purposes of such section 6603.

SEC. 303. PARTIAL PAYMENT OF TAX LIABILITY IN INSTALLMENT
AGREEMENTS.

(a) In General.--
(1) Section 6159(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
(relating to authorization of agreements) is amended--
(A) by striking ``satisfy liability for payment of'' and
inserting ``make payment on'', and
(B) by inserting ``full or partial'' after ``facilitate''.
(2) Section 6159(c) of such Code (relating to Secretary
required to enter into installment agreements in certain
cases) is amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by
inserting ``full'' before ``payment''.
(b) Requirement To Review Partial Payment Agreements Every
Two Years.--Section 6159 of such Code is amended by
redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections (e) and
(f), respectively, and inserting after subsection (c) the
following new subsection:
``(d) Secretary Required To Review Installment Agreements
for Partial Collection Every Two Years.--In the case of an
agreement entered into by the Secretary under subsection (a)
for partial collection of a tax liability, the Secretary
shall review the agreement at least once every 2 years.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to agreements entered into on or after the date
of the enactment of this Act.

TITLE IV--CHILD SUPPORT

SEC. 401. FEDERAL MATCHING FUNDS FOR LIMITED PASS THROUGH OF
CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS TO FAMILIES RECEIVING
TANF.

(a) In General.--Section 457(a) (42 U.S.C. 657(a)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(A), by inserting ``subject to
paragraph (7)'' before the semicolon; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(7) Federal matching funds for limited pass through of
child support payments to families receiving tanf.--
Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a State shall not be required
to pay to the Federal Government the Federal share of an
amount collected during a month on behalf of a family that is
a recipient of assistance under the State program funded
under part A, to the extent that--
``(A) the State distributes the amount to the family;
``(B) the total of the amounts so distributed to the family
during the month--
``(i) exceeds the amount (if any) that, as of December 31,
2001, was required under State law to be distributed to a
family under paragraph (1)(B); and
``(ii) does not exceed the greater of--

``(I) $100; or
``(II) $50 plus the amount described in clause (i); and

``(C) the amount is disregarded in determining the amount
and type of assistance provided to the family under the State
program funded under part A.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply to amounts distributed on or after October 1,
2004.

SEC. 402. STATE OPTION TO PASS THROUGH ALL CHILD SUPPORT
PAYMENTS TO FAMILIES THAT FORMERLY RECEIVED
TANF.

(a) In General.--Section 457(a) (42 U.S.C. 657(a)), as
amended by section 401(a) of this Act, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)(B), in the matter preceding clause
(i), by inserting ``, except as provided in paragraph (8),''
after ``shall''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(8) State option to pass through all child support
payments to families that formerly received tanf.--In lieu of
applying paragraph (2) to any family described in paragraph
(2), a State may distribute to the family any amount
collected during a month on behalf of the family.''.

[[Page H2528]]

(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply to amounts distributed on or after October 1,
2004.

SEC. 403. MANDATORY REVIEW AND ADJUSTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT
ORDERS FOR FAMILIES RECEIVING TANF.

(a) In General.--Section 466(a)(10)(A)(i) (42 U.S.C.
666(a)(10)(A)(i)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``parent, or,'' and inserting ``parent
or''; and
(2) by striking ``upon the request of the State agency
under the State plan or of either parent,''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on October 1, 2004.

SEC. 404. MANDATORY FEE FOR SUCCESSFUL CHILD SUPPORT
COLLECTION FOR FAMILY THAT HAS NEVER RECEIVED
TANF.

(a) In General.--Section 454(6)(B) (42 U.S.C. 654(6)(B)) is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``(i)'' after ``(B)'';
(2) by redesignating clauses (i) and (ii) as subclauses (I)
and (II), respectively;
(3) by adding ``and'' after the semicolon; and
(4) by adding after and below the end the following new
clause:
``(ii) in the case of an individual who has never received
assistance under a State program funded under part A and for
whom the State has collected at least $500 of support, the
State shall impose an annual fee of $25 for each case in
which services are furnished, which shall be retained by the
State from support collected on behalf of the individual (but
not from the 1st $500 so collected), paid by the individual
applying for the services, recovered from the absent parent,
or paid by the State out of its own funds (the payment of
which from State funds shall not be considered as an
administrative cost of the State for the operation of the
plan, and shall be considered income to the program);''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 457(a)(3) (42 U.S.C.
657(a)(3)) is amended to read as follows:
``(3) Families that never received assistance.--In the case
of any other family, the State shall distribute to the family
the portion of the amount so collected that remains after
withholding any fee pursuant to section 454(6)(B)(ii).''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 2003.

SEC. 405. REPORT ON UNDISTRIBUTED CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS.

Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall
submit to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate a
report on the procedures that the States use generally to
locate custodial parents for whom child support has been
collected but not yet distributed. The report shall include
an estimate of the total amount of such undistributed child
support and the average length of time it takes for such
child support to be distributed. To the extent the Secretary
deems appropriate, the Secretary shall include in the report
recommendations as to whether additional procedures should be
established at the State or Federal level to expedite the
payment of undistributed child support.

SEC. 406. USE OF NEW HIRE INFORMATION TO ASSIST IN
ADMINISTRATION OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
PROGRAMS.

(a) In General.--Section 453(j) (42 U.S.C. 653(j)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(7) Information comparisons and disclosure to assist in
administration of unemployment compensation programs.--
``(A) In general.--If a State agency responsible for the
administration of an unemployment compensation program under
Federal or State law transmits to the Secretary the name and
social security account number of an individual, the
Secretary shall, if the information in the National Directory
of New Hires indicates that the individual may be employed,
disclose to the State agency the name, address, and employer
identification number of any putative employer of the
individual, subject to this paragraph.
``(B) Condition on disclosure.--The Secretary shall make a
disclosure under subparagraph (A) only to the extent that the
Secretary determines that the disclosure would not interfere
with the effective operation of the program under this part.
``(C) Use of information.--A State agency may use
information provided under this paragraph only for purposes
of administering a program referred to in subparagraph
(A).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on October 1, 2003.

SEC. 407. DECREASE IN AMOUNT OF CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGE
TRIGGERING PASSPORT DENIAL.

(a) In General.--Section 452(k)(1) (42 U.S.C. 652(k)(1)) is
amended by striking ``$5,000'' and inserting ``$2,500''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 454(31) (42 U.S.C.
654(31)) is amended by striking ``$5,000'' and inserting
``$2,500''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 2003.

SEC. 408. USE OF TAX REFUND INTERCEPT PROGRAM TO COLLECT
PAST-DUE CHILD SUPPORT ON BEHALF OF CHILDREN
WHO ARE NOT MINORS.

(a) In General.--Section 464 (42 U.S.C. 664) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(2)(A), by striking ``(as that term is
defined for purposes of this paragraph under subsection
(c))''; and
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2),
as used in'' and inserting ``In''; and
(ii) by inserting ``(whether or not a minor)'' after ``a
child'' each place it appears; and
(B) by striking paragraphs (2) and (3).
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on October 1, 2004.

SEC. 409. GARNISHMENT OF COMPENSATION PAID TO VETERANS FOR
SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITIES IN ORDER TO
ENFORCE CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATIONS.

(a) In General.--Section 459(h) (42 U.S.C. 659(h)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(A)(ii)(V), by striking all that
follows ``Armed Forces'' and inserting a semicolon; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Limitations with respect to compensation paid to
veterans for service-connected disabilities.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of this section:
``(A) Compensation described in paragraph (1)(A)(ii)(V)
shall not be subject to withholding pursuant to this
section--
``(i) for payment of alimony; or
``(ii) for payment of child support if the individual is
fewer than 60 days in arrears in payment of the support.
``(B) Not more than 50 percent of any payment of
compensation described in paragraph (1)(A)(ii)(V) may be
withheld pursuant to this section.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on October 1, 2004.

SEC. 410. IMPROVING FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES.

Section 3716(h)(3) of title 31, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
``(3) In applying this subsection with respect to any debt
owed to a State, other than past due support being enforced
by the State, subsection (c)(3)(A) shall not apply.
Subsection (c)(3)(A) shall apply with respect to past due
support being enforced by the State notwithstanding any other
provision of law, including sections 207 and 1631(d)(1) of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 407 and 1383(d)(1)),
section 413(b) of Public law 91-173 (30 U.S.C. 923(b)), and
section 14 of the Act of August 29, 1935 (45 U.S.C. 231m).''.

SEC. 411. MAINTENANCE OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FUNDING.

Section 452(j) (42 U.S.C. 652(j)) is amended by inserting
``or the amount appropriated under this paragraph for fiscal
year 2002, whichever is greater,'' before ``which shall be
available''.

SEC. 412. MAINTENANCE OF FEDERAL PARENT LOCATOR SERVICE
FUNDING.

Section 453(o) (42 U.S.C. 653(o)) is amended--
(1) in the 1st sentence, by inserting ``or the amount
appropriated under this paragraph for fiscal year 2002,
whichever is greater,'' before ``which shall be available'';
and
(2) in the 2nd sentence, by striking ``for each of fiscal
years 1997 through 2001''.

TITLE V--CHILD WELFARE

SEC. 501. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY TO APPROVE DEMONSTRATION
PROJECTS.

Section 1130(a)(2) (42 U.S.C. 1320a-9(a)(2)) is amended by
striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2007''.

SEC. 502. ELIMINATION OF LIMITATION ON NUMBER OF WAIVERS.

Section 1130(a)(2) (42 U.S.C. 1320a-9(a)(2)) is amended by
striking ``not more than 10''.

SEC. 503. ELIMINATION OF LIMITATION ON NUMBER OF STATES THAT
MAY BE GRANTED WAIVERS TO CONDUCT DEMONSTRATION
PROJECTS ON SAME TOPIC.

Section 1130 (42 U.S.C. 1320a-9) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(h) No Limit on Number of States That May Be Granted
Waivers To Conduct Same or Similar Demonstration Projects.--
The Secretary shall not refuse to grant a waiver to a State
under this section on the grounds that a purpose of the
waiver or of the demonstration project for which the waiver
is necessary would be the same as or similar to a purpose of
another waiver or project that is or may be conducted under
this section.''.

SEC. 504. ELIMINATION OF LIMITATION ON NUMBER OF WAIVERS THAT
MAY BE GRANTED TO A SINGLE STATE FOR
DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.

Section 1130 (42 U.S.C. 1320a-9) is further amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(i) No Limit on Number of Waivers Granted to, or
Demonstration Projects That May Be Conducted by, a Single
State.--The Secretary shall not impose any limit on the
number of waivers that may be granted to a State, or the
number of demonstration projects that a State may be
authorized to conduct, under this section.''.

SEC. 505. STREAMLINED PROCESS FOR CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS
TO AND EXTENSIONS OF DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
REQUIRING WAIVERS.

Section 1130 (42 U.S.C. 1320a-9) is further amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(j) Streamlined Process for Consideration of Amendments
and Extensions.--The Secretary shall develop a streamlined
process for consideration of amendments and extensions
proposed by States to demonstration projects conducted under
this section.''.

SEC. 506. AVAILABILITY OF REPORTS.

Section 1130 (42 U.S.C. 1320a-9) is further amended by
adding at the end the following:

[[Page H2529]]

``(k) Availability of Reports.--The Secretary shall make
available to any State or other interested party any report
provided to the Secretary under subsection (f)(2), and any
evaluation or report made by the Secretary with respect to a
demonstration project conducted under this section, with a
focus on information that may promote best practices and
program improvements.''.

SEC. 507. TECHNICAL CORRECTION.

Section 1130(b)(1) (42 U.S.C. 1320a-9(b)(1)) is amended by
striking ``422(b)(9)'' and inserting ``422(b)(10)''.

TITLE VI--SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME

SEC. 601. REVIEW OF STATE AGENCY BLINDNESS AND DISABILITY
DETERMINATIONS.

Section 1633 (42 U.S.C. 1383b) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(e)(1) The Commissioner of Social Security shall review
determinations, made by State agencies pursuant to subsection
(a) in connection with applications for benefits under this
title on the basis of blindness or disability, that
individuals who have attained 18 years of age are blind or
disabled as of a specified onset date. The Commissioner of
Social Security shall review such a determination before any
action is taken to implement the determination.
``(2)(A) In carrying out paragraph (1), the Commissioner of
Social Security shall review--
``(i) at least 20 percent of all determinations referred to
in paragraph (1) that are made in fiscal year 2003;
``(ii) at least 40 percent of all such determinations that
are made in fiscal year 2004; and
``(iii) at least 50 percent of all such determinations that
are made in fiscal year 2005 or thereafter.
``(B) In carrying out subparagraph (A), the Commissioner of
Social Security shall, to the extent feasible, select for
review the determinations which the Commissioner of Social
Security identifies as being the most likely to be
incorrect.''.

TITLE VII--STATE AND LOCAL FLEXIBILITY

SEC. 701. PROGRAM COORDINATION DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.

(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to establish a
program of demonstration projects in a State or portion of a
State to coordinate multiple public assistance, workforce
development, and other programs, for the purpose of
supporting working individuals and families, helping families
escape welfare dependency, promoting child well-being, or
helping build stronger families, using innovative approaches
to strengthen service systems and provide more coordinated
and effective service delivery.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Administering secretary.--The term ``administering
Secretary'' means, with respect to a qualified program, the
head of the Federal agency responsible for administering the
program.
(2) Qualified program.--The term ``qualified program''
means--
(A) a program under part A of title IV of the Social
Security Act;
(B) the program under title XX of such Act;
(C) activities funded under title I of the Workforce
Investment Act of 1998, except subtitle C of such title;
(D) a demonstration project authorized under section 505 of
the Family Support Act of 1988;
(E) activities funded under the Wagner-Peyser Act;
(F) activities funded under the Adult Education and Family
Literacy Act;
(G) activities funded under the Child Care and Development
Block Grant Act of 1990;
(H) activities funded under the United States Housing Act
of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437 et seq.), except that such term shall
not include--
(i) any program for rental assistance under section 8 of
such Act (42 U.S.C. 1437f); and
(ii) the program under section 7 of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1437e) for designating public housing for occupancy by
certain populations;
(I) activities funded under title I, II, III, or IV of the
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11301 et
seq.); or
(J) the food stamp program as defined in section 3(h) of
the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2012(h)).
(c) Application Requirements.--The head of a State entity
or of a sub-State entity administering 2 or more qualified
programs proposed to be included in a demonstration project
under this section shall (or, if the project is proposed to
include qualified programs administered by 2 or more such
entities, the heads of the administering entities (each of
whom shall be considered an applicant for purposes of this
section) shall jointly) submit to the administering Secretary
of each such program an application that contains the
following:
(1) Programs included.--A statement identifying each
qualified program to be included in the project, and
describing how the purposes of each such program will be
achieved by the project.
(2) Population served.--A statement identifying the
population to be served by the project and specifying the
eligibility criteria to be used.
(3) Description and justification.--A detailed description
of the project, including--
(A) a description of how the project is expected to improve
or enhance achievement of the purposes of the programs to be
included in the project, from the standpoint of quality, of
cost-effectiveness, or of both; and
(B) a description of the performance objectives for the
project, including any proposed modifications to the
performance measures and reporting requirements used in the
programs.
(4) Waivers requested.--A description of the statutory and
regulatory requirements with respect to which a waiver is
requested in order to carry out the project, and a
justification of the need for each such waiver.
(5) Cost neutrality.--Such information and assurances as
necessary to establish to the satisfaction of the
administering Secretary, in consultation with the Director of
the Office of Management and Budget, that the proposed
project is reasonably expected to meet the applicable cost
neutrality requirements of subsection (d)(4).
(6) Evaluation and reports.--An assurance that the
applicant will conduct ongoing and final evaluations of the
project, and make interim and final reports to the
administering Secretary, at such times and in such manner as
the administering Secretary may require.
(7) Public housing agency plan.--In the case of an
application proposing a demonstration project that includes
activities referred to in subsection (b)(2)(H) of this
section--
(A) a certification that the applicable annual public
housing agency plan of any agency affected by the project
that is approved under section 5A of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437c-1) by the Secretary
includes the information specified in paragraphs (1) through
(4) of this subsection; and
(B) any resident advisory board recommendations, and other
information, relating to the project that, pursuant to
section 5A(e)(2) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42
U.S.C. 1437c-1(e)(2), is required to be included in the
public housing agency plan of any public housing agency
affected by the project.
(8) Other information and assurances.--Such other
information and assurances as the administering Secretary may
require.
(d) Approval of Applications.--
(1) In general.--The administering Secretary with respect
to a qualified program that is identified in an application
submitted pursuant to subsection (c) may approve the
application and, except as provided in paragraph (2), waive
any requirement applicable to the program, to the extent
consistent with this section and necessary and appropriate
for the conduct of the demonstration project proposed in the
application, if the administering Secretary determines that
the project--
(A) has a reasonable likelihood of achieving the objectives
of the programs to be included in the project;
(B) may reasonably be expected to meet the applicable cost
neutrality requirements of paragraph (4), as determined by
the Director of the Office of Management and Budget; and
(C) includes the coordination of 2 or more qualified
programs.
(2) Provisions excluded from waiver authority.--A waiver
shall not be granted under paragraph (1)--
(A) with respect to any provision of law relating to--
(i) civil rights or prohibition of discrimination;
(ii) purposes or goals of any program;
(iii) maintenance of effort requirements;
(iv) health or safety;
(v) labor standards under the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938; or
(vi) environmental protection;
(B) with respect to section 241(a) of the Adult Education
and Family Literacy Act;
(C) in the case of a program under the United States
Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437 et seq.), with respect to
any requirement under section 5A of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1437c-1; relating to public housing agency plans and resident
advisory boards);
(D) in the case of a program under the Workforce Investment
Act, with respect to any requirement the waiver of which
would violate section 189(i)(4)(A)(i) of such Act;
(E) in the case of the food stamp program (as defined in
section 3(h) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C.
2012(h)), with respect to any requirement under--
(i) section 6 (if waiving a requirement under such section
would have the effect of expanding eligibility for the
program), 7(b) or 16(c) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7
U.S.C. 2011 et seq.); or
(ii) title IV of the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1601 et
seq.);
(F) with respect to any requirement that a State pass
through to a sub-State entity part or all of an amount paid
to the State;
(G) if the waiver would waive any funding restriction or
limitation provided in an appropriations Act, or would have
the effect of transferring appropriated funds from 1
appropriations account to another; or
(H) except as otherwise provided by statute, if the waiver
would waive any funding restriction applicable to a program
authorized under an Act which is not an appropriations Act
(but not including program requirements such as application
procedures, performance standards, reporting requirements, or
eligibility standards), or would have the effect of
transferring funds from a program for which there is direct
spending

[[Page H2530]]

(as defined in section 250(c)(8) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985) to another program.
(3) Agreement of each administering secretary required.--
(A) In general.--An applicant may not conduct a
demonstration project under this section unless each
administering Secretary with respect to any program proposed
to be included in the project has approved the application to
conduct the project.
(B) Agreement with respect to funding and implementation.--
Before approving an application to conduct a demonstration
project under this section, an administering Secretary shall
have in place an agreement with the applicant with respect to
the payment of funds and responsibilities required of the
administering Secretary with respect to the project.
(4) Cost-neutrality requirement.--
(A) General rule.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law (except subparagraph (B)), the total of the amounts that
may be paid by the Federal Government for a fiscal year with
respect to the programs in the State in which an entity
conducting a demonstration project under this section is
located that are affected by the project shall not exceed the
estimated total amount that the Federal Government would have
paid for the fiscal year with respect to the programs if the
project had not been conducted, as determined by the Director
of the Office of Management and Budget.
(B) Special rule.--If an applicant submits to the Director
of the Office of Management and Budget a request to apply the
rules of this subparagraph to the programs in the State in
which the applicant is located that are affected by a
demonstration project proposed in an application submitted by
the applicant pursuant to this section, during such period of
not more than 5 consecutive fiscal years in which the project
is in effect, and the Director determines, on the basis of
supporting information provided by the applicant, to grant
the request, then, notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the total of the amounts that may be paid by the Federal
Government for the period with respect to the programs shall
not exceed the estimated total amount that the Federal
Government would have paid for the period with respect to the
programs if the project had not been conducted.
(5) 90-day approval deadline.--
(A) In general.--If an administering Secretary receives an
application to conduct a demonstration project under this
section and does not disapprove the application within 90
days after the receipt, then--
(i) the administering Secretary is deemed to have approved
the application for such period as is requested in the
application, except to the extent inconsistent with
subsection (e); and
(ii) any waiver requested in the application which applies
to a qualified program that is identified in the application
and is administered by the administering Secretary is deemed
to be granted, except to the extent inconsistent with
paragraph (2) or (4) of this subsection.
(B) Deadline extended if additional information is
sought.--The 90-day period referred to in subparagraph (A)
shall not include any period that begins with the date the
Secretary requests the applicant to provide additional
information with respect to the application and ends with the
date the additional information is provided.
(e) Duration of Projects.--A demonstration project under
this section may be approved for a term of not more than 5
years.
(f) Reports to Congress.--
(1) Report on disposition of applications.--Within 90 days
after an administering Secretary receives an application
submitted pursuant to this section, the administering
Secretary shall submit to each Committee of the Congress
which has jurisdiction over a qualified program identified in
the application notice of the receipt, a description of the
decision of the administering Secretary with respect to the
application, and the reasons for approving or disapproving
the application.
(2) Reports on projects.--Each administering Secretary
shall provide annually to the Congress a report concerning
demonstration projects approved under this section,
including--
(A) the projects approved for each applicant;
(B) the number of waivers granted under this section, and
the specific statutory provisions waived;
(C) how well each project for which a waiver is granted is
improving or enhancing program achievement from the
standpoint of quality, cost-effectiveness, or both;
(D) how well each project for which a waiver is granted is
meeting the performance objectives specified in subsection
(c)(3)(B);
(E) how each project for which a waiver is granted is
conforming with the cost-neutrality requirements of
subsection (d)(4); and
(F) to the extent the administering Secretary deems
appropriate, recommendations for modification of programs
based on outcomes of the projects.
(g) Amendment to United States Housing Act of 1937.--
Section 5A(d) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42
U.S.C. 1437c-1(d)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (18) as paragraph (19); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (17) the following new
paragraph:
``(18) Program coordination demonstration projects.--In the
case of an agency that administers an activity referred to in
section 701(b)(2)(H) of the Personal Responsibility, Work,
and Family Promotion Act of 2002 that, during such fiscal
year, will be included in a demonstration project under
section 701 of such Act, the information that is required to
be included in the application for the project pursuant to
paragraphs (1) through (4) of section 701(b) of such Act.''.

SEC. 702. STATE FOOD ASSISTANCE BLOCK GRANT DEMONSTRATION
PROJECT.

The Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) is
amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 28. STATE FOOD ASSISTANCE BLOCK GRANT DEMONSTRATION
PROJECT.

``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a
program to make grants to States in accordance with this
section to provide--
``(1) food assistance to needy individuals and families
residing in the State;
``(2) funds to operate an employment and training program
under subsection (g) for needy individuals under the program;
and
``(3) funds for administrative costs incurred in providing
the assistance.
``(b) Election.--
``(1) In general.--A State may elect to participate in the
program established under subsection (a).
``(2) Election revocable.--A State that elects to
participate in the program established under subsection (a)
may subsequently reverse the election of the State only once
thereafter. Following the reversal, the State shall only be
eligible to participate in the food stamp program in
accordance with the other sections of this Act and shall not
receive a block grant under this section.
``(3) Program exclusive.--A State that is participating in
the program established under subsection (a) shall not be
subject to, or receive any benefit under, this Act except as
provided in this section.
``(c) Lead Agency.--
``(1) Designation.--A State desiring to participate in the
program established under subsection (a) shall designate, in
an application submitted to the Secretary under subsection
(d)(1), an appropriate State agency that complies with
paragraph (2) to act as the lead agency for the State.
``(2) Duties.--The lead agency shall--
``(A) administer, either directly, through other State
agencies, or through local agencies, the assistance received
under this section by the State;
``(B) develop the State plan to be submitted to the
Secretary under subsection (d)(1); and
``(C) coordinate the provision of food assistance under
this section with other Federal, State, and local programs.
``(d) Application and Plan.--
``(1) Application.--To be eligible to receive assistance
under this section, a State shall prepare and submit to the
Secretary an application at such time, in such manner, and
containing such information as the Secretary shall by
regulation require, including--
``(A) an assurance that the State will comply with the
requirements of this section;
``(B) a State plan that meets the requirements of paragraph
(2); and
``(C) an assurance that the State will comply with the
requirements of the State plan under paragraph (2).
``(2) Requirements of plan.--
``(A) Lead agency.--The State plan shall identify the lead
agency.
``(B) Use of block grant funds.--The State plan shall
provide that the State shall use the amounts provided to the
State for each fiscal year under this section--
``(i) to provide food assistance to needy individuals and
families residing in the State, other than residents of
institutions who are ineligible for food stamps under section
3(i);
``(ii) to administer an employment and training program
under subsection (g) for needy individuals under the program
and to provide reimbursements to needy individuals and
families as would be allowed under section 16(h)(3); and
``(iii) to pay administrative costs incurred in providing
the assistance.
``(C) Assistance for entire state.--The State plan shall
provide that benefits under this section shall be available
throughout the entire State.
``(D) Notice and hearings.--The State plan shall provide
that an individual or family who applies for, or receives,
assistance under this section shall be provided with notice
of, and an opportunity for a hearing on, any action under
this section that adversely affects the individual or family.
``(E) Other assistance.--
``(i) Coordination.--The State plan may coordinate
assistance received under this section with assistance
provided under the State program funded under part A of title
IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
``(ii) Penalties.--If an individual or family is penalized
for violating part A of title IV of the Act, the State plan
may reduce the amount of assistance provided under this
section or otherwise penalize the individual or family.
``(F) Eligibility limitations.--The State plan shall
describe the income and resource eligibility limitations that
are established for the receipt of assistance under this
section.
``(G) Receiving benefits in more than 1 jurisdiction.--The
State plan shall establish a system to verify and otherwise
ensure that no individual or family shall receive benefits

[[Page H2531]]

under this section in more than 1 jurisdiction within the
State.
``(H) Privacy.--The State plan shall provide for
safeguarding and restricting the use and disclosure of
information about any individual or family receiving
assistance under this section.
``(I) Other information.--The State plan shall contain such
other information as may be required by the Secretary.
``(3) Approval of application and plan.--During fiscal
years 2003 through 2007, the Secretary may approve the
applications and State plans that satisfy the requirements of
this section of not more than 5 States for a term of not more
than 5 years.
``(e) Construction of Facilities.--No funds made available
under this section shall be expended for the purchase or
improvement of land, or for the purchase, construction, or
permanent improvement of any building or facility.
``(f) Benefits for Aliens.--No individual shall be eligible
to receive benefits under a State plan approved under
subsection (d)(3) if the individual is not eligible to
participate in the food stamp program under title IV of the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.).
``(g) Employment and Training.--Each State shall implement
an employment and training program for needy individuals
under the program.
``(h) Enforcement.--
``(1) Review of compliance with state plan.--The Secretary
shall review and monitor State compliance with this section
and the State plan approved under subsection (d)(3).
``(2) Noncompliance.--
``(A) In general.--If the Secretary, after reasonable
notice to a State and opportunity for a hearing, finds that--
``(i) there has been a failure by the State to comply
substantially with any provision or requirement set forth in
the State plan approved under subsection (d)(3); or
``(ii) in the operation of any program or activity for
which assistance is provided under this section, there is a
failure by the State to comply substantially with any
provision of this section, the Secretary shall notify the
State of the finding and that no further payments will be
made to the State under this section (or, in the case of
noncompliance in the operation of a program or activity, that
no further payments to the State will be made with respect to
the program or activity) until the Secretary is satisfied
that there is no longer any failure to comply or that the
noncompliance will be promptly corrected.
``(B) Other sanctions.--In the case of a finding of
noncompliance made pursuant to subparagraph (A), the
Secretary may, in addition to, or in lieu of, imposing the
sanctions described in subparagraph (A), impose other
appropriate sanctions, including recoupment of money
improperly expended for purposes prohibited or not authorized
by this section and disqualification from the receipt of
financial assistance under this section.
``(C) Notice.--The notice required under subparagraph (A)
shall include a specific identification of any additional
sanction being imposed under subparagraph (B).
``(3) Issuance of regulations .--The Secretary shall
establish by regulation procedures for--
``(A) receiving, processing, and determining the validity
of complaints concerning any failure of a State to comply
with the State plan or any requirement of this section; and
``(B) imposing sanctions under this section.
``(i) Payments.--
``(1) In general.--For each fiscal year, the Secretary
shall pay to a State that has an application approved by the
Secretary under subsection (d)(3) an amount that is equal to
the allotment of the State under subsection (l)(2) for the
fiscal year.
``(2) Method of payment.--The Secretary shall make payments
to a State for a fiscal year under this section by issuing 1
or more letters of credit for the fiscal year, with necessary
adjustments on account of overpayments or underpayments, as
determined by the Secretary.
``(3) Spending of funds by state.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
payments to a State from an allotment under subsection (l)(2)
for a fiscal year may be expended by the State only in the
fiscal year.
``(B) Carryover.--The State may reserve up to 10 percent of
an allotment under subsection (l)(2) for a fiscal year to
provide assistance under this section in subsequent fiscal
years, except that the reserved funds may not exceed 30
percent of the total allotment received under this section
for a fiscal year.
``(4) Provision of food assistance.--A State may provide
food assistance under this section in any manner determined
appropriate by the State to provide food assistance to needy
individuals and families in the State, such as electronic
benefits transfer limited to food purchases, coupons limited
to food purchases, or direct provision of commodities.
``(5) Definition of food assistance.--In this section, the
term `food assistance' means assistance that may be used only
to obtain food, as defined in section 3(g).
``(j) Audits.--
``(1) Requirement.--After the close of each fiscal year, a
State shall arrange for an audit of the expenditures of the
State during the program period from amounts received under
this section.
``(2) Independent auditor.--An audit under this section
shall be conducted by an entity that is independent of any
agency administering activities that receive assistance under
this section and be in accordance with generally accepted
auditing principles.
``(3) Payment accuracy.--Each annual audit under this
section shall include an audit of payment accuracy under this
section that shall be based on a statistically valid sample
of the caseload in the State.
``(4) Submission.--Not later than 30 days after the
completion of an audit under this section, the State shall
submit a copy of the audit to the legislature of the State
and to the Secretary.
``(5) Repayment of amounts.--Each State shall repay to the
United States any amounts determined through an audit under
this section to have not been expended in accordance with
this section or to have not been expended in accordance with
the State plan, or the Secretary may offset the amounts
against any other amount paid to the State under this
section.
``(k) Nondiscrimination.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall not provide
financial assistance for any program, project, or activity
under this section if any person with responsibilities for
the operation of the program, project, or activity
discriminates with respect to the program, project, or
activity because of race, religion, color, national origin,
sex, or disability.
``(2) Enforcement.--The powers, remedies, and procedures
set forth in title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42
U.S.C. 2000d et seq.) may be used by the Secretary to enforce
paragraph (1).
``(l) Allotments.--
``(1) Definition of state.--In this section, the term
'State' means each of the 50 States, the District of
Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.
``(2) State allotment.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
from the amounts made available under section 18 of this Act
for each fiscal year, the Secretary shall allot to each State
participating in the program established under subsection (a)
an amount that is equal to the sum of--
``(i) the greater of, as determined by the Secretary--

``(I) the total dollar value of all benefits issued under
the food stamp program established under this Act by the
State during fiscal year 2002; or
``(II) the average per fiscal year of the total dollar
value of all benefits issued under the food stamp program by
the State during each of fiscal years 2000 through 2002; and

``(ii) the greater of, as determined by the Secretary--

``(I) the total amount received by the State for
administrative costs and the employment and training program
under subsections (a) and (h), respectively, of section 16 of
this Act for fiscal year 2002; or
``(II) the average per fiscal year of the total amount
received by the State for administrative costs and the
employment and training program under subsections (a) and
(h), respectively, of section 16 of this Act for each of
fiscal years 2000 through 2002.

``(B) Insufficient funds.--If the Secretary finds that the
total amount of allotments to which States would otherwise be
entitled for a fiscal year under subparagraph (A) will exceed
the amount of funds that will be made available to provide
the allotments for the fiscal year, the Secretary shall
reduce the allotments made to States under this subsection,
on a pro rata basis, to the extent necessary to allot under
this subsection a total amount that is equal to the funds
that will be made available.''.

TITLE VIII--ABSTINENCE EDUCATION

SEC. 801. EXTENSION OF ABSTINENCE EDUCATION FUNDING UNDER
MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH PROGRAM.

Section 510(d) (42 U.S.C. 710(d)) is amended by striking
``2002'' and inserting ``2007''.

TITLE IX--TRANSITIONAL MEDICAL ASSISTANCE

SEC. 901. ONE-YEAR REAUTHORIZATION OF TRANSITIONAL MEDICAL
ASSISTANCE.

(a) In General.--Section 1925(f) (42 U.S.C. 1396r-6(f)) is
amended by striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2003''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1902(e)(1)(B) (42 U.S.C.
1396a(e)(1)(B)) is amended by striking ``2002'' and inserting
``2003''.

SEC. 902. ADJUSTMENT TO PAYMENTS FOR MEDICAID ADMINISTRATIVE
COSTS TO PREVENT DUPLICATIVE PAYMENTS AND TO
FUND A 1-YEAR EXTENSION OF TRANSITIONAL MEDICAL
ASSISTANCE.

Section 1903 (42 U.S.C. 1396b) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(7), by striking ``section
1919(g)(3)(B)'' and inserting ``subsection (x) and section
1919(g)(3)(C)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(x) Adjustments to Payments for Administrative Costs To
Fund 1-Year Extension of Transitional Medical Assistance.--
``(1) Reductions in payments for administrative costs.--
Effective for each calendar quarter in fiscal year 2003 and
fiscal year 2004, the Secretary shall reduce the amount paid
under subsection (a)(7) to each State by an amount equal to
50 percent for fiscal year 2003, and 75 percent for fiscal
year 2004, of

[[Page H2532]]

one-quarter of the annualized amount determined for the
medicaid program under section 16(k)(2)(B) of the Food Stamp
Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2025(k)(2)(B)).
``(2) Allocation of administrative costs.--None of the
funds or expenditures described in section 16(k)(5)(B) of the
Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2025(k)(5)(B)) may be used
to pay for costs--
``(A) eligible for reimbursement under subsection (a)(7)
(or costs that would have been eligible for reimbursement but
for this subsection); and
``(B) allocated for reimbursement to the program under this
title under a plan submitted by a State to the Secretary to
allocate administrative costs for public assistance programs;

except that, for purposes of subparagraph (A), the reference
in clause (iii) of that section to `subsection (a)' is deemed
a reference to subsection (a)(7) and clause (iv)(II) of that
section shall be applied as if `medicaid program' were
substituted for `food stamp program'.''.

TITLE X--EFFECTIVE DATE

SEC. 1001. EFFECTIVE DATE.

(a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided, the
amendments made by this Act shall take effect on October 1,
2002.
(b) Exception.--In the case of a State plan under part A or
D of title IV of the Social Security Act which the Secretary
determines requires State legislation in order for the plan
to meet the additional requirements imposed by the amendments
made by this Act, the effective date of the amendments
imposing the additional requirements shall be 3 months after
the first day of the first calendar quarter beginning after
the close of the first regular session of the State
legislature that begins after the date of the enactment of
this Act. For purposes of the preceding sentence, in the case
of a State that has a 2-year legislative session, each year
of the session shall be considered to be a separate regular
session of the State legislature.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 2 hours of debate on the bill, it
shall be in order to consider an amendment printed in the House Report
107-466, if offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) or a
designee, which shall be considered read, and shall be debatable for 1
hour, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Rangel) each will control 25 minutes; the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller)
each will control 20 minutes; the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin)
and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) each will control 15
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, there will be a number of claims made on the floor
during the debate of this particular piece of legislation. The one
thing I hope people keep in mind is that it is my fervent hope that the
goals of the legislation are supported by all. It is always possible to
argue emphasis, direction, focus, degree of emphasis.
When we debated this bill repeatedly in 1996, there were some rather
dramatic claims made by its opponents about dire and Draconian
circumstances that would form a dark cloud over America if the
legislation passed. I happen to believe one of the bright points of the
Clinton administration was his willingness after repeated offers to
sign the 1996 legislation. Oftentimes claims are made without the
ability to determine whether or not the, if you will, experiment was
going to be successful or not. I think there is no question that the
general shift in emphasis from welfare to work has been a success.
Has it been an unqualified success? No, but it clearly has been a
success, and what we are embarking on now is an attempt to put
legislation together that will focus on areas that need greater
attention to maximize the opportunity to move people from poverty to
productive work, from welfare to a respect for those basic, tantamount,
underlying American concepts, and there is no area more important than
focusing on the people who are on welfare and the needs they have to be
able to assist themselves. Education, and, especially for women who
have young children, having available child care are absolutely
critical components that need to be focused on in this reauthorization
of the program.
And I am pleased to say that in both the subcommittee and the full
committee and now additionally on the floor, these areas of concern
have been focused on.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cardin) may control the time.
There was no objection.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me say that I am one of those who supported the
welfare reform bill in 1996, and I think we made the right decision in
1996. I am proud of the progress that we have made for people who are
on welfare to try to get them out of the need of cash assistance and
get them to real jobs. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat
surprised as I was listening to the Republican leadership talk about
the legislation before us.
I was somewhat surprised because I heard, on one hand, the Republican
leadership talk with pride of what we have accomplished during the past
6 years, but then I look at the bill that they have recommended, the
underlying bill before us, and I see that they scrap and dismantle the
system that we have put in place in 1996. They ignore the lessons
learned over the past 6 years.
Over the past 6 years we have learned that if we give the States
flexibility and if we give the States the resources, they can get the
job done. Instead, the bill before us is a Washington one-size-fits-
all, Washington-knows-best mandate on the States.
Every welfare recipient is not the same. In some cases a welfare
recipient should go to work immediately, a traditional job. In other
cases an individual needs to have English proficiency. And in another
case one may need to deal with the overcoming of disabilities. The
States need the ability of flexibility to determine what is best.
This bill does not do it. Instead, listen to what our States are
saying. The new requirements would require States to take resources
away from job training programs and child care programs into workfare
programs. The underlying Republican bill will require States to develop
workfare programs denying people real jobs and the opportunity to move
up in the workplace.
The New York Times said the House bill would almost certainly force
States to make jobs in order to meet the new Federal requirements.
Most disturbingly, the Republican bill takes away the flexibility of
the States to provide educational services to the people on welfare.
They remove education as one of the core ways of meeting the work
requirements.
Mr. Speaker, it is surprising to me that all of us in this body talk
about education being our top priority. We want for our own children,
we want for our own family maximum educational opportunities. We want
it to be the top priority for everybody in this country except the
people on welfare. For them education cannot be a high priority. That
is a mistake.
Mr. Speaker, my Republican friends talk about the fact that we should
not be placing unfunded mandates on our States. This is clearly an
unfunded mandate. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that
complying with the new requirements in the Republican bill will cost
the States anywhere between $15 to $18 billion.

{time} 1100

Republicans have provided in their bill $1 billion more in child care
and a promise of $1 billion in addition to that over the next 5 years.
The Congressional Budget Office indicates that we need $8 to $11
billion alone in child care to meet these new requirements. It does not
add up.
For the people of Maryland, the passage of this bill will be an
unfunded mandate of $144 million. For the people of my chairman's State
of California, it will be a $2.5 billion unfunded mandate.
Mr. Speaker, we can do better. Later in this debate, I will offer a
substitute that will correct these shortcomings; and I hope that I will
have support as we move forward to the next level of welfare reform.
The underlying bill does not do it. We can do better.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I had not expected in the very first comments to find out that, in
fact, misrepresentations are rampant on the

[[Page H2533]]

floor of the House. What the Congressional Budget Office said was,
``Because the TANF program affords States such broad flexibility, new
requirements would not be considered,'' would not be considered,
``intergovernmental mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act.''
The CBO said they are not unfunded mandates, and now to focus on an
area that I think is absolutely critical to the success of this
program, which is the expansion in this bill of child care support of
between 2 and $4 billion additional to the underlying almost-$5 billion
contained in the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes of my time to the gentlewoman from
Washington (Ms. Dunn), a member of the Ways and Means Committee; and I
ask unanimous consent that she control the 10 minutes of time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In 1996 we made historic changes to the welfare system. We
transformed the welfare system from a permanent entitlement that
tolerated an average of 13 years of government dependence to a
temporary assistance program that gave people the opportunity to start
working, gain the necessary skills to retain a job and to become self-
sufficient.
This year we have a chance to build upon those successes while
improving the program to further assist individuals and families move
out of poverty.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, one realistic way to look at the
reauthorization that we are debating today is that when we reform such
a massive program as welfare, as we did in 1996, there are some people
who may fall through the cracks. That, Mr. Speaker, is exactly what we
are analyzing in our changes to the bill today, and we have been told
by welfare recipients in those early days of 1995 and 1996 that
providing adequate child care services would help them move from
welfare on to work. In fact, that if they did not have to worry about
their children being well taken care of, they could focus all their
energies and their skills on what for some was to be a brand-new job.
In fact, child care spending has more than tripled under welfare
reform, rising from $3 billion in 1995 to $9.4 billion in the year
2000. Equipped with more funding and greater flexibility to transfer
money out of the block grant for child care, States have been able to
provide more quality child care options so working mothers can
concentrate on these new jobs.
However, Mr. Speaker, our job is not done. As we increase the working
hours from 30 to 40 and as more single mothers and dads participate in
jobs on weekends and evenings, we must ensure that they can access
quality and affordable child care services.
In my State, we are finding that child care for infants, children
with disabilities and during evening and weekend hours is expensive and
scarce. That is why our bill provides an additional $2 billion over 5
years for child care despite its already historically high levels.
Further, we add report language asking States to pay special attention
to the needs to expand child care options for infants, children with
disabilities and during evenings and weekends.
I hope my colleagues will support this important legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Mrs. Thurman), a distinguished member of our committee.
Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me say that my
understanding is what CBO said is that it would not be an unfunded
mandate, only because my colleagues are asking the States or the States
would have to make cuts in other programs. I can tell my colleagues, in
Florida, they are already in so much trouble they have been cutting
these programs for the last couple of weeks because they have no money;
and I would say to the last speaker, she is talking about $289 million
in Washington. In Florida, we are looking at $311 million in an
unfunded mandate.
I think it is interesting that we are having this conversation. I,
like the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and others, also
supported this bill in 1996; and, yes, I too am very proud that we have
given hope and that we have given the opportunity for people to go back
to work and have dignity. But I also want to remind my colleagues that
welfare reform is about children. That is what welfare reform is,
children, what happens to their safety net.
In the Republican bill that we are looking at today, we would
increase child care funding by $1 billion over the next 5 years. Let me
just say to my colleagues, just in my State alone, in Florida, it would
require an additional $155.5 million over 5 years in child care
funding.
The Republican bill doubles work hours for mothers with children
under the age of six from 20 to 40. This means that young children will
spend more time in child care. Yet the bill offers insufficient child
care funding. How do we ensure that they receive adequate care? More
importantly, when will these working mothers be able to spend quality
time with their children?
H.R. 4737 fails to answer those questions. If that is not a reason
enough to vote against H.R. 4737, listen to what the St. Petersburg
Times said: ``Even the Nation's Republican governors are chafing under
the prospect, for fear the new mandates will prove difficult to meet
and counterproductive to the goal of pulling recipients out of poverty,
not merely putting them to work. After 5 years, Congress should be
solidifying welfare reform's successes, not exacerbating its
weaknesses.''
The Democratic substitute solidifies those successes.
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
I will remind the gentlewoman from Florida that the number that we
are increasing child care by is not $1 billion over 5 years, it is $2
billion over 5 years, and that the States are provided with very
liberal waiver authority to handle anything that might be a problem to
them in their States.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs.
Biggert), a lawyer herself, a leader in the State senate before she
came to us.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Washington
(Ms. Dunn) for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I join the Republican
women of the House in strong support of H.R. 4737. This bill keeps our
commitment to America's kids and to America's great promise of welfare
reform; and with the addition of at least $2 billion, one in mandatory
spending and one in discretionary spending, at least, and extra funding
for child care and development block grants, a very good bill has
become even better.
Why is that? Well, more funding means more kids covered. More kids
covered means more parents working, and that is our ultimate objective,
to give every American the opportunity to work and to gain dignity and
self-respect that comes with providing for their own family.
The past 6 years of welfare reform have shown us what works and what
does not. When I meet with former welfare recipients throughout my
congressional district, each and every one tells me that their success
simply would not have been possible without child care assistance.
I thank all my colleagues who have worked so hard to include this
extra $2 billion-plus in the bill for American kids.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a distinguished member of
the Committee on Ways and Means and on the Subcommittee on Human
Resources.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, this whole issue of how much money, I do
not know how the American people follow it, but the fact is that the
bill makes mandatory $1 billion for child care. Any additional money is
subject to appropriation. That second billion dollars is not
guaranteed, and we have a terrible budget mess. Those of us sitting on
the Budget Committee know that, and the fact is that even that $2
billion is not going to cover the $11 billion in child care that is
needed to hold the line.
In the State of Washington, my distinguished colleague from the State
of Washington, when she votes for this, is putting a $280 million
unfunded mandate on our State, in a State where

[[Page H2534]]

they are already $1 billion in the hole. The gentlewoman from Illinois,
she stands up here and blithely puts $322 million on the Illinois State
legislature; they must fund this because they have to have a program
for people for more than 30 hours.
That means make-work programs. Never mind what happens to kids and
whether they get taken care of or not. We are going to be back to CETA
jobs. I do not think there is anybody left in here except a few of us
who remember CETA jobs in the 1960s. My colleagues are going to be
putting States and counties and cities to making work programs, and my
colleagues can stand up here and say that they have all of this in here
and all this flexibility. If this was such a flexible bill, I would
like to understand why it is they took away vocational training. What
possible reason could they take vocational training out as one of the
work activities? Do my colleagues not think people ought to train to
get a better job or do they want them all to work as maids in hotels or
something at a $7-an-hour job with no child care and no health care
benefits? That is what my colleagues call lifting them out of poverty.
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
I will remind the gentleman from Washington State that we have
extended the ability to transfer funds from one portion of the TANF
dollars that are granted to the States into child care or any other
area. In 1996, there was a 30 percent exchange. Now it is a 50 percent
exchange. One of the cores of this bill is the flexibility for States
to use money in a way that will make their programs the most effective.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico
(Mrs. Wilson), who is formerly a cabinet Secretary for families and
children.
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the
State of Washington for yielding me the time. I thank her for her
leadership in bringing focus to the problem of child care and the
challenge of child care so that we can build on the success that we
have already achieved with welfare reform.
There are 2.3 million fewer children who are in poverty today because
their moms have gotten good jobs. There are almost 2 million children
who are not hungry today because they have been raised out of poverty
and their parents can afford food. That is because of welfare reform.
Funding for child care from the Federal Government has tripled over
the last 5 years, and that is at the same time that welfare caseloads
have been cut in half, so that there is more money per child, and
States have been allowed to move that money from those on welfare to
the low-income working poor so that they can afford high quality child
care.
We are not satisfied with the success we have already seen. We want
to build on this success and add more money into child care and focus
on a couple of things.
The real key I believe is quality, quality child care. So that we
have trained providers, we are paying close to or at or above market
rates. We have a stable nurturing workforce and stimulating settings
for kids so that those who are growing up in poverty, those whose
parents are working off welfare have a fair start at the starting gate
of life.
This $2 billion I hope States will use to increase what they pay for
child care because so many of our States are underpaying what it really
costs, and kids whose parents are working their way off welfare often
do not have access to the best child care settings.
This bill will also allow States to move more of this money from
those on welfare where they have reduced the rolls to those who never
were on welfare but are the low-income working poor.
Child care keeps America working. Child care is everybody's business,
and most of our businesses understand that. I commend the gentlewoman
from Washington and my colleagues in bringing an emphasis, and
increased funding to child care in this country.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me just point out to the gentlewoman from New Mexico that voting
for this bill will cost the citizens of her State an extra $100
million.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means and a
member of the Subcommittee on Human Resources.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, parents at every economic level sometimes
must balance the demands of being a good parent with being a good
employee. This is especially challenging when it is a minimum-wage job
with no health insurance and a single parent.
This partisan bill focuses solely on the work aspect, forgetting the
value of parenting, not only for our children, who lose irreplaceable
opportunities, but for communities, who suffer and bear the burden of
neglected children having children of their own and committing adult
crimes.
When asked how much of an investment in our children is required to
satisfy the new requirements of this new law, the Bush administration
responds basically, ``don't know and don't care.''

{time} 1115

But the Republican Congressional Budget Office was forced to estimate
this cost of meeting our children's child care needs. It says, at a
minimum, $8 billion is required, while the House Republican leadership
provides only $1 billion.
Additionally, this bill provides nothing, zero, zip--to meet rising
child care costs, to transform the frequently poor quality of child
care from what is too often unskilled, minimum wage workers baby-
sitting our children into what should be early educational
opportunities so that the children can hope for a better future than
that of their parents.
With 40,000 Texas children already waiting for child care assistance,
and so many of our neighbors confronting a true child care crisis in
our State, the members of the Human Services Committee of the Texas
House of Representatives, chaired by Representative Elliott Naishtat,
have rejected the unreasonable provisions of this bill. Our excellent
Texas Center for Public Policy Priorities has explained the extensive
harm that this bill will wreak.
This legislation claims to honor fatherhood, motherhood and
matrimony, but actually it threatens our neighborhoods by failing to
give the state the means to provide the support that families need to
feed, to clothe, and to raise our next generation of Americans.
We cannot afford the true cost of neglecting these children. This
bill may be good electioneering but it does too little for our
country's future. Unless we reject this grossly deficient approach, we
will reap tomorrow the bitter harvest that the bill's deliberate
neglect of these needy children sows today.
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from West
Virginia (Mrs. Capito), a leader in her State legislature who has been
very effective in increasing the child care support in this bill by $2
billion.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for joining in the
discussion on the much-needed increase in child care funding that is
provided through H.R. 4737.
When a mom is going to work for the first time, and she has children,
she is thinking to herself, I want to concentrate on my job, I want to
do the best thing I can do, but a part of her mind is thinking about
her children because she is a good mom and she is trying to do the best
for them. The best way to ensure her success in the work force and her
success with her family is good solid child care.
As a representative of an economically distressed State, I know that
thousands of parents in my district depend on subsidized child care. In
my home State of West Virginia, 85 percent of the children in child
care are in subsidized child care. I am from a rural State. It is
tremendously expensive for parents to transport their children and to
provide child care in rural States.
Today, there are over 13,000 parents and children who benefit from
this in West Virginia, and this increase will ensure that more parents
will have the opportunity to benefit. Parents are in desperate need to
find quality, safe, and affordable child care for their children. H.R.
4737 will continue high levels of support for child care while adding,
at a minimum, $2 billion in additional funds for child care over 5
years.

[[Page H2535]]

Let us ensure the success of the parents and the children and their
futures. I urge all my colleagues to stand up and support this
increased funding for child care. Parents and children alike need it.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
point out to the gentlewoman from West Virginia that by voting for this
bill her State will actually have $78 million less in resources to deal
with the problems of child care.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Kleczka), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means and one of the
individuals who helped us craft the substitute.
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, welfare programs come in various sizes and
shapes. There are good welfare programs and bad welfare programs. A few
weeks ago the Congress passed a farm bill, a farm bill that was signed
by the President this last weekend. That bill increased farm spending
$180 billion, an increase of almost 80 percent, giving growers in this
country, large corporate farmers, up to $360,000 a year of taxpayer
money. Under a loophole in the bill, they can get as high as $700,000
per year.
Mr. Speaker, welfare to corporate farmers and agribusiness is good
welfare. However, welfare to poor people is not good welfare. That is
bad welfare.
Mr. Speaker, I voted for the welfare bill back in 1996, and when I
did so I indicated to the Members that my major reservations were that
we did not do enough to promote education, and clearly the child care
funding was inadequate. Now, with 6 years experience, we find out that
that I was right. And, the Republican bill does nothing to address
these two most serious concerns.
Yes, we have dramatically reduced the welfare rolls over the last
number of years, but we have not reduced the poverty rate. The Cardin
substitute truly does address the poverty rate.
Right now we say, get a job, and then after you are done working and
taking care of your kids, you can also go to school and that will be
counted as work. But we have put the cart before the horse. Let us make
sure that individuals get adequate training, be it a GED, English as a
second language, or a vocational associate degree before mandating the
job. We are not going to lift people out of poverty, forcing them to go
right to work to get the most menial jobs that we have in this country.
So if my colleagues are really intent on lifting the poverty rate and
helping these individuals, vote for the Cardin substitute, which does
address education and provides for adequate child care.
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time we have
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentlewoman from
Washington has 2 minutes remaining.
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Granger), who is the former Mayor of Fort Worth and who has worked
with many folks who have been forced to go on welfare. She brings great
knowledge to our effort today.
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, I am talking today more as a single parent
myself, who worked very hard to support my children from the time they
were tiny, and I know that quality child care is absolutely necessary,
first of all to meet the needs of the children, but to meet the
financial needs of the family.
A job well done adds dignity to the individual but it adds stability
to the family. I know we are setting the bar high for welfare
recipients. They can make that bar if we provide quality child care,
and we are doing that at more than double what we did, a minimum of $2
billion.
But after my children were grown and my business was successful, I
served as mayor of my city, so I understand local control, and the
flexibility that we are allowing under this bill is extremely important
so that States can move the funds where they are needed most. It will
allow the States to make their individual decisions.
We have made great progress in welfare, moving people off the rolls,
but what is important is the hope we see in the faces of those children
and those parents.
I strongly support this legislation. I think it is very important,
this minimum of $2 billion, to add a sense of hope to the lives of
those people.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), a distinguished member of the
Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise against the majority
party's proposal. I read someplace, ``What does it profit a great
Nation to gain a whole world and lose her soul?''
This Republican proposal does not reflect the soul of America. It is
out of step and it is out of tune. This proposal turns its back on the
basic needs of our poor, our mothers, and our dependent children.
No one, but no one, wants to be on welfare. People want to work. They
want to pay their own way. They want training so they can secure a
permanent living wage job. Yet this bill throws in the towel. It
eliminates education and job training from the list of work
opportunities. It does nothing to promote job stability or reduce
poverty in our country.
We can spend hundreds, thousands, billions of dollars on missiles,
bombs, and even tax breaks for the wealthy individuals, but when it
comes to providing a helping hand to our poor and our needy,
Republicans want to pass the buck.
When it comes to welfare of our citizens, we must cross every T and
dot every I. Do we have the courage to put people who have been left
out and left behind back on their feet? Do we have the courage to speak
up and speak out for what is morally right? Where is our sense of what
is fair? Where is our sense of what is right?
My colleagues, please join me to vote against this reckless bill. We
can do better. We must do better.
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I simply want to wrap up, with the time we have left, to say that I
think it is very important for us to remember what it is we are trying
to do in this welfare legislation.
In 1996, we talked to welfare moms and dads. We said, what can we do
to help you bridge the gap between welfare and work? And they said give
us the ability to know that our children are well taken care of. Let us
put the full focus of our energy and our expertise into going into a
job that is going to provide us greater self-respect, greater dignity,
and provide for our children that one role model in their life that
might have a job.
We were successful there to the point that, as we moved money into
TANF, we left, as of last September, $7.5 billion in TANF funds in
States throughout the Nation that they could move to child care.
Child care was the answer then and it continues to be the answer now.
This is why we are advocating an additional $2 billion to the $4.8
billion we spend each year in dollars for child care.
I think it is our responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to help people who
want to hold jobs know their children are taken care of as they move
into the workforce. I recommend the support of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
point out to my colleagues that less than 20 percent of the children
who are federally eligible for child care assistance are now being
served under the Republican bill. That number will even get smaller.
Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), one of the leaders for working
people in this country.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, when we talk about welfare reform, I would hope that we
would include in that discussion many of the largest corporations in
this country who rip off tens of billions of dollars from taxpayers
every year in subsidies, loan guaranties and tax breaks, while then
moving their factories and bank accounts to China, Mexico or Bermuda.
But that is not what we are talking about today. Today, we are
talking about low-income women and children. We are talking about a
severe crisis in child care that leaves millions of American families
unable to afford quality child care or, in some cases,

[[Page H2536]]

any child care they can afford. We are talking about child care workers
who are grossly underpaid, who are undertrained, and who experience a
huge turnover rate to the detriment of American babies. Today, we are
talking about a child care situation that is a disgrace and a shame to
this Nation, and I want anyone over there to deny that reality.
And how have our Republican friends responded to that situation? In
real, inflation-accounted-for dollars, the President has actually cut
funding for child care, while the House Republicans have offered a
proposal that is totally inadequate. They have provided hundreds of
billions of dollars in tax breaks for the richest people in this
country, but pennies for babies and for the kids who are the future of
America.
I urge a strong no vote on the Republican proposal.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
And, of course, the gentleman from Vermont's urging of a ``no'' vote
is not unexpected. He voted against the bill in 1996. As a matter of
fact, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) voted against the
bill. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) voted against the bill.
There were dire statements made then about what was going to happen to
those individuals on welfare.
But I do want to say that there are some Members of the other party
who get it, or at least have been willing to admit that they get it.
For example, on March 21, 1995, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Gephardt) said, ``A Republican welfare bill will throw millions of
children out on the street without doing anything to move people from
welfare to work.'' This was a generally held assumption, based upon the
number of Members on that side of the aisle who voted no.
To his credit, on May 9 of this year, the gentleman from Missouri
said ``Welfare reform has been a good effort. A lot of people have gone
back to work. And so it is the right thing to do, to ask them to go
back to work and to make them go back to work.''
So in terms of the fundamental thrust of the bill, we are pleased
that people are beginning to back away from the cataclysmic statements
that had been made.

{time} 1130

What we now hear is Members who have voted against the bill
complaining about the Republican effort because it is going to put
approximately $4 billion additional monies into child care when it
should be $11 billion. It seems to me that the movement in the
direction that we are going under the current circumstances is
significant and deserves support. But sometimes some Members on the
other side of the aisle cannot bring themselves to admit that they were
wrong.
The fact of the matter is they were wrong. We are right, and we are
continuing to increase in those areas that need increases. I suppose
somebody on the other side of the aisle could ask for $100 billion in
child care. The fact of the matter is they cannot deny the fact that
this bill increases by almost $4 billion the amount that was in the
bill. That is undeniable. Those are the facts. The program works, and
we propose to make it work better.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me point out to the gentleman from California that I
am glad to see that he agrees with the fundamental thrust which his
bill would not try to fundamentally change a program which I believe
has been successful.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Levin), who is not only a member of the Committee on Ways and Means,
but is also one of the key architects of many of the provisions in the
Democratic substitute.
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, let me speak as a Member who worked a couple
of years on welfare reform in the mid-1990s, who worked on the
legislation to make sure that it had adequate health care and child
care, and who voted for the legislation. The majority has apparently
decided it wants a political issue rather than a bipartisan product. It
did not seriously work with any of us no matter how we voted in 1996.
With none of us.
Mr. Speaker, the majority comes here and talks about the past instead
of looking at the present and thinking about the future. Shame.
As a result of the majority's lack of any bipartisan effort, they
have a very flawed product. Child care, there is a billion guaranteed,
that is all; and Members come here saying something else. Oh, and then
they say let the States transfer, even though they know from the
figures that more and more States are using their TANF funds, and they
are not going to have the monies to transfer, and their budgets are in
dire straits.
On health care, the bill does not do a darn thing to improve it. In
terms of helping people move from welfare to productive work and
independence, they clamp down on vocational education. We have a
President who says education is the key; and then we come to a welfare
reform bill, and the majority clamps down and takes back what is in
present law. Again, I say shame.
All right, so then the majority says, and it looks like it is a
clever political approach, let us emphasize those people who are on
welfare and make sure they are working. So they set up an inflexible
proposition, and then the States say, oh no, that is taking away our
flexibility. So then the majority says, all right, 24 hours of work and
16 hours, people can do essentially anything they want with the 16
hours. That is how they build flexibility into their inflexible system.
So anything counts, and they vitiate their own rhetoric.
Look, in a word, welfare reform is much too important to simply
maneuver for political advantage this year or simply talk about 5 years
ago. It is too important for a lot of pious platitudes.
The substitute is a serious effort to address the needs of this new
face of welfare reform. We will present it proudly; and we will say to
the majority, shame on them for not lifting one finger to sit down with
us to try to work out a bipartisan product. Welfare reform deserves
much better than the majority has given it.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I suppose as a rhetorical device it is useful to come
down and point fingers and claim shame. Actually, the bill has been an
enormous success. It has reduced the rolls by half; and yet President
Bush has said keep the funding at a steady level, i.e., fewer people
same amount of money. In this bill, we are putting more money back in.
I guess when we take away from them what they believe is their divine
right, to be for people in poverty, and for women with children, and we
actually show compassion and we actually put money where our mouth is
and we actually put a program out that really works instead of all of
the rhetoric that have been used for years about wanting to help these
people, and I think helping people is moving them from welfare to work,
not saying how desperate they are, making speeches on the floor, and
voting against programs that actually work.
We have a program that actually works. We are putting more money in
relative to the people available, and we are putting even more money in
with this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Herger) and ask unanimous consent that the gentleman
control the balance of the time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Personal Responsibility, Work
and Family Promotion Act, which takes the next step in welfare reform.
During the welfare debate in 1996, critics predicted 1 million children
would be forced into poverty and recipients would be worse off. The
opposite occurred. Since 1996, nearly 3 million children left poverty.
Overall, 9 million parents and children have left welfare dependence
and moved on to a better life.
Today we will again hear from the naysayers. They will say needy
families cannot work, they must collect

[[Page H2537]]

welfare for more than 5 years, that it is cruel to expect them to
support themselves and their children like other American families. We
have heard it all before.
The bill before us today builds on the successful 1996 reforms. It
recognizes that work is the only true path from poverty to self-
sufficiency. It expects more work and allows more education and
training to count as work. To support more work, we added $2 billion
over 5 years for more child care. We also provided States more
flexibility in how they can spend cash welfare funds on child care,
including for low-income families that have never been on welfare.
The bill does more to promote healthy marriage which will reduce
poverty and improve child well-being. Too many children today are
raised by single parents, most often by single mothers struggling
mightily to get by. Compared with children raised by married parents,
their children are at a disadvantage, including in terms of avoiding
poverty and welfare as adults. Promoting stronger families will help
break the cycle of long-term welfare dependence, and deserves our
support.
This legislation allows for new State flexibility, including under
the State flex provisions allowing social service programs to be better
aligned to better serve needy families. Yet those who now extol
flexibility when it comes to not expecting more work of welfare
recipients argue that governors cannot be trusted with this expanded
authority. Truly amazing.
Mr. Speaker, in these and many other ways, this legislation takes the
next step in helping millions of families move from welfare to work. I
urge all Members to support it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman talked about State flexibility; but if the
majority is really interested in State flexibility, why do they take
away the ability of States to provide educational services for people
on welfare?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Welfare reform is a
serious issue, and we should not play politics with it. This is a bad
bill, and Members on the other side of the aisle know that.
This President has put forth a bill that will penalize those who are
trying so desperately to change their lives. What do they mean by
making a welfare mother with children under 6 work for 40 hours while
they are trying to get into training programs and change their lives?
We need to assess each individual and decide what they need. If they
need to be in school for 2 years because they dropped out early, if
they need counseling, if they need to have an opportunity to have a
substance abuse program to change their lives, we should be doing that.
Instead, what we are doing is taking away vocational education, doing
nothing to make sure that the health care needs are taken care.
No, there is not enough money in this budget for child care. Parents
cannot go to work and be trained without child care. Yet there is a lot
of money in the bill, $300 million, to talk about promoting marriage.
Give me a break. Let us give welfare recipients a chance to become
independent.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Camp).
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, the 1996 welfare law, which many of us here
helped write, really brought us unparalleled success by almost any
measure. If we look at the fact that more parents are working, child
poverty has declined sharply, dependence has declined dramatically,
there is a 60 percent decrease in the case loads of welfare recipients.
This bill today builds on that success and improves this legislation.
Let me just talk a little bit about State flexibility because we have
received a letter, both the chairmen and ranking members of the
Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Education and the
Workforce from the American Public Human Services Association, which is
a bipartisan group of welfare directors around the United States
complimenting us on the flexibility in this bill for things like
improving and continuing the whole idea of a TANF block grant
contingency fund; removing the restrictions on unobligated TANF funds;
excluding child care and transportation from the definition of
assistance; creating State rainy day funds for unobligated funds under
this bill; continuing the transfer of 30 percent to the child care
development block grant; restoring full transfer to the social services
block grant; and maintaining the TANF block grant free from set-asides.
These are somewhat technical provisions, but the State welfare
directors from around the country have come together and complimented
this committee for putting in these provisions which will bring much
more flexibility to this bill. They say, ``These provisions will
dramatically increase State and local flexibility in the administration
of the TANF program.''
Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. This will continue to build on the
successes we have had. I urge support for it.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I point out to the gentleman from Michigan that the
popular 10-10-10 program in Michigan would not satisfy the requirements
of this bill. It would be an unfunded mandate of $377 million to a
State.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
McDermott).
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Chairman
Thomas) has said we are asking for way too much money. I saw in today's
paper that the head of the Congressional Budget Office, Mr. Crippen,
has decided not to go on for 4 years. I know why, because they want to
get rid of him because it was his memo on February 2, 2002, that says
this bill is going to cost between 8 and $11 billion in unfunded
liability.
We did not make that number up. That came from the Congressional
Budget Office. The director is selected by the majority, and they put
him in. Here he is. Now he gives them information they do not want. The
chairman is ignoring 280,000 kids in California who are not served.

{time} 1145

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).
(Mr. HINOJOSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Democratic
substitute and in opposition to the underlying bill. Education and
training are the cornerstones upon which we on this floor have built
our future. This bill should be stressing basic literacy, English as a
second language, GED completion and on-the-job training rather than
cynically labeling them welfare scholarships.
In my congressional district, I have seen how education can bring
economic prosperity to one of the poorest regions in the country. Our
unemployment rates have dropped from over 20 percent to almost 10
percent. Only a few days ago, the President signed the agriculture bill
to restore access to food stamps for legal permanent residents and
overcame the mean-spirited denial of food for poor families that had
been in effect for 5 years.
The Democratic substitute provides significant reforms as well as the
resources needed to implement them. I urge my colleagues to vote for
the Democratic substitute and against the Republican bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Democratic substitute
and in opposition to the underlying bill. First, I want to commend my
colleagues George Miller, Patsy Mink and Ben Cardin for their hard work
and leadership in drafting this substitute. We all agree that we need
to encourage work, but people need access to real jobs that will lead
them out of poverty. The ``make work'' approach of workfare in this
Republican bill, has only led people into working poor status, and has
not improved their economic situation.
Education and training are the cornerstones upon which we on this
Floor have built our future. This bill should be stressing basic
literacy, English-as-Second-Language, GED completion, and on-the-job
training rather than cynically labeling them ``welfare scholarships.''
In my congressional district, I have seen how education can bring
economic prosperity to one of the poorest regions in the country. Our
unemployment rates have dropped from over 20 percent to almost 10
percent.

[[Page H2538]]

Only a few days ago, the President signed the Agriculture bill to
restore access to food stamps for legal permanent residents and
overcame the mean-spirited denial of food for poor families that had
been in effect for 5 years. Yet today we stand here ready to again
weaken this program purely for ideological purposes.
The Republican ``super waiver'' provision would undermine critical
programs like the Workforce Investment Program and the Childcare
Development block grant. Yet without adequate childcare, transportation
and flexible work-hours, what mother can concentrate on work when their
child is home alone or in substandard childcare?
The Republican proposal is empty rhetoric because it is critically
underfunded. It puts ideological sound bites over real welfare reform.
Even the Nation's Governors have expressed their reservations about the
poor policy and unfunded mandates in this bill. The Democratic
substitute provides significant reforms as well as the resources needed
to implement them. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Democratic
substitute and against the Republican bill.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), one of the real leaders on
welfare reform, the architect of the Democratic substitute.
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, 6 years ago I voted against the welfare
reform bill because I had been a welfare mother 35 years ago. I knew
what we needed to do to bring families out of poverty. I was right.
Unfortunately, we have not brought families out of poverty. Yes,
indeed, we have gotten many, many families to go to work. That is the
good side of what has gone on. But we had a very good economy. When the
economy is dropping, families are losing their jobs. But the worst
thing about taking women and their families from welfare to work that
we have experienced is they have gone from welfare to poverty, and we
are keeping those families in poverty.
The reason I got off welfare is because I was educated. I had a good
education, I had good job skills, and I could take advantage of that.
We have to provide just that for our families on welfare. Then we will
have a successful welfare reform program.
I voted against the bill in 1996 because I feared that moving from
welfare to work would leave mothers stuck in poverty--especially during
an economic downturn.
Well, 6 years we succeeded in doing just that!! Women are working and
women and their families are living in poverty. We have to learn from
what didn't work.
Now, we have a new bill . . . one that actually goes backwards on
education . . . which, of course, is the way to prepare for a good job,
one that pays a ``living wage.''
And, then the Republicans demand mothers with small children, under
6, go to work without the child care they need . . . especially child
care for infants and parents working evenings and weekends.
H.R. 4737 improves nothing . . . it will do one thing and one thing
only--keep mothers and their children in poverty.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), a very active member of our subcommittee.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to respond briefly to
the remarks by the gentleman from Washington about the unfunded
mandates in this bill. This is a report from the same Congressional
Budget Office dated May 13, 2002. CBO says the TANF grant program,
which is the subject of this bill, affords States broad flexibility to
determine eligibility for benefits and to structure the programs
offered as part of a State's family assistance program. Consequently,
any new requirements to the program as proposed by H.R. 4090 would not
be intergovernmental mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandate Reform
Act to the States.
With respect to the question of money, this chart clearly illustrates
that we are giving the States more money for welfare on a per-family
basis. In 1996, the year prior to welfare reform going into effect,
States had about $7,000 per family for welfare. Next year under the
first year in this bill, States will have almost $16,000 per family for
welfare. Tell me how we are shortchanging the States. They are getting
over twice as much money, and that is not counting the $4 billion extra
we are giving them in child care. Give me a break.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the
Democratic substitute. Earlier this Congress passed legislation that
heavily subsidized big farms and military contracts. But when it comes
to helping poor women and children, the cupboard is bare. How can my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle call themselves pro-family
when they do not adequately fund training and education to lift welfare
recipients out of poverty? How can they call themselves pro-family when
they do not provide adequate funding for quality, affordable, available
child care so that working moms have a place for their children to go?
We need our families to thrive, not just survive.
A welfare recipient wrote me earlier this month and she said, ``When
you cut off money for education and training, you cut me off, too. You
cut my children and myself into a never ending cycle of poverty.''
The Democratic substitute provides support to lift families out of
welfare.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I have listened to my colleagues talk on the other side
of the aisle about this bill. Let me at least try to set the record
straight. Our chairman the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) said
the fundamental thrust of welfare is where we need to continue. Yet the
underlying bill changes that. I do not understand it. We trusted the
States in 1996. Now we do not trust the States. Now we have to be
prescriptive. We have to tell them how to do it.
The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) said, well, they are going
to have plenty of money to do it. The truth is the States are spending
$2 billion more a year than they are currently getting from the Federal
Government for their TANF programs. The reason, quite frankly, and the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) did not tell the whole factual
truth, there are a lot more people receiving TANF services than those
in cash assistance, and we should be proud of that. We want people off
of cash assistance. We think the programs that lift people out of
poverty is where we should go. They do not have the resources.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) talks about flexibility in
resources. The States have far less flexibility on providing
educational services for the people on welfare under the Republican
bill than current law. They do not move ahead. They take away the
ability to have vocational education for 1 year towards the work
requirements in the Republican bill. Gone. Is that giving States
additional flexibility? No.
That is why the Congressional Budget Office, our scorekeepers, tell
us that implementing this bill will cost our States an extra $18
billion, $11 billion in direct cost. That is the unfunded mandate,
whatever we want to call it. It is going to cost our States more money
to implement the requirements. We are being prescriptive. We are not
using the formula that worked 6 years ago that I voted for, flexibility
in resources to States so they can work with the people in their State
to not only get them off cash assistance but to lift them out of
poverty. We can do better and we are going to have a chance to do it
when we offer the Democratic substitute.
I urge my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, look at the
substitute. Support it. It is what we need in order to live up to our
commitment to the people of our Nation.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the architect and chairman back in
1996 of the Subcommittee on Human Resources.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Florida is
recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. My congratulations to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger)
for taking what I think is an historic piece of legislation and
improving it.
In listening to the debate on the floor today and late into last
night, there was an effort, I think, to rewrite history that was going
on here on the

[[Page H2539]]

floor of the House of Representatives. I heard time and time again
speakers from this side of the aisle getting up and talking about how
President Clinton had input into the bill and finally he signed it
after vetoing it three times. That is simply not true. We reached out
time and time again to the White House and we were met with silence.
They had no interest in working with Republicans on welfare reform. It
was not until right before the election that the President decided that
it was about time that he looked at this issue that was very much on
the conscience of the American voters. On August 22, 1996, President
Clinton did finally sign a welfare reform bill.
This historic legislation has pulled 3 million children out of
poverty when we were hearing time and time again from the other side of
the aisle that they were going to be sleeping on the grates. Yes, half
of the Democrats did support us. That is a good thing, because that
sent the message out that America expected more of the poor, the
economic disadvantaged. But what is separating us on this issue is that
we believe in the human spirit so strongly that we feel that if we
raise that level of expectation that they will rise up to meet it, and
history tells us that we were right.
We were absolutely right, because what we did was take people out of
a life of dependence and made them role models for their kids, and they
did do better. Now we expect the States to get more of their people on
the work rolls. We have lowered the amount of people on welfare across
this country by over 50 percent, but we are not through. We are going
to do better. Together we will do better.
Vote ``yes'' on this bill and ``no'' on the substitute.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and
the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) each will control 20
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

General Leave

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
on H.R. 4737.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the 1996 welfare reform law that we are reauthorizing
today has been an unprecedented success, one of the most important
pieces of social policy since the civil rights legislation of 1965.
Today with the Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion
Act, we are set to build on that success. The bill marks the beginning
of a second phase of reform that will help even more Americans find
productive jobs. My friends on the other side of the aisle may say,
``The system is working. Why fix it? Why argue with success?''
Here is why. Welfare caseloads have fallen dramatically since 1996,
but as this chart right here shows, 58 percent of TANF recipients still
are not working for their benefits, according to the Department of
Health and Human Services. And we all know that work is essential to
help people get the skills that they need to move up the economic
ladder.
The bottom line is that approximately 2 million families remain on
welfare rolls today and we need to do something about it. Earlier this
month, the Committee on Education and the Workforce approved a bill
introduced by my friend, colleague and subcommittee chairman the
gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the Working Toward Independence
Act, which is now part of this overall Republican bill. It strengthens
work requirements to ensure that we move these welfare recipients on
the path to self-reliance. As Connecticut Governor John Rowland has
said, ``The most compassionate way to break the cycle of poverty,
dependency and hopelessness is through work.''
The bill requires welfare recipients to participate in work
activities for 40 hours a week. But within these new requirements,
there is significant flexibility for States and recipients themselves.
Welfare families will have 16 hours a week to pursue education and job
training. They can also attend school full-time for up to 4 months
during a 2-year period. The measure also increases the percentage of
welfare families in each State that must be engaged in work activities;
currently, 50 percent, moving to 70 percent by 2007.
Some have questioned whether States can meet these new requirements,
suggesting that we are setting the bar too high. But I agree with
President Bush who said last week, ``If it brings dignity into
someone's life, it's not too high of a goal.''
And, remember, the bill gives States 5 years to comply with the new
work requirements. The bill also includes significant funding increases
for child care, boosting discretionary spending for the child care and
development block grant by $1 billion over 5 years.
In addition to this new money, it is important to remember that
States have half of the caseloads they had in 1996, which means they
have got twice as much money available to spend on work programs or on
child care.

{time} 1200

H.R. 4737 also incorporates key elements of President Bush's Good
Start, Grow Smart Plan to improve early childhood education, and
encourages States to address the cognitive needs of young children so
they are developmentally prepared to enter school.
Finally, the bill includes a promising new plan to empower States and
localities to develop innovative solutions to help welfare recipients
achieve independence. It will give States and local agencies the
opportunity to integrate certain welfare and workforce development
programs and try to improve their efficiency.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to echo the sentiments of
President Bush when he said, ``No level of despair should be acceptable
in our society.'' With this bill today, we are going to help some of
the most vulnerable members of our society achieve self-sufficiency,
and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2
minutes.
(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, what this debate has
come down to is a question of whether or not those individuals who seek
to get off of welfare, whether or not those individuals who seek to
stay off of welfare, who have been successful in escaping the welfare
system, whether or not they will have the means to do so. What this
debate comes down to is whether or not a single individual or a family
makes a decision about going to work, about participating in the
American economic system, whether or not they will have the child care
and the training available so they can take the best advantage of what
this system has to offer them.
Over the last 5 years we have learned a great deal about welfare
reform. There are two things we have learned that are absolutely
crucial: First, that good job training and extensive job training in
the beginning is better for the employee as they go out on that new
job, it is better for their chance of advancing to a second and better
job, and it is also better for the employer because it reduces the
amount of turnover that the employer must suffer with the employment of
individuals. That is very important.
The second thing is that the biggest barrier of people going to work
is the care of their children. We ask people on welfare, we mandate
that they must go to work, and yet we tell middle class women we want
them to stay home and we give them a tax credit to stay home and take
care of their child. So the person who is on welfare is asking the
question, will my child be safe? Will my child have a chance at child
development while I am working? This is what every mother, every
father, every brother, every sister thinks about their siblings and
their children.
The Republican bill simply does not provide the sufficient resources
to the States to provide quality child care for those children and the
needs that are now presented today to this Nation, not after you up the
work requirement, but today.

[[Page H2540]]

Hundreds of thousands of children are on a waiting list for child
care, and the Republicans want to continue to tell us that all the care
that is necessary is available. Child care lists are frozen. This
debate is about whether or not we will enable these individuals to go
to work with the security of mind that their child is in a quality
placement and their child is receiving child development while they try
to engage in the American economic system.
Mr. Speaker, the debate about welfare should be a debate about how to
move people--mostly women with young children--from dependency on
government assistance to full-time, permanent employment that lifts,
and keeps, the family out of poverty.
That is our goal for welfare reform.
Six years ago, Democrats and Republicans agreed that the welfare
system of the prior half century was a failure. The new system
emphasized moving people from dependence to jobs while providing them
with education, training, child care and the other supports that most
Americans recognize are essential to achieving the goal.
There have been some successes: welfare rolls are down--dramatically
in some states. But let us remember that cutting the rolls alone was
not the goal. The evidence gathered in study after study documents that
while we have moved many off welfare, we have not achieved the goals of
promoting long-term economic independence, jobs that lift and keep
families out of poverty, or improved living standards for millions of
children.
Since 1996, the welfare rolls have been cut by over 50 percent
nationally. But millions of those who have left welfare remain
desperately poor, dependent on food stamps, WIC and other public
assistance, raising children in deep poverty with all of its harmful
impacts, and without the education, training or child care that is
necessary to move them to real independence.
In one review of 900 former welfare families, researchers concluded
that most still live below the poverty line and have been forced to cut
back on food to save money. Another major review of seven Midwestern
states also concluded that many of the former recipients remained in
poverty while Indiana and Wisconsin's rolls grew by 13 percent last
year. In Michigan, 71 percent of those who combined welfare and work,
and nearly 50 percent of those former recipients who worked full time,
remained poor with many unable to buy food, pay utilities or rent or
losing their phone service. Those findings demonstrate clearly that
more must be done to move people off welfare and into employment.
We should finish the job begun in 1996, by directing the needed
services to those who must leave dependency while still holding them
accountable for achieving independence from government aid. Instead,
the bill before us today--which we are denied the opportunity to
improve--imposes costly new mandates on states without the federal
support to pay even a fraction of the additional burden. It also
imposes rigid welfare programs that are fundamentally different than
the programs the Republicans have been heralding as great successes. We
need to make welfare reform work, not punish the governors and the
recipients alike because it hasn't moved fast enough yet.
The Republican bill takes a very different approach: massive new work
requirements without adequate training, as well as other unfunded
mandates and punishing requirements for state administrators and for
welfare recipients alike--with little financial assistance for either.
And this Republican bill, unlike the Democratic substitute, fails to
protect working men and women by fully applying our nation's civil
rights, wage, and health and safety laws to welfare recipients who are
working. Nor does the Republican bill protect those who currently have
jobs from being displaced by subsidized welfare recipients. That is
just wrong.
This Republican bill tells the taxpayers of California: you better
raise taxes by $2.5 billion, or cut your already deeply reduced
spending, because you've got to pay billions to comply with this new
bill, or face more punishment. And don't expect any additional help for
the 280,000 families already waiting for child care, because the
Republicans aren't going to give you more assistance.
But it isn't California. The Republican bill tells Michigan to raise
taxes or cut spending by $377 million, a state that has already cut
more than half a billion in spending. The Republican bill tells
Pennsylvania: your bill is $433 million; Ohio, it's $444 million; New
Jersey, $233 million; Connecticut, $133 million; Texas, $688 million;
Florida, $311 million; New York, $1.2 billion. State after state,
billions upon billions in new mandates piled on by this Republican bill
that fails to fund them.
There is no evidence that the harsh and rigid revisions dictated by
the Republican bill will increase the success of welfare reform; but
they will severely restrict the flexibility the states have been able
to use to meet the needs of their residents, as 39 out of 44 states
agreed earlier this year.
Some will try to paint those who raise concerns about education,
training, workforce protections and child care as ``soft on welfare
reform.'' The American people know better than that. We are all for
moving people from welfare to work, from dependence to independence,
from poverty to self-support. The American people also know we need to
get people the flexible tools they need to give them a fair chance to
succeed. This bill is grossly unfair, it imposes billions in new costs
to the states, and we are not being given the opportunity to improve
it, and that is why we will oppose its passage and support the
Democratic substitute.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the chairman of the
Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4737, the
Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Protection Act. I want to
thank the leadership and in particular the gentleman from Ohio
(Chairman Boehner) and other members of the House Committee on
Education and the Workforce who have devoted countless hours to putting
together a package that every Member of this body should support.
Six years ago, the Nation's welfare rolls bulged with more than 5.1
million individuals and families. Today, the rolls have decreased
tremendously. Between 1996 and this very day, over 3 million people
have left welfare for work. Over 3 million former welfare recipients
know the satisfaction of earning a day's pay for a day's work.
As the debate goes forward on this bill, it is important to remember
that the true benefactors of welfare reform are young Americans.
Because of welfare reform, young Americans are able to see their
parents get up each morning and go to work. Without this very basic
ethic, those young people are at a great disadvantage, and it becomes
difficult for them to escape the cycle of poverty in which their
families have lived for generations. H.R. 4737 helps these families and
builds on the success of the 1996 welfare reform.
The work requirements were the centerpiece to welfare reform. It is
only through work that individuals can get out of poverty and lead
productive lives. The bill before us increases the work requirements to
40 hours of work per week. That is the bare minimum that most Americans
work every week. That is only 10 hours more than the current
requirements.
For 24 hours, TANF recipients are required to be involved in direct
work. For 16 hours, they may take part in educational or job training
programs that will lead to self-sufficiency and a better life. The
structure of the 16 hours is defined by the State.
Understanding that child care is most important to helping families
leave welfare, H.R. 4737 increases the already extremely high levels of
funding for the Child Care Development Block Grant. The high level of
funding is increased even as the number of families being served has
dropped by over 3 million.
The bill also provides State flexibility while maintaining State
accountability by permitting States or local entities to integrate a
broad range of public assistance and workforce development programs.
At the same time, it is important that local areas created under the
Workforce Investment Act be heavily involved in the process. Therefore,
I am pleased that the bill provides provisions ensuring that local
administering entities join in the flexibility application submitted to
the Secretaries. This will, in effect, give the locals veto authority
over provisions that they believe will not improve the quality or
effectiveness of the programs involved.
The results of welfare reform are clear. The work requirement has led
3 million families to live independent of government handouts. While it
is important to talk about the significant reduction in welfare
caseloads, the goal is not simply to move families off of welfare; the
goal is to help families become self-sufficient, to end generations and
generations of welfare dependency. As such, I strongly urge my
colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

[[Page H2541]]

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the last speaker
that the unfunded mandate in this bill would cost the State of
California $2.5 billion.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle why
would I, as a Member of Congress, tell working mothers to leave their
small children behind and go to work without providing them safe child
care?
In Minnesota alone today there are nearly 5,000 families on the
waiting list for child care. That is the entire population of the City
of St. Paul Park. The Republican bill provides only a slight increase
in child care, not even enough to keep up with inflation. It would
remove only 300 of the 5,000 children from Minnesota's waiting list.
But then, wait. We are now doubling work requirements for mothers
with children under the age of 6. This will add thousands more families
to our waiting list, costing Minnesota more than $100 million.
It is completely irresponsible to think that Minnesota and other
States facing deficits will be able to provide child care. We owe it to
our children, we owe it to their parents that they have safe, reliable
places for their children to be while they are working.
I served in the Minnesota Statehouse, where I worked on a bipartisan
effort after Congress passed the law 6 years ago. We had success.
Minnesota is cited as one of the most successful programs and it is
rated top in the Nation for making families self-sufficient.
Today, I am being asked to vote on a bill that seeks to undo the
success in Minnesota. The new Federal mandates limit the flexibility
and fail to provide needed funding for these new requirements.
We cannot have it both ways. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot
say you are trying to move people out of poverty and then not give them
the means to accomplish that.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), who will be retiring, a
long time Member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
(Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time,
and I certainly commend the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) and
the gentleman from California (Chairman McKeon) for their hard work and
diligent leadership here.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has indicated that I have had a long
history here in the Congress, certainly on this committee. I go back to
1996 and the welfare reform, and I have got to take the credit for
being one of the first, a Northeast moderate Republican, one of the
first to be advancing welfare reform, and I think that bill has proven
its own success.
But I would like to say that in addressing the need for welfare
reform, at that time and again today, I stress what we need is what I
call ``tough love,'' and the tough love that is needed is in this bill;
namely, that the welfare recipients must become more self-sufficient
while at the same time this legislation is sensitive to the genuine
family needs and the needs for children to be properly cared for and
educated, and I believe that this bill does that.
In fact, my amendment, only one of the portions of the bill, but my
amendment, the self-sufficiency plan, gives the authority to the States
and the welfare recipients to work together to create these self-
sufficiency plans and to address any barriers that are there that are
preventing the families and the children from getting the road map that
they need to this self-sufficiency, and I am proud that that language
is in this bill.
The bottom line is that this bill may not be perfect, it may not be,
but it is a significant reform building on the successes of 1996, and
passage of this bill today is a vital step to completing the task that
we started in 1996 and to restore public assistance to its original
purpose, providing a temporary safety net for those in need, and
genuine tough love for all the little children. And they are protected
in this bill.
I rise in support of this bill. First and foremost, I would like to
commend the Education and Workforce Committee Chairman Boehner and
Subcommittee Chairman McKeon for their leadership, hard work, and
diligence on this important issue. Of course, I commend the President
for making welfare reform a priority for our nation.

introduction

When we started down this road to welfare reform years ago, the
American people were convinced that the welfare system was out of
control. They worried that we were wasting billions upon billions in
hard-earned taxpayer dollars to support a system that promoted
unhealthy, unproductive, dysfunctional families and sentenced children
to a lifetime of economic, social, and emotional deprivation. In a
system like that, the children were the victims.
In addressing the need for reform we must demonstrate what I
characterize as a ``tough love'' approach. Namely, ``tough love'' so
that welfare recipients can become more self-sufficient while at the
same time being sensitive to genuine family needs and that the children
are properly cared for and educated.
The 1996 Welfare Reform Act was based on the notion of individual
responsibility. The reforms restored public assistance to its original
purpose: a temporary safety net for those in need--not a permanent way
of life for generations of families. The 1996 Welfare Reform Act was
good policy, however we all agree that we have much more to do. We must
ensure that welfare recipients are self-sufficient when they leave the
system.
The bill before us today represents the next phase of welfare reform.
It continues to focus on individual responsibility through work. It
provides the necessary mechanisms to help welfare recipients
independently support their families when they leave the system. The
bill also recognizes that states need flexibility in creating the most
effective welfare programs. Finally, I am pleased with the increased
funding for child care programs, which allows parents to go to work
while their children are provided with the care they need.

self-sufficiency plans

Too often, families with significant barriers to full employment are
not given appropriate opportunities and adequate services to remove
those barriers and allow them to become successful and independent. I
am pleased that the bill before us today includes language from an
amendment I offered during the Education Committee markup to ensure
that states and welfare recipients work together to define what
barriers stand in the way of permanent employment and subsequently
create ``self-sufficiency plans'' to address these barriers. These
plans will provide welfare recipients the ``road map'' they need to
become independent of government assistance when they leave the welfare
rolls while maintaining the proper focus on the purpose of welfare--
individual responsibility.

conclusion

The bottom line is that this bill builds on our past successes to
ensure that those we move off of welfare have sustainable job
opportunities and the ability to secure a promising future for their
families. While this legislation is not perfect it is significant
reform. Passage of this bill today is a vital step toward completing
the task we started in 1996 to restore public assistance to its
original purpose: providing a temporary safety net for those in need,
genuine ``tough love'' for all the little children.

education and training

I believe the bill before us today takes important steps to helping
welfare recipients achieve self-sufficiency. However, the bill falls
short in one critical way: it fails to ensure that welfare recipients
have the skills they need to remain employed in the private sector.
It is of paramount importance that we allow for the education and
training of those moving into the workforce. Education and training
will enable welfare individuals to hold sustainable quality jobs,
rather than menial, low-paying positions that will not provide
independence from government assistance when they leave the welfare
system.
Research supports the effectiveness of ensuring that welfare
recipients have the skills they need to retain a quality occupation. In
one study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the
U.S. Department of Education, individuals leaving welfare who were most
successful in sustaining employment were twice as likely to have a
technical or 2-year degree.
We must recognize that there are basic skills necessary for the
occupations that we are hoping welfare recipients will enter into. In
fact, the Educational Testing Service reports that nearly 70 percent of
the jobs created through 2006 will require workers with education
skills that are higher than the levels of most current welfare
recipients. As I am sure all of my colleagues have heard, numerous
employers in technical fields and healthcare are experiencing workforce
shortages and being forced to bring in immigrants to fill their jobs.
Honestly, this makes no sense to me because we have a number of
welfare recipients in this country that could fill these positions if
they had the appropriate training. As I see it,

[[Page H2542]]

proper training of welfare workers could have a tremendous impact on
welfare recipients AND employers.
Current law allows for 12 months of vocational training for 30
percent of the state's welfare population. While this was an important
first step, it did not allow for the education and training of all
welfare recipients. It also did not take into account the range of
programs offered by community colleges that lead to quality
occupations.
The bill before us today wisely removes the 30 percent limit in
current law so that all welfare recipients can participate in
activities that will help them improve their job training skills.
However, the bill falls short because it does not allow for the full
participation in these activities for more than 4 months (one semester)
in a 2-year period. What this means is that a person can receive up to
8 months (two semesters) of education while they are on welfare but
this training can not be consecutive. I do not believe that this is the
best approach for helping welfare recipients achieve independence.
We should allow for one consecutive school year of education and
training to count as an allowable work activity. This would only be a
minor change to the bill but it would achieve the results we are hoping
for.
After 1 year of training, welfare recipients will be able to attain a
skill or trade and then move on to a good job. According to the
American Association of Community Colleges, students can earn
certificates at a community college in 1 year if they attend College
full time. So by allowing a school year of education, welfare
recipients would have the potential to receive an occupational
certificate, which would set them on their way toward self-sufficiency.
I firmly believe that welfare families need ``tough love''. They need
a system to provide assistance when there is absolutely no other
alternative. But we need to ensure that government assistance is no
longer a way of life. And the best way to achieve true independence for
families, we need to make sure they have the skills to retain a job
that pays enough to support their family. Moving families back and
forth between work and education without a true plan does not help them
make their own way in the world.
We must help welfare participants secure high wages, benefits, and
steady work by investing in their futures. And we must be realistic.
Allowing welfare recipients to enroll in education programs for a
limited time is a necessary step in the struggle to transition from
poverty to self-sufficiency.

State Flexibility

One of the hallmarks of the 1996 law is the flexibility it gives
states and localities. The bill before us today offers states even more
flexibility, authorizing them to integrate a variety of federal welfare
and workforce investment programs and make them more efficient. While
providing flexibility to allow the states to be innovative in their
welfare programs, the bill also includes significant protections to
ensure that states and localities continue to comply with federal civil
rights, labor, and environmental laws, and that no program will lose
any funding.
As Chair of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Housing, I want to
take a moment to comment on the state flex proposal and how it relates
to the housing and homeless programs. Under this bill, states and/or
local governments are given the ability to seek new and innovative
solutions to old problems of service delivery. Through the hearing in
my Subcommittee, we have heard time and time again about the need for
coordinated services. Housing and homeless problems cannot be solved
merely with brick and mortar. Chances are, if you are in need of
housing, you also are in need of a multitude of other services--whether
they be medical, food, transportation, childcare or counseling.
Programs that fall under the jurisdiction of other agencies like HHS.
The legislation we are considering today will allow entities, such as
the public housing authority, and the local and state governments to
blend programs various programs to address the problems of services
delivery. An example of this waiver could be a child-care center and a
local public housing agency jointly petitioning the Federal Review
Board to waive the regulations and requirements of their applicable
programs to achieve a certain purpose. H.R. 4735 will give community
groups and local and state entities the opportunity to cut through some
of the red tape that many housing organizations complain about when
attempting to blend programs from different agencies.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), the subcommittee ranking
member and a wonderful worker on this issue.
(Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
California for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, there is so much that needs to be said about this issue,
but I would like to inform the last speaker that the unfunded mandate
in this bill would cost the State of New Jersey about $233 million.
That is the financial aspect of it. The human aspect is what I want to
address.
The people that get up and say what a wonderful thing has happened
under the 1996 bill because half of the families have been removed from
welfare, we cannot deny those statistics, they remain there. But what
has happened to those families? No one can tell us whether indeed they
are still working, whether they are out of poverty. Most of the figures
we have seen is that those that still work, work for minimum wage. I
dare say that people working for minimum wage are not out of poverty.
In fact, we have 38 million people considered in poverty.
So, with the requirements today of 30-hours mandated work activity
and all of these rave reports about the success of the program
acknowledging that the States have done most of this good work, why in
the world would the Republicans now want to come and make the work
requirement tougher? Why increase the 30 hours to 40 hours? It pays no
account to the 2 million families that are on welfare today who are
struggling.
Most of those families come to the welfare office with enormous
stresses, substance abuse, domestic violence, mental illness in someone
in their family, extreme disability of a child, physical illness,
perhaps illness of their own, alcoholism. I think that what they have
put on are blinders to reality.
Mr. Speaker, I urge this House to be real, to take into account the
real essence of these families. They need help. They do not need a
requirement to do 40 hours of work. It is a struggle for them to just
stay alive and to maintain their families.
I urge this House to consider the people on welfare as real people,
as our neighbors and as our friends.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a list of groups opposed to
H.R. 4737.

Groups Opposed to H.R. 4737--as of 5/15/02

Alaska Federation of Natives
American Association of University Women
American Civil Liberties Union
American Federation of Government Employees
American Federation of Labor--Congress of Industrial
Organizations (AFL-CIO)
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees
American Federation of Teachers
Americans for Democratic Action
American Jewish Committee
Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance
Asian Pacific American Legal Center
Association of University Centers on Disabilities
Center for Community Change
Center for Women Policy Studies
Coalition on Human Needs
Coalition of Labor Union Women
Communication Workers of America
Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc.
Friends Committee on National Legislation (Quaker)
Hmong National Development, Inc.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
Jewish Council for Public Affairs
Jewish Labor Committee
Labor Council for Latin American Advancement
Laborers International Union of North America
Latino Coalition for Families
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund
National Alliance of Postal and Federal Employees
National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher
Education
National Association of Counties
National Association of Human Rights Workers
National Association of Social Workers
National Campaign for Jobs and Income Support
National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education
National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA
National Council of Jewish Women
National Council of LaRaja
National Education Association
National Employment Lawyers Association
National Federation of Filipino American Associations

[[Page H2543]]

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
National Low Income Housing Coalition
National Partnership for Women & Families
National Urban League
National Women's Law Center
National Workrights Institute
NETWORK: A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby
Organization of Chinese Americans
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Washington office
Service Employees International Union
Southeast Asia Resource Action Center
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations
United Auto Workers
United Food and Commercial Workers
United States Student Association
United Steelworkers of America
Washington Ethical Action Office
Welfare Law Center
Welfare-to-Work Project, The Legal Aid Society--Employment
Law Center
Women Employed
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, U.S.
Section
Workmen's Circle, Washington DC Area

I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 4737.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the chairman of the Subcommittee
on Education Reform.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman very much for this
opportunity to speak to this bill.
Actually, this legislation did not begin in 1996; it began in
Washington in 1988 with a piece of legislation called the Family
Support Act of 1988. In reality, for those who were in State
legislatures or in the executive branch of the States, as some of us
were, it started earlier than that. It started in 1985, when the States
really began to look at welfare reform, with governors like Bill
Clinton, for example, and Tommy Thompson, who came along and got
involved in this.
Decisions were made there. They were not made in Washington, D.C. It
was set up in such a way that people would have the opportunity to be
able to be educated and go to work, and eventually Washington went
along with it in 1988, and obviously we really encompassed it in 1996.

{time} 1215

The arguments were the same then as they are now. It is sort of like
the Star Wars business that was talked about last night. It is a rerun,
to a degree; and the same people were saying it will work and others
were saying it will not work. Yet, each and every time, this program
has worked. It is the best social program in terms of improving
people's lives that we have ever had, probably in the history of the
Congress of the United States, or even this country. Because indeed, if
we go out and talk to that 50 percent of the people who in recent years
have gone off of welfare and we get their story as to their opportunity
to become self-sufficient and to become independent, to be able to live
their own lives and stand up for their families, we are going to find
out how supportive they are of welfare reform.
In this particular legislation there is a lot of concern about where
we are going and what we are doing. There are concerns about the 70
percent requirement, can we meet that. I believe that we can. We have
always met them before. Can the 40-hour work week with 26 hours of work
and 14 hours of other activities be met? I believe that we can do that
as well.
One of the areas is child care. I introduced an amendment in the
committee, and we were able to get it done, to add $200 million. Later
it was worked out that we would have $2 billion more for child care.
About 62 percent of all children in this country who are not in school
yet are in child care. How do we take care of that? If one looks at
this chart, we get some idea of where we are going and why we are
adding $2 billion to the $4.8 billion of the direct child care here. We
are going to find that when we look at all of the discretionary funds,
the transfers from the TANF block grant, a lot of which goes to child
care now, what the States do, and then add in Head Start at the bottom,
we get to a point of $18.272 billion that goes into child care in the
United States today. That is a large number, and it will be a large
increase over what was there before; and my judgment is it is something
we are going to be able to live with.
So I totally support this legislation. I believe it will work. I
believe perhaps some things need to be addressed, and I think they will
be in the Senate and perhaps in conference; and one of those is the
transitional medical assistance, a program that provides health
coverage for welfare recipients. I would like to see that authorized
for 5 years, because if you go off of welfare you are going to need
that Medicaid assistance. We did not quite complete that task, but we
can resolve that at a later time. I believe that the State flexibility
provisions, frankly, were better before the changes were made recently;
and I think there should be State flexibility if we can possibly have
it.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that as all of this is looked at in terms of
jurisdictional aspects of what Congress is doing versus what they are
doing in the States, we can give them the flexibility to carry out what
they have to do. I am somewhat concerned about some of the programs
that we have with respect to dealing with unplanned pregnancies and
achieving independence for working men and women. Abstinence education
I think is a very important part of this effort. Yet the language in
H.R. 4737 provides a simple solution to a very complex problem and I
think probably needs some reworking.
Mr. Speaker, these are relatively minor concerns. Overall, this is
legislation which, in my view, each of us, and I would appeal to those
who, perhaps because of procedural concerns are opposing it, but that
each of us would come forward in support. My colleagues will be proud
of the fact that they supported it and proudest yet when they go out
and meet individuals who have gotten off the rolls of welfare.
I support this bill. This is the beginning of the efforts to empower
the next generation of welfare-leavers, and I hope this entire Congress
can get behind it and make sure we continue this opportunity for those
who live in our districts around the country.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).
(Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by informing the
gentleman from Delaware that the unfunded mandate in this bill would
cost the State of Delaware about $33 million. I think it is important
to note these unfunded mandates and the higher costs. Maybe the
Governors in the States would like to have the farm subsidy bill given
to the States so that they could have more flexibility there and return
the administration of the TANF program strictly to the Federal
Government.
We had our previous speaker from New Jersey, the gentlewoman from New
Jersey, who talked about tough love. When she first spoke, I thought
she was talking about tough luck is what we are offering to welfare
recipients. In the case of the farm subsidy bill, it is tough luck too
if we get up to $390,000 in taxpayer safety net benefits if one is a
farmer, and if that $390,000 a year is not enough, then tough luck
after that. Consider the contrast.
Also, consider the fraud that permeates this legislation and the
whole process of discussion. If we really care about children, if we
care about getting people out of poverty, then built into the
legislation there ought to be some kind of punishment or incentives
related to reducing the child care waiting list. There ought to be an
incentive for reducing the child care waiting list. The waiting list in
New York is so large, they will not even tell us what it is; and yet
New York City has one of the best day care systems in the world, one of
the largest day care systems, but still the waiting list is so long.
The waiting list in Georgia is 46,800; in Mississippi, 10,422; Ohio
will not even tell us what theirs is. North Carolina, 25,363. If we had
some way to reward them for reducing the waiting list, then children
would be better taken care of. There is no real way to see that that
happens in the most basic way, and that is in the area of day care.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.

[[Page H2544]]

Mr. Speaker, the Children's Defense Fund, which so many of us
remember as the original individuals who doctored the slogan ``leave no
child behind'' before it was so unceremoniously expropriated by our
President for an education bill that he then went on and left all the
children behind because he did not fund it, here we have a welfare bill
where they ask recipients to go to work, but they do not give them the
tools to really go to work that gets them out of poverty. I think that
is why it is necessary to vote against this bill that the majority
party is putting forward and look more seriously at the alternative
being put in by the substitute by the Democrats.
Essentially, we need to expand the educational opportunities for
individuals that are trying to move from welfare to work to make sure
that they have the tools to get a job that pays enough to lift their
children out of poverty. Vocational training, postsecondary education,
work study, internships, job training, English as a second language,
GED courses, basic adult literacy, these are all tools necessary for
people to be able to do work that, in fact, will pay.
In my State of Massachusetts, we have a business community that
understands this. In fact, a joint report issued by the Massachusetts
Taxpayer Foundation and the United Way of Massachusetts Bay concluded
that at no time in history have they had a greater need for people with
a basic education, at least 2 years beyond high school, in order to
fulfill their needs for employees to be productive and to have an
economy that really moves forward. Their recommendation, as employers
generally perceived as to be more conservative than others, was that we
need a system that allows people to have those educational tools so
that they can hire them now. It is not enough to put them on a
temporary education program stretched out over 5 years so that some day
down the road they might get a certificate. Our industries in business
need them to get it sooner to put them to the level where they can be
productive and effective for those companies now.
So we have both the business community and others who are interested
in the welfare and well-being of these individuals, indicating that we
have to give them the kind of education that really matters, have that
educational opportunity be 24 months, lift people from poverty, and
truly leave no child behind. Just do not talk about it; do it.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a member of the committee.
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for
yielding me this time.
Taxpayers who object to paying for able-bodied people to stay on
welfare should object to this bill, because what it is going to lead to
in the long run is more people who are able-bodied being back on public
assistance.
The flaw in this bill is that it makes mothers choose between
pursuing their higher education and taking care of their children.
Those mothers will choose, and should choose, to take care of their
children. They will work longer hours, but they will not pursue a
higher education because the child care that would let them pursue that
higher education and take care of their children is not guaranteed in
this bill.
This bill will breed a new generation of permanent low-income, public
assistance recipients. We should move beyond welfare to work, from
poverty to independence. Let us reject this bill.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for
yielding me this time. I commend him on his hard work, and I rise in
support of H.R. 4737.
Mr. Speaker, I have to make an observation. The well-intended birth
of aid to families with dependent children and welfare in the 1960s was
a temporary assistance to help Americans in need. It became a
generational entitlement that trapped generations of Americans in
subsistence.
In 1996, Members on both sides of the aisle voted for a bill that
some called at that time a bill that would increase the welfare rolls,
children in hunger and in poverty. And today, 5 million American
families that were on welfare are off and their self-esteem is high.
They are now the taxpayers that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Andrews) referred to, who would have answered his question with a
resounding no. They would have said yes, we do believe the rest of ours
who are entrapped in poverty should be uplifted like we have been as
well.
I find it unfortunate that Members of this House would condemn a
success and try and make the fact that it is not incrementally as good
as they would like it to be the reason why we ought to go back to
generational entrapment.
One last thing. We gave waivers to States and Governors like Tommy
Thompson and Engler and others, and they created programs that work.
There have been some questions about waivers, but let me tell my
colleagues this. The creativity at the local level in Georgia and in
California and in Hawaii and Ohio has made the lives of poor Americans
richer and has made welfare-to-work a reality. To that end I would like
to engage the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) in a colloquy to
make sure the clarifications are clear on the authority at the local
level.
Mr. Speaker, this bill stipulates that the entity that administers a
qualified program must join in any application proposing to conduct a
demonstration program involving such a program. As the gentleman knows,
local business-led workforce investment boards administer the adult
dislocated worker and youth employment training programs authorized by
the Workforce Investment Act.
Is it the gentleman's intent that such boards would need to be a
party to any application that is submitted to include WIA programs
within a demonstration project?
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ISAKSON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct. In order to
coordinate those activities funded under the Workforce Investment Act
that are administered by local boards with one or more other programs
listed in this bill, local boards and the entity that administers the
other programs would need to submit a joint application to the
appropriate Federal departments. As a result, local boards effectively
can veto demonstration projects that the board believes do not enhance
workforce development and improved service delivery simply by choosing
not to join in the request. A State cannot seek to waive provisions
within the Workforce Investment Act that impact the local delivery
system without approval of the local boards.
I will submit for the Record a letter from the National Association
of Workforce Boards supporting the protection language included in the
bill.

National Association of

Workforce Boards,

Washington, DC, May 9, 2002.
Hon. Howard ``Buck'' McKeon,
House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative McKeon: We are writing on behalf of the
Board of Directors of the National Association of Workforce
Boards (NAWB) to express our support for your efforts to
establish increased linkages between the Workforce Investment
and TANF systems. We appreciate your leadership on this and
other issues that will ensure the continuation of a business-
led system for workforce development. NAWB's Board supports
the inclusion of waivers for WIA and other related programs
in the TANF reauthorization bill, provided these waivers meet
a set of critical principles.
First, the system of waivers needs to clearly and carefully
balance the interests of local communities, where services
are provided and accountability can best be brought to bear,
with state and federal interests. In short, we strongly
support your insistence that any waivers must be subject to a
joint agreement between the state and the local workforce
board where the waiver would apply. By requiring both state
local board approval of a proposed waiver you can ensure that
both sides will negotiate in good faith, with the local
workforce board representing the interests of businesses,
education and service providers.
Second, we believe that a sound system of waivers must
protect the local strategic planning and governance structure
that was set up through painstaking negotiations during
passage of the Workforce Investment Act. That is to say that
any system of waivers should reference or incorporate the
provisions in Section 189(i)(4)(i). In particular we

[[Page H2545]]

are concerned that the waiver structure protect the authority
vested in local boards, as well as the local allocation of
funding for the workforce investment system.
Finally, the waiver system needs to be as broad as
politically possible. Congress needs to ensure that the
waivers include all major federal legislation affecting
education, workforce and social service programs as it
promotes a workforce system that is focused on the needs of
both employers and jobseekers.
We believe that the so called ``super waivers'' can succeed
if they work to create a level playing field between state
and local interests as communities grapple with how best to
balance their economic development, education and life-long
learning strategies. If, on the other hand, waivers are
merely a way to shuffle which bureaucracy operates which
portion of the workforce development ``system'' they will
lead to disillusionment among our business community about
the ability of public programs to respond to the new economy.
Because our members serve on local workforce boards, they
know first hand how difficult it can be to drive quality and
flexibility in the public system. At the same time, they
realize that a system of voluntary waivers offers a
reasonable option to the gridlock that has too often
prevented program integration.
In addition to the inclusion of WIA in the waiver authority
of the TANF reauthorization legislation, we encourage you to
retain the positive provision of the addition of TANF as a
mandatory partner in the WIA system that was added to H.R.
4092 during Education and Workforce Committee consideration.
We would like to take this opportunity to support this
provision, and urge you to retain it as TANF reform
legislation is considered by the full House in the coming
weeks.
Again, we appreciate your continued efforts on behalf of
the workforce investment system, and particularly in support
of local workforce investment boards. We would appreciate the
opportunity to review any proposed language to see that it
meets the needs of local business-led boards and would be
happy to meet with you or otherwise comment as you move
forward on this issue.
Sincerely,
Kay George Hoch,
Chairman.
Robert Knight,
President.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the
clarification, and I thank the chairman for his diligent work. I, for
one, will vote in favor of this bill to empower the American people.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), a member of the committee.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted my good friend from Georgia
to know that the unfunded mandate in this bill would cost the State of
Georgia about $266 million, and Georgia has 16,000 children on the
child care waiting list.
The question before us is, Do we stand for the dignity of the poor,
or do we believe in tough treatment for the poor? Does Congress want to
help poor and low-income families, or does Congress want to push them
further into poverty?
Today we are considering the majority's bill, which would push people
further into poverty. This bill proposes to reduce poverty while
reducing welfare rolls. After 5 years, welfare cash assistance
caseloads have decreased by nearly 50 percent; but overall, poverty has
declined by less than 2 percent. Do we stand for a welfare system that
gives people a chance to pursue education and training without
additional make-work mandates? Work is at the center of the debate, but
the majority bill will not help people obtain and keep jobs with decent
wages.
The bill imposes new requirements and decreases State flexibility.
The majority's bill is not what the States support; 41 of 47 States
indicate that the administration's proposal, the blueprint for this
bill, would cause them to make fundamental changes. The NGA survey
found that most States would not be able to meet the new requirements,
so we do not stand with the States.
Mr. Speaker, this bill encourages work-fare programs that fail to
increase earnings and fail to increase employment.

{time} 1230

Recipients want real jobs not workfare. So it is clear that the bill
does not stand with low income families. So it does not seem that the
majority bill has been crafted with any key group of people in mind
that implement the law or are affected by it. The bill shows it is
crafted by those who are posturing to look tougher on the poor.
If States are forced to implement the majority bill that will be
workfare programs. Workfare is so overwhelmingly bad. It overshadows
nearly everything else in the bill. Workfare meets the need for a 25
percent increase in child care, at the very least. This bill before us
does not even increase child care to meet the current need, let alone a
one-quarter increase. Workfare undermines efforts to place people in
good jobs. It undermines efforts to increase education and job skills.
Vote against this bill.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, something is seriously wrong here. Last
week this House authorized a defense bill that will cost $400 billion,
a record increase of $48 billion, this despite the fact that the
Inspector General of the Department of Defense has testified publicly
that the Department cannot pass an audit and cannot track $1.2 trillion
in transactions.
The increase in the defense budget alone is three times greater than
the cost of the welfare program, the major program supposedly aimed at
lifting poor women and children out of poverty, aimed at fostering
responsibility. We are demanding that poor women get a job, any job,
even as we lose track of more than a trillion dollars? Bail out the
airlines, give huge subsidies to farmers, offer a $254 million tax
rebate to Enron? I am for accountability, but for everyone. But the
Republican welfare bill is just mean. It makes it harder for most
people in need to achieve self-sufficiency, something they want even
more than we want from them.
I say vote for the Democratic substitute. Vote no on the Republican
bill.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan), our newest member.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, I stand before you to strongly encourage
my colleagues to support this bill.
Six years ago the Members of this body united to pass a bill that
revolutionized the lives of welfare recipients. In the 6 years since
the passing of that legislation America has witnessed a huge decline in
welfare dependence. We must build upon those successes and create new
ways for people to become independent and move from welfare to jobs.
This bill is about three things: Compassion, work and marriage.
Compassion means encouraging work, which leads to dignity, self-respect
and self-sufficiency. Compassion also means focusing on marriage as a
key part of the battle against poverty. Compassion in the context of
welfare reform means that in the past 6 years over 3 million children
have been lifted out of the depth of poverty. Now that is compassion.
It also means independence. By focusing on work we not only help reduce
caseloads but build people up to be productive members of our society.
This bill directs funding from programs that encourage healthy stable
marriages. These programs include pre-marital education and counseling
as well as research so we find more and more ways to make shaky
marriages solid again for the sake of both the parents and the
children. It also promotes responsible fatherhood, helping men in
particular be responsible, respectable models for children.
The House must finish its work it started 6 years ago. We must ensure
that success of welfare reform by passing this bill. We must have an
opportunity to help people work and give them self-dignity in the
process. I believe this legislation will bring genuine improvement in
the lives of Americans who are dependent on welfare. I urge my
colleagues to support this measure.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford), a member of the committee.
Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to do here is a good thing, and we
are all trying to build on the progress we in the Congress and
certainly President Clinton made in reforming welfare.
I think one of the things we believe the substitute will do is an
improvement on what the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and some of
my friends on the other side are attempting to do, is to allow for
people to go to work and

[[Page H2546]]

at the same time pursue some kind of job training. Many of us know we
will vote on some kind of fast track or anticipate voting on it soon,
and one of the things we are trying to do is ensure there is a
reasonable component to help people get additional training for those
who may experience dislocations. The same is true here, and that is why
we think the substitute is better.
Two, this is an enormous unfunded mandate, as many of us know, and
our effort on this side is to try to alleviate some of that pressure on
the States. I have been informed the State of Oklahoma, this would cost
them $78 million. My home State of Tennessee, this will cost us an
additional $100 million in funding when my State is facing a $400
million budget shortfall. This is not the way to go.
One of the things in which we hope on this side is that people can
find ways to create that long-term sufficiency. It is my hope that,
although I do not have enough time to say it, that indeed my friends
will support this substitute and urge my friend the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Boehner) to go back and negotiate a bill that makes senses for all
people, not just his party in their reelection efforts.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) has
2\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller) has 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Employer-Employee Relations of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce.
(Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, since 1996 nearly 9 million
people have gone from collecting welfare checks to paychecks thanks to
Republicans. One shining example of the success of welfare is a
constituent of mine I will call Janice. Janice is a single mother of a
5-year-old. Last spring she lost her job in the soft economy. Thanks to
welfare reform and the good people at the Texas Workfare Center in
McKinney, Janice found a job and child care, becoming self-sufficient
with full benefits and retirement after just 6 months.
Mr. Speaker, she illustrates what many of us have known all along,
the 1996 Republican welfare reforms have worked. Child poverty has
fallen sharply. Nearly 3 million children are no longer welfare kids,
and that is because more parents are working. Employment by mothers
most likely to go on welfare has risen by 40 percent. Welfare caseloads
have fallen by 9 million. Nine million people. Is that not great news?
Nearly 50 percent of Texas welfare recipients have left welfare because
of the successful model created by Congress and enacted by then-
Governor George Bush.
Critics ask if it is not broken, why fix it. Well, even the best race
cars go for tune-ups, and that is what we are doing with this bill.
This bill requires States to put 70 percent of their welfare caseloads
to work 40 hours a week, 16 of which can be used for education and
training. This bill encourages, not discourages work. It reflects the
President's plan to encourage healthy, stable marriages.
Today we begin the next step in welfare reform based on the
President's priorities. This legislation will help even more low income
parents know the dignity that comes with a paycheck instead of a
welfare check. By passing this bill we can help even more low income
Americans improve their lives for themselves and their children, and
that is what welfare reform is all about.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), a leader on this issue
in our committee and in the House and the Nation.
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the last speaker
that the unfunded mandate in this bill would cost the State of Texas
about $688 million and Texas has 37,000 children on their child care
waiting list.
This Republican bill does not reform welfare. It deforms welfare.
H.R. 4737 pushes more low income parents into low paying workfare jobs
while making it impossible for them to get the education they need to
actually prepare themselves for jobs that pay a liveable wage, jobs
that they can support their families on.
H.R. 4737 doubles the number of hours that mothers and children under
the age of 6 will have to work each week and, even worse, this bill
does not adequately fund child care for the children of all the new
working parents that are going to have to go into the working world.
Mr. Speaker, I was a welfare mother 35 years ago. My children were 1,
3 and 5 years old. It was bad enough that their father abandoned us,
but the worst thing about the whole situation was trying to get
adequate child care. We had 13 different child care situations the
first 12 months that I went to work. That was the hell year of our
lives, and I am going to tell you, it is a miracle that my children are
so wonderful. But it was not until our child care situation settled
down, and my mother came to our town to take care of them that my job
grew. Within a year of having stable child care, I became an executive
at the company that I was working for.
I am telling you, child care is the essential ingredient, along with
education, for getting moms off welfare and out of poverty.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).
(Mrs. DAVIS of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support today of
this important Democratic substitute.
Mr. Speaker, as both a former social worker and a former legislator
in the California State Assembly, I understand firsthand the importance
and the significance of State flexibility in program implementation. In
particular, I would like to emphasize the importance of increasing
access to educational and training opportunities for welfare
recipients.
We have heard a lot today about the need for State flexibility, and I
can tell you from my personal experience serving in the State
legislature that when the 1996 welfare reform law went into effect,
that allowing State and localities the room to tailor programs in their
regions and communities is absolutely vital to the overall success of
the program.
Under the TANF structure that was implemented in 1996, California was
permitted creativity in program design and implementation to best meet
the needs of our welfare recipients. The State legislature took
advantage of this flexibility by creating a structure that rewarded
work, included more opportunities for education and allowed counties to
adapt the program to local economic needs and realities.
Please, a one-size-fits-all agenda does not fit for all of
Californians or all Michiganites or Pennsylvanians. We need more
flexibility.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the former Whip of the Democratic
party.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I read a story of a woman in Pontiac,
Michigan with a 7-year-old son and through the Michigan Family
Independent Agency she was able to enroll in a 6-month information
training program in information technology at her local community
college. After completing her training, she got a full-time job for a
local construction company at $11 an hour. Now she is able to provide
for her son and for her family.
She would not have been able to do this under this bill. Michigan has
a program. It is called 10-10-10, 10 hours of work, 10 hours of class
time, 10 hours of study per week. It is a good program. This bill
basically says no to that program. It eliminates it.
This bill is a step backwards because it promotes workfare, make-work
jobs that do not teach skills, and that have no workplace protections.
It is a step backwards because it does not provide adequate funds to
help families with child care costs. It is a step backwards because it
forces States to abandon successful programs like 10-10-10 in Michigan,
and it is a step backwards

[[Page H2547]]

because it turns this assistance program back into a handout and not a
leg up.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller) has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as we close this part of the debate, I simply want to
say that it is rather interesting that the party who took over the
Congress on the theory of a Contract on America, of no unfunded
mandates is about to foist onto the States of this Nation billions of
dollars of additional costs.
Their answer is flexibility. Yes, those States can choose to cut job
training. Those States can choose to cut educational benefits. Those
States can choose to cut child care. They can choose to cut the quality
of the child care. They can choose to cut the TANF grant to these
families. That is not flexibility. That is a failure to meet the task
at hand.

{time} 1245

While we increase the requirement of people that need to go to work,
and I think we should, the fact of the matter is we do not provide the
States the means to support those individuals while they go to work and
get off of welfare.
This is an unfunded mandate, it is that simple, because this bill,
the Republican bill before us, fails to meet the demands that are going
to be placed upon the States to provide the child care services.
The notion that somehow everybody who left welfare is now out of
poverty and that children are out of poverty, the average person
leaving welfare left and earned $12,000 a year. $12,000 a year, Mr.
Speaker. That does not sound like we lifted them out of poverty.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time.
The success of the 1996 welfare reform law is beyond dispute. Even
the New York Times has called it, ``An obvious success.''
The debate today has been how to build on that success. We believe
that further flexibility to the States will, in fact, be helpful to
them to package programs to meet the needs of each of those individual
families.
The discussion we have heard from the other side about an unfunded
mandate is almost laughable. Today, we have less than half the welfare
caseload we had in 1996. Yet the amount of money being spent by the
Federal Government for welfare block granting to the States is the same
amount of money; and in the bill that we are proposing building on that
success, this bill calls for $2 billion of additional aid to go into
child care.
We know that child care is, in fact, a key component to help make
this system work and moving people from welfare to work.
In a recent speech in my home State of Ohio, President Bush captured
what this issue is all about: dignity. It is about helping welfare
recipients achieve independence, to become self-reliant, and to be able
to provide for their own families.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Pursuant to the rule, the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Dingell) each will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today in strong support of the Personal Responsibility, Work
and Family Promotion Act of 2002.
Mr. Speaker, this bill extends funding for abstinence-only education
and reauthorizes transitional medical assistance, two items of
particular interest to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
The 1996 welfare act included a permanent appropriation of $50
million over 5 years for abstinence-only education under title V of the
Social Security Act. With tight State budgets and a requirement that
States have to match every $4 Federal with $3 of their own, it is
noteworthy that nearly all the States of our Nation have participated
in this block grant program.
The participation rates suggest high State interest in using
abstinence-only education as one way to address teen pregnancy and even
more importantly, in some cases, sexually transmitted diseases.
Last month, my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Bilirakis), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, held a hearing
on abstinence-only education; and at that hearing we learned some
pretty interesting things.
We learned that problems stemming from increased sexual activity
among teens has not abated. Even though teen birthrates have declined
over the past decade, we still have among the highest teen birthrates
of any industrialized nation in the world. Sexually transmitted
diseases have grown dramatically. Every day in America 10,000 young
people contract a sexually transmitted disease; 2,400 become pregnant;
and 55 contract HIV.
In the 1960s really only two sexually transmitted diseases were of
real concern. Now, our young people, senior population as well, face a
population of sexually transmitted diseases that now total 25; and
these diseases primarily infecting the young people happen to be viral
diseases such as human papillomavirus, HPV virus, herpes and chlamydia.
These viral diseases are incurable. So while our generation was
concerned with basically two venereal diseases, young kids today face
25, some of which are totally incurable, only managed.
Chlamydia, for example, is a major cause of infertility in young
women. It is asymptomatic in about 85 percent of the affected women but
can still cause significant problems without the presence of noticeable
symptoms. For example, in the population of young people entering the
armed services, U.S. Army recruits, for example, we discovered that 9
percent of the female population entering the U.S. Army, 9 percent of
these young women were affected with chlamydia and did not even know
about it, and this is a sexually transmitted disease that leads very
often to infertility in these young women, who were shocked to discover
that they had this disease, apparently having been taught all along
that if they protected themselves in so-called safe sex that they would
be safe, only to discover to their great dismay that they were now
infected with an incurable disease that could possibly ruin their
chance of ever having a child.
Here is another number that shocked us. Over 50 percent of the
sexually-active young women in this country between the ages of 18 and
22, over 50 percent of sexually-active young women in this category are
infected with HPV. HPV, the human papillomavirus, is a precursor of
cervical cancer. Fifty percent of our young women are affected by it,
and here is the awful truth: there is no evidence that condoms reduce
the sexual transmission of this infection. And so all the work we do in
this country of teaching safe sex and of being careful if a child does
become sexually active has never conveyed the notion to these young
women that if they took that course they could be subjecting themselves
to a disease that is a precursor to cervical cancer, and they did not
even know, perhaps, that condoms are not a protection against this
disease.
These statistics are terrifying. They show that the safer-sex model
does not solve the problem; and despite more than 20 years of a variety
of educational programs designed to promote condom and contraceptive
use, young ladies are catching these incurable viral diseases that can
ruin their lives and kill them, render them infertile and, in effect,
take away their chance to ever be a mother.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill, which includes a
5-year extension of the abstinence-only education. This bill maintains
the status quo. It extends the funding level of $50 million each year
for the years 2003 to 2007.
New research is beginning to suggest that abstinence-only education
can effectively address the sexually transmitted disease prevalence
among young people and the proportion of babies occurring to unmarried
mothers, the children that end up being the children of poverty in
America all too often.
We must continue this effort begun in 1996 and support abstinence-
only

[[Page H2548]]

education programs that empower students to choose abstinence for
themselves for receiving all the relevant facts and information because
abstinence in so many ways is a better choice for them.
In 1996, the welfare reform law also included a critical work support
for former welfare recipients, something called ``transitional medical
assistance.'' Former welfare recipients typically enter the low-wage
jobs that are available in this country, and those generally do not
offer private health insurance coverage. They offer coverage but only
at very expensive premiums. Traditional medical assistance extends up
to 1 year of Medicaid coverage to those individuals and their families.
There is strong bipartisan support for this assistance. We provided
it in 1996. We extended it in 2000 and 2001, and this bill would extend
it again this year for another year. If we do not extend it, it is set
to expire on September 30, 2002. This 1-year authorization, however,
has a 5-year cost of $355 million. And here is the awful truth: because
this money was not included in the budget resolution, we have had to
find a way to pay for it.
As my colleagues know, under our pay-go rule, if something is not
funded specifically in the budget resolution, we have to find some
other way of paying for it. Well, we have had to find that money, and
so this bill includes an offset. We recognize the Medicaid budget
difficulties that many States are experiencing, and we also understand
that important functions are funded with Medicaid administrative costs;
and for that reason, the offset included in this bill is merely a
partial adjustment that lasts only 2 years to pay for this 1-year
extension of this critical program of health coverage, particularly for
women in welfare entering the workforce.

Before 1996, a common cost of administering the food stamp program,
Medicare and welfare were often charged to the AFDC program, the
predecessor of our TANF program. These common costs have been included
in the calculation of the States' TANF fund. So in effect, we are
double-paying for administrative costs of the States in these programs.
The offset we are talking about reduces this double payment, this
Federal reimbursement for administrative costs, to reflect the portion
of these costs that are indeed already included in the TANF block grant
the States receive.
We fully corrected this double reimbursement for food stamps in 1998,
but we did not correct it for the Medicaid program. In effect, the
States are still getting double the administrative cost reimbursements
for the Medicaid program with Federal dollars, and we take some of that
back. We take half of it back 1 year, three-quarters of it back the
next year for this 2-year take-back in order to pay for this
extraordinarily important 1-year extension of health care benefits to
welfare folks entering the workforce. So this partial adjustment lasts
only for 2 years.
Let me also say that we are all busy seeing if we can find a better
offset; and if we can, in the process of negotiating this bill with the
Senate, we will certainly look for one, but in the meantime this is the
offset that is available. It is a partial one, only lasts 2 years; and
it makes this incredibly important program available.
Let me remind my colleagues, there has been a lot of requests for us
to do a larger than 1-year extension. If a 1-year extension costs 355
and we did not have the money for it except through this offset,
imagine trying to extend it for longer than that at this time. Do we
intend to extend it again next year? I can tell my colleagues all on
the floor that this program works. By extending medical health coverage
under Medicaid to folks leaving welfare and going into work, we have
encouraged more and more people out of welfare and into the dignity and
self-worth of a paying job and the independence that comes with it; and
we will work to extend this program as long as it is necessary to make
sure that we continue the progress we have seen in this vital effort in
America.
So we have to recognize the careful balance we have achieved with
this offset and that 1-year reauthorization; and again, I want to
commit we will revisit the issue next year, and, as we have in the
past, continue our efforts to extend this program as long as we know it
is working and as long as we know it is valuable.
I urge my colleagues to join me in full support of this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Brown) will control the time for the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Dingell).
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Brown).
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume
to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
(Ms. KAPTUR asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4737, the
Republican punishment bill that makes people work 40 hours without a
minimum-wage guarantee.
Mr. Speaker, a half century ago, the old miner's song captured the
plight of the working underclass--``16 tons and what do you get,
another day older and deeper in debt.''
Today, author Barbara Eisenreich in her contemporary book, Nickel and
Dimed--on Not Getting by in America, reports \1/3\ of our workforce
toils for $8 an hour or less. Indeed, the fastest growing segment of
our job market is part time jobs with no benefits.
Today, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4737, the Republican's punishment
bill for needy, working families. It's their latest gimmick to keep our
workforce's pay scales down.
Essentially this bill assures that individuals transitioning off
welfare will be locked into the lowest paying jobs, 40 hours a week,
because not only are Republicans not creating high paying jobs--in fact
since George Bush became President we have lost 2 million more good
jobs across our Nation--but this bill denies necessary education and
training to help workers gain some skills to negotiate troubled
employment waters.
Incredibly in this high tech age, this Republican bill restricts
work-related training to no more than 3 consecutive months over a 24-
month period. Punish them, indeed.
To vividly make my point: in the past 2 decades the poverty rate
among working families has shot up 50 percent. The Bush plan doesn't
reverse it but makes it worse. Essentially people in our country are
working for less because our good jobs--in textiles, steel, automotive
parts, electronics, and high tech--are being exported to China, Mexico
and Latin America. We are seeing a race to the bottom of the wage
scale. Now we have a whole new class of workers who are being relegated
to fill these low wage slots, with no hope for a living wage. 16 tons
and what have you got. Over 8 million children in the United States
live in poor families that work. Half of all parents in working poor
families lack health insurance.
Rather than produce a bill that links education and training to
create some hope of a ladder of economic opportunity to true self
sufficiency, this bill subjugates them to a shadow economy where even
minimum wages are not guaranteed. Under the Republican bill, 39 states
could not fulfill the bill's work requirement without violating the
current minimum wage rate for a 2-person family.
Vote for the Democratic substitute as a life preserver in most
difficult economic waters.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
The President and House Republicans' message on welfare reform has
been loud and clear. States need greater flexibility, but when it comes
to abstinence education, they are unwilling to afford that same
flexibility. If States want the Federal match, they must do the Federal
Government's bidding and use an abstinence-only curriculum. In other
words, Mr. Speaker, schools cannot use these dollars to teach kids
about AIDS, about STDs, or about birth control.
The substitute bill we are offering today does not affect the ability
of States to use these grants for abstinence-only education if they
choose to, if that is the direction they want to take. Our bill gives
State and local systems the flexibility, a word that Republicans use on
this floor regularly, the flexibility to provide additional information
to students that can help protect them against STDs and teen pregnancy.
I would urge my colleagues to remember that more than 80 percent of
parents support comprehensive sex education. Why is the Federal
Government not listening?
Regarding the transitional Medicaid program, we support the extension
of transitional medical assistance which

[[Page H2549]]

helps working families keep health insurance as they transition from
welfare to work. We should make this commonsense program permanent,
consistent with the welfare bill.

{time} 1300

In the spirit of bipartisanship, we agreed to a 1-year extension in
committee to ensure that this provision even made it into the TANF
bill.
I commend the chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin),
who supported this measure despite the fact that House Republican
leadership in the House Committee on the Budget included no money for
Medicaid, and I appreciate the chairman's comments today that he would
continue year after year to authorize this. However, Republican
leadership has decided to pay for transitional medical assistance by
cutting other parts of Medicaid.
The bill cuts payments to State Medicaid programs. Those dollars are
critical. They fund activities like nursing home outreach and oversight
and anti-fraud activities. States cannot afford to lose them.
Republican leadership found more than $1.5 trillion in the treasury to
give tax cuts to the richest people in this country, but they cannot
come up with $355 million to help welfare families reenter and stay in
the workplace. Where, Mr. Speaker, are our priorities?
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Upton).
(Mr. UPTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation.
As a member of both the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the
Committee on Education and the Workforce, two of the three House
committees with jurisdiction over welfare reform, I have worked very
closely with my colleagues and chairmen to further strengthen this
legislation so that so many more families can know the benefits of
personal responsibility, work, and stronger family units.
I would like to focus on two components of this legislation today.
The first one is the Transitional Medical Assistance. One of the most
important items in the welfare reform bill that we passed in the
Congress back in 1996 was removing the incentive that folks had which
otherwise kept them on welfare rather than trying to seek and gain
employment. Transitional Medical Assistance provided that bridge and
the safety net to encourage people to look for work rather than stay on
welfare.
When we passed reform in 1996, we emphasized work and personal
responsibility. Important in this legislation is an abstinence program.
Sexually transmitted diseases have reached epidemic proportions in our
country. In the 1960s, 1 in 47 sexually active teens were infected with
a sexually transmitted disease. Today, it is 1 in 4. Please pass this
legislation.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Mrs. Capps), a registered nurse and a very active
advocate for health care.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise in opposition to this bill and in support of the
substitute.
In the last 6 years, welfare reform has produced some real successes,
and now we have the opportunity to build upon these achievements.
Unfortunately, the underlying bill does not do this, but the substitute
does.
For example, we now know that for single mothers with young children
to go to work, we must ensure that quality and affordable child care is
available. And we should also ensure that legal immigrants are afforded
the same safety net as other working families. The substitute includes
these important provisions but the bill does not.
Mr. Speaker, the part of the bill I wish to address is the funding
for abstinence-only education. I directed a teen parent and pregnancy
program as part of our local high school district in Santa Barbara,
California, and for several years worked daily with teenagers
struggling with these very issues. These teen parents were the first to
urge abstinence to their peers, to their younger brothers and sisters,
even though they did not use that word. But their message was all about
knowledge, comprehensive sex education. They did not use that term
either, but they did know the power it gives when information is not
based on fear or incomplete and half-truths.
Young people are quick to pick up on these half-truths and shoddy
arguments, and then the trust is gone. This bill sets aside $50 million
for unproven abstinence-only programs that do not even ensure that the
information they contain is truthful or medically accurate. And,
unfortunately, some of these abstinence-only programs use terror
tactics to try to keep teens from having sex, they exaggerate the
failure rates of condoms, and some federally funded programs denigrate
women, suggesting that they are not as smart or as capable as men.
The substitute would allow States the flexibility to support proven
abstinence-based programs that are medically accurate. These
comprehensive programs will help to reduce teen pregnancy and will give
our young people real tools for success. So I urge my colleagues to
learn from our teenage parents and support the substitute.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield \1/2\ minute to the
gentleman from Rockwall, Texas (Mr. Hall), our great friend.
(Mr. HALL of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this legislation
contains a provision that extends funding for abstinence-only
education. It is a provision that I originally cosponsored.
This funding, a reauthorization of the 1996 program, I think deserves
to be continued. Teen pregnancy is a problem that affects the entire
country, not just the young women who are forced to make the difficult
decisions at an early age.
The number of teen pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases
continues to increase despite the number of family planning style sex
education programs that have been offered. It is time to give another
approach a chance to succeed.
Abstinence-only education is a viable, traditional program that only
first received funding in 1996. There are more than 20 sources of
funding for sex education programs. Abstinence-only has only two. Let
us give this program a chance to prove its effectiveness.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise today in the strongest opposition to this
irresponsible Republican welfare reform legislation which will
devastate poor families, especially women and children.
We talk about family values a lot in this place, so when we have a
chance to practice what we preach, we go in just the opposite
direction. This bill limits access to education, does not adequately
increase child care for millions of needy families, and does not make
poverty reduction a real goal of welfare reform.
H.R. 4737 would double the amount of time required for a parent on
welfare with children under the age of 6 to work from 20 hours to 40
hours a week, and yet we do not sufficiently increase child care
funding to care for these children. What will happen to our children?
We will have more latchkey kids at younger and younger ages because
their parents are working without the child care they need.
We know that these children are more at risk for future difficulties;
crime, drugs and teen pregnancy. This goes totally counter to family
values preached by so many. Making welfare recipients spend even more
time away from home and their children makes it totally anti-family. It
just does not make any sense.
Real family values entails allowing parents on welfare to go to
school to get better jobs and to take care of their families.
Unfortunately, or fortunately, I have some experience in this area. I
can tell my colleagues from personal experience that education does
make a difference for those women on welfare.
We must also educate young men and women to prevent unwanted
pregnancies, not to mention HIV and AIDS, and yet the GOP welfare bill
continues the dangerous abstinence-only until marriage program, which
will prohibit any mention of contraception, even in the context of
preventing HIV and AIDS.

[[Page H2550]]

For all these reasons and many, many more we must defeat H.R. 4737.
We cannot continue to put our children at risk. This will be the
beginning of the end for any hope for a successful future. Vote ``no''
on H.R. 4737.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from Missouri (Ms. McCarthy), a member of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
(Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R.
4737, the bill before us today, and in support of the Democratic
alternative.
In a time when the States are already facing serious budget cuts,
this bill exacerbates their budget woes. Missouri, my State, would have
to come up with over $316 million to implement the mandates in this
bill, but it is already facing a $536 million budget deficit. The bill
before us inadequately funds many of the programs and block grant
monies States need in order to carry out welfare reform and improve
upon it.
I supported the original welfare reform bill 5 years ago. I worked
hard on the issue of ending unfunded Federal mandates in this House and
was proud when we adopted it into law, and I am very chagrined and
worried about what we are attempting to accomplish in this bill today.
The Democratic substitute provides both inflationary increases in our
block grants and increases child care funding by $11 billion over 5
years.
We must, if we are going to expect our welfare recipients to stay in
the work force, provide these services.
The progress we have made as a result of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act,
which I supported, will be undermined by this measure. It imposes up to
$11 billion in unfunded mandates on the States over the next 5 years.
Missouri has been recognized nationally for its creative community-
based partnerships with youth mentoring, before and after school
programs, parenting classes and child development classes, all of which
foster independence from public assistance and improve family well-
being. Missouri also makes excellent use of case-by-case individual
assessments, which assists in making the transition to work by offering
job training, post secondary education, and job placement services.
H.R. 4737 takes away Missouri's flexibility in providing these programs
by eliminating educational and occupational opportunities that
contribute to the outreach the State now provides.
The Democratic substitute provides both an inflationary increase in
the TANF block grant, and additional $6 billion over 5 years, and
increases child care funding by $11 billion over 5 years. H.R. 4737
adds no new money for childcare. My constituent Marcia, a mother of
three, came to Missouri's Department of Family Services shortly after
she and her family moved to Missouri to escape an abusive husband. The
Democratic substitute gives Marcia the comfort in knowing that while
she is working to improve her family's quality of life and getting
support for her abusive situation her children will be cared for.
Without adequate childcare, welfare recipients who find themselves in
situations like Marcia's will not be able to meet the increased work
requirements mandated on them by H.R. 4737.
If my colleagues on both sides of the aisle truly want self
sufficiency I urge them to adopt the Democratic substitute.
Mr. Speaker, stricter work requirements with fewer resources is a
losing equation for the welfare mothers of Kansas City and for the
children of our Nation.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
(Mr. BILIRAKIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I will limit myself here. The abstinence-
only education funds were first included as part of the 1996 welfare
reform law, and something that I do not think has been said to date is
that 49 of the 50 States have elected to participate in this program.
During our hearing, we heard of a program taking place in Miami-Dade
County, Florida, where the lady told us that they have only a 1.1
percent teen pregnancy rate. A 1.1 percent teen pregnancy rate. By
continuing this funding for another 5 years, we can encourage the
development of more successful programs. It is really, really
critically important, as has already been pointed out.
I would like to accent that abstinence-only programs do not, do not
prohibit educators from discussing the facts about the effectiveness of
contraceptives, the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, or any
other topic that might be raised. The only requirement is that the use
of contraceptives cannot be advocated. Only abstinence can.
This is not a ``just say no'' type of a program. It is a program that
is designed for the overall individual. It goes into character and all
those dignity types of areas.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
Let me say that this legislation that we now have before us, H.R.
4737, renders to those who have fallen upon bad luck bad deeds. This
bill should not be passed, and let me just share with my colleagues
why.
First of all, this gives to many of the States unfunded mandates. In
my State alone, Texas, $688 million will be needed to implement this
legislation, and it is not funded. An additional $344 million for child
care will be needed, and it is not funded. Right now in the State of
Texas we have some 37,000 who are on the waiting list for child care.
With respect to the issue of abstinence, no one opposes it, but we
like to have the truth. Teenagers want to know the whole truth and
nothing but the truth. This bill is limiting, and my colleagues know
that this is wrong.
In addition, we realize if young mothers are to transition from work
to employment that provides a career, they need child care. We realize
that in this bill there is no real child care.
In my County of Harris, where it is an enormously diverse community
with legal immigrants, this is a burden upon our hospital system to
discriminate against legal immigrants, taxpaying, hardworking
individuals. The bill that we have before us discriminates against
legal immigrants.
And let me also mention that this is a midnight hour bill. This is a
bill that was brought to the floor without anyone understanding what is
in it. That is why I support the substitute offered by the Democrats.
I presented amendments that would help to train teenage parents and
give them parenting skills and to provide them with training on
financial services or how to deal with finances. That was not ruled in
order. I asked to have an inflation factor in increasing the amount of
money to our welfare recipients if the economy went bad. Not allowed. I
asked to increase child care dollars. Not allowed. I asked to determine
whether this bill diminishes child abuse or helps people get off
welfare. Not allowed.
This is a bad bill. We need to support the Democratic substitute. It
is a shame we would rush to do this when the legislation does not
expire until September 2002. I wonder why.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the adoption of the Republican welfare
bill. The bill restructures welfare to focus on caseload reductions
rather than poverty reduction. The Republicans offer a bill that does
not allow the Democrats to provide one amendment. Democrats care about
our less advantaged Americans. The bill would increase mandatory child
care funding by only $1 billion over the next 5 years. That's barely
enough to keep pace with inflation, and nowhere near enough to
implement the bill's new participation requirements. This funding at
present does not provide child care coverage to the 15 million children
who are now eligible for day care assistance but who are not currently
covered because States lack sufficient resources. On Tuesday I
attempted to offer an amendment to the legislation that would increase
funding to childcare by 20 percent between fiscal years 2003 to 2007.
The amendment was not accepted. The Congressional Budget Office
estimates that the increased mandatory work hours imposed on States by
the legislation will cost States an additional $3.8 billion in child
care costs according to the Congressional Research Service.
Many employed recipients surveyed, suffered when they were penalized
for earning money which caused them to lose childcare benefits.
The University of Oregon conducted a 2-year study of welfare
restructuring post the

[[Page H2551]]

1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act.
The finding regarding childcare was more Federal funds are needed and
expand eligibility for subsidized childcare.
The legislation restricts State discretion to provide education and
training to welfare recipients. H.R. 4700 goes so far as to remove
vocational education from the current-law list of work-related
activities that count toward the core work requirement.
On Tuesday I offered an amendment to offer parenting and financial
planning training to teenage parents. The amendment was not accepted.
As the chair of the Children's Caucus I am concerned that the
Republican bill hurts children, by hurting their parents. We must
provide additional funding for childcare. We must provide funds for
parenting skills training and financial management training. Last, we
must provide funding for the legislation that takes inflation into
account. I offered an amendment to provide for this but the Republicans
did not accept it.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), a distinguished member of our
committee.
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, the same group of liberals is crying foul the
same way they did 6 years ago. There is only one thing that has done
more to keep people in poverty than the old welfare system did: Mr.
Speaker, I am talking about teen pregnancy.
Statistically speaking, when low-income teenage girls get pregnant,
they are dooming themselves to a lifetime of poverty and they are
dooming their kids to a lifetime of poverty. Now, some of them escape
it and succeed despite the odds, but most do not. And, Mr. Speaker,
there is only one way kids can avoid getting pregnant before they are
ready, and that is to abstain from sex until they are married.
Some of our liberal friends say it is unrealistic to expect kids to
abstain from sex. Some even say that it is dangerous to teach
abstinence. That tells me they do not believe in America's kids. They
expect them to fail, and when we expect a kid to fail, that kid
probably will fail.
Let us be honest, the only real way to prevent our kids from getting
STDs is to teach them to abstain until marriage. Now, I know a lot of
kids who are saving themselves for marriage. I know them. They are
proud of it.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has a good program, and I urge
support of the bill.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I want to raise two issues. I want to raise first the issue of rural
development, since my colleague gave me an extra minute. Those of us
who live in rural America are always reminding our colleagues that
there are differences in terms of our infrastructure and our resources
and our institutions, but yet we have the same aspirations as anyone
else.

{time} 1315

Now we have a welfare bill that indeed requires work. And by the way,
work is good for anyone and most of us love to work because we enjoy
doing something that gives us satisfaction. In addition, it allows us
to bring income into our families.
In rural areas, there are very few jobs. If mothers are forced to
leave, we should have day care. In rural areas, there are few qualified
day care centers.
Also, if jobs are not available immediately nearby, we need
transportation. Unless we speak to those issues that allow for rural
areas to make up for that differential, this welfare bill is not
adequate.
Let me speak about another issue on which I have been working, and
that is teenage pregnancy. Indeed I do not claim any expertise in that
area, but it is an issue that I have been engaged in. For 10 years I
have been talking about the fact if we want to give our young people an
opportunity, we must give them productive, positive alternatives so
they do not get involved in destructive activities. Abstinence does
work, but it is not the only method.
If Members are interested in teenagers, we will give them information
that is based on science and also inspire them to believe in themselves
and give them a reason to abstain. We should not say that they must
have abstinence. If we are truly committed to our young people rather
than ideology, we would do all of these things to make sure that they
have a future.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this legislation is not just to get
people off of welfare, but to reduce poverty in this country and to get
people to work.
Mr. Speaker, getting a job also means keeping a job. When we fall
short, as this legislation does, as our hearings indicated, as our
discussions indicated, as our debate indicates, when we fall short on
helping Americans keep jobs, we have missed the point of this
legislation. We have fallen far short on education.
The Democratic plan allows education to be counted towards the work
requirement. We have fallen far short on child care funding. The
Democratic plan provides several billion dollars for child care. We
have fallen far short on restoring benefits for legal immigrants. All
of those issues will help people not just get jobs, but keep jobs.
At the same time, the other side of the aisle talks about flexibility
and giving States flexibility; yet from abstinence education to a whole
host of other issues, the Republican bill falls far short on giving
States the real flexibility they need to get people not just off the
welfare rolls, but to make sure people have good jobs, meaningful work,
good training, child care, health care, all of the things that are
needed.
Mr. Speaker, especially on health care issues, this Congress has not
taken the right approach. We should extend the State medical assistance
program more than just 1 year. It should be at least 5 years, as this
reauthorization does; or it should be permanent if we really do care
about making sure that people can get off welfare and get to work and
have meaningful jobs.
In the end, as Republicans have, on this legislation, on prescription
drugs, on issue after issue after issue, Republicans have made a
choice. They have chosen tax cuts for the wealthiest people in the
country rather than providing services to help people keep those jobs,
get educated, have the kind of health care benefits they need. They
have chosen tax cuts for the richest Americans, to the tune of hundreds
of billions of dollars overwhelmingly for the richest 1, 2 and 3
percent of the people in the country instead of a decent prescription
drug benefit.
They have chosen tax cuts for the wealthiest people instead of
funding adequately the education bill that this Congress passed.
Mr. Speaker, when we think about flexibility, when we think about
alleviating poverty and about providing jobs so people can keep those
jobs, think about the plan the Democrats have moved towards with
flexibility, with support for education, with support for child care
funding, and especially with support for medical care.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) to close.
(Mr. TERRY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about today at this point
is our children; and it is about teaching our children, our boys and
girls, it is not men and women, but boys and girls, about abstinence.
For many years this Congress only put dollars aside to teach safe
sex, teaching our teenagers the proper way of putting on a condom.
Fortunately, 6 years ago this Congress took control and said we will
give the option to States and entities to have abstinence-only
programs, and we will begin to fund those. It is not a mandate; it is
an option for these organizations. It gives them the opportunity.
Since we have implemented this policy, teenage pregnancy has dropped,
teenage sexually transmitted diseases have dropped. That is fantastic,
yet anecdotal, evidence. Frankly, we have all talked to teenagers in
our districts, and we have heard that they want a positive message and
they want our support in abstaining from sex until married. President
Bush said, ``When our children face a choice between self-restraint and
self-destruction, government should not be neutral. Government should
not sell children short by assuming they are incapable of acting

[[Page H2552]]

responsibly. We must promote good choices.''
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, preventing teen pregnancy is a key part of
moving people from welfare to work and reducing poverty. Over half of
all mothers on welfare had their first child as a teenager, and two-
thirds of the families begun by teen mothers are poor.
For all these reasons, preventing teen pregnancy is an issue we all
should be able to agree on in Congress. It should not be a Republican
issue, not a Democratic issue. But the critical need to reduce the
number of teen pregnancies too often gets lost in an ideological debate
over abortion, creating federal policies that don't fit the reality of
teen pregnancy prevention across the country.
Three weeks ago, the House Commerce Committee engaged in a
disappointing debate over the abstinence-only education. The Committee
rejected on ideological lines proposals to provide states flexibility
in the way they use welfare funds for teen pregnancy, require
abstinence-only programs to give out medically accurate information,
and require that funds go to programs that have proven effective.
The amendment I offered in Committee would have modified existing law
so that states have the option of funding programs according to the
existing federal definition of abstinence-only, or another approach to
abstinence education that they deem appropriate.
This amendment was not an anti-abstinence amendment--it specifically
stated that programs should promote abstinence. But it would have
allowed states the option to choose the type of abstinence education
they believe will help students, and most importantly, reduce the
incidence of teen pregnancy.
Between 1992 and 1994, under a Republican governor, California
instituted an abstinence-only education program across the entire
state--only to discover through evaluations that this program was not
effective. As a result, California turns down the welfare money for
abstinence-only education--a loss of approximately $30 million from
1998-2002.
The purpose and spirit of the 1996 welfare reform law I voted for
allowed states to craft work promotion and poverty reduction programs
that worked best for them. This has worked remarkably well--states
should have some flexibility on teen pregnancy prevention programs.
President Bush, in his FY 2003 Budget, argues for the elimination of
federal programs that he says have not undergone rigorous evaluation.
But this focus proven programs is missing from the Republican approach
to welfare reform.
Abstinence is an extremely important message to send students,
particularly younger teens. But current research shows that there are
no ``magic bullets'' for preventing teen pregnancy--not sex education
alone, not abstinence alone. Indeed, the programs with the strongest
evidence for success may work better for some populations and
communities than others.
Rather than having ideology drive our teen pregnancy policy, we
should focus on local solutions and solid research. This will allow us
to make progress on a goal we all agree on--preventing unwanted
pregnancy and abortion.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, as you may well know, in 1996, Congress was
faced with a failing welfare program that did little to assist
individuals in the transition from dependence on a government welfare
check--to independence to earn a paycheck. For far too many, under the
old Welfare program that American dream was out of reach.
In response, the Republican Congress rose to the challenge and
produced public policy with remarkable results that created hope and
opportunity. In the past 6 years, the reformed Welfare program reduced
poverty, child hunger, and dependency on government welfare checks for
survival.
Today we have a chance to build upon this success through improving
our current welfare program through the passage of the Personal
Responsibility, Work, and Family Protection Act.
The challenge of making the transition from welfare to stable jobs is
very difficult. Congress must make the commitment to ensure all
Americans have a chance of reaching the American Dream. The actions
Congress takes today will have a lasting impact as future generations
will continue to break the cycle of welfare and enjoy brighter futures.
Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 4737, the
Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2002.
Unfortunately, the bill before us today does not live up to its title
and will actually undermine the successful reforms enacted in 1996.
For several reasons this proposal does not merit Congress's approval.
First of all, the bill would impose an almost $2.5 billion unfunded
mandate on the state of California. Without providing the funds
necessary to implement the new work requirement provisions in H.R.
4737, this attempt to reform welfare will fail. And these unfunded
mandates could not come at a worse time for states struggling to
balance their budgets.
This proposal also fails to address the most rudimentary obstacles in
attempting to move individuals from welfare to work. We will pay the
price for the lack of emphasis on worker training and basic reading and
writing skills. It is short sighted to believe welfare recipients will
successfully make the transition to self-sufficiency without the
necessary literacy skills.
Removing vocational education from the current list of work-related
activities that satisfy the core work requirement in current law is an
exceptionally bad idea and shortsighted idea. There is also inadequate
funding for child-care. We can't expect to break the cycle of poverty,
if we are not willing to commit the needed resources.
For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me opposing
H.R. 4737, the Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act
of 2002.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the legislation
before us today, H.R. 4737, the Personal Responsibility, Work, and
Family Promotion Act of 2002. I would like to commend Chairmen Herger,
Thomas and Boehner for their work in promulgating this important
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, this bill builds upon and improves the historic welfare
reforms enacted in 1996. The hallmark of the 1996 legislation was that
it changed welfare from an entitlement program to a block grant to the
individual states. The significance of this was twofold: states were
given a lot of flexibility to spend money where they needed to, but no
longer would people receive a welfare check in perpetuity if they
refused to work. The success of this is irrefutable: since 1996,
welfare rolls have decreased by over 50 percent, and millions of people
who were once collecting welfare checks are now collecting pay checks.
Historic indeed, Mr. Speaker.
Today we consider legislation that increases work requirements over
the next 5 years, and simultaneously rewards states that have been
particularly effective in moving people from welfare to work. it also
protects children by increasing child care funding by $2 billion and by
increasing State flexibility in providing child care for low-income
working families. Finally, it encourages healthy marriages and two-
parent married families by directing up to $300 million annually for
programs such as pre-marital education and counseling. Mr. Speaker,
surely that is something we can all support.
I am somewhat concerned about a few provisions in this legislation.
While this bill does improve upon some work requirements passed in
1996, in some cases it does not go far enough. For instance, for
purposes of TANF, it increases the number of hours a welfare
beneficiary must be involved in work or job training programs, but it
allows the states to define ``work'' in almost any way they see fit for
some of these additional hours. Thus, a father could coach his son's
baseball team and get credit for ``work training.'' Mr. Speaker, I am
all for allowing states flexibility in administering welfare programs--
flexibility is, after all, the lynchpin of the terrifically effective
reforms we enacted in 1996--but in my view we should set some sort of
minimal standards and then let the states implement them as they see
fit.
In general, the reauthorization bill builds upon the successes of the
1996 legislation, and I believe it will continue to help break the
cycle of poverty and dependence that millions of Americans had become
stuck in during the period when welfare was an entitlement. It is a
very good piece of legislation, and I strongly support it. I urge my
colleagues to do the same.
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, this welfare re-authorization legisation does
nothing to prepare welfare recipients to leave welfare and enter the
workforce and it is an profound fiscal burden on our state governments.
I believe that since we reformed welfare six years ago, we have been
successful in transitioning millions of people off of assistance. But,
this remaining group of beneficiaries will be much harder to prepare to
enter the workforce. That is why I do not support this ``one size fits
all'' program whose only goal is to drop beneficiaries.
Welfare reform should give beneficiaries the tools they need to enter
the workforce. Missing in this Republican legislation is a program that
allows welfare recipients to receive a GED and if necessary, learn or
improve their English. It also lacks a real increase in child care
assistance and the necessary flexibility for innovative state programs
to reach out to those on welfare who are least prepared to get a job.
Mr. Speaker, it is inevitable this Republican welfare bill will only
lead to more families falling between the cracks.
Further, this legislation lacks alternatives to abstinence-only
education. We should not put money into these programs before we have
real debate on their actual effectiveness. This money could be more
wisely spent on education and child care benefits.

[[Page H2553]]

This legislation will also cost our state governments $11 billion by
imposing costly new mandates and it will force Illinois to direct a
much larger share of resources to welfare. My state of Illinois
currently has a $1.35 billion budget shortfall. The Governor has
threatened to cut student aid, empty prisons, and close mental health
centers in order to make up for the shortfall. Illinois simply cannot
afford this.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support the Democratic alternative because
it is a serious attempt to move welfare recipients into jobs and does
it humanely without shifting the burden to the states. It provides a
real increase in child care benefits and allows beneficiaries to earn a
GED and learn or improve their English language skills if needed. The
Democratic alternative also allows states the flexibility needed to
provide innovative programs to get people into the workforce.
We cannot throw millions of people into the streets when our economy
is limping into a recovery and not even give them the incentives and
tools they need to enter the workforce. I urge my colleagues to vote no
on this legislation and vote yes for the Democratic substitute.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the procedure under
which this welfare bill was put together and brought to the House
floor.
Specifically, I object to the fact that without any hearings or
markups in the Financial Services Committee, the bill's superwaiver
provision would authorize States, with approval of the HUD Secretary,
to sweep away all of the rules and regulations that govern our Federal
public housing and homeless programs. This is an outrageous usurpation
of our committee's authority.
Just 4 years ago Congress enacted a comprehensive bill to reform our
public housing laws. Provisions dealing with rent burdens, enhanced
local flexibility, resident participation, and other key public housing
issues were carefully developed over several years. Notably, the bill
was enacted after the 1996 welfare reform bill was passed, and included
many provisions designed to complement welfare reform, including
eliminating work disincentives.
Now, with a single sweep of the pen, all these provisions could be
ignored under the ``superwaiver.'' This could jeopardize carefully
crafted protections for the over 1 million low-income families in
public housing. Under the superwaiver, rent payments could skyrocket,
families with small children could be evicted for technical violations
of new rules, resident appeal procedures and lease protections could be
wiped away. And, protections for use of housing funds for our Nation's
most vulnerable, the homeless, could be eviscerated.
Worse, because this bill has never even seen the light of day within
our committee, we cannot even be sure the extent to which existing
public housing and homeless laws could be undermined.
Representative Frank and I offered an amendment to delete the
applicability of the superwaiver to housing programs. Of course, the
Rules Committee blocked debate on this and other amendments.
This is a terrible way to do business. We ought to send the different
sections of this bill back to the relevant committees for consideration
the old fashioned way--hold hearings, then mark up the bill in
subcommittee and committee.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this is sweeping legislation
affecting more than 5 million families and we owe it to them to engage
in thoughtful debate about the best ways to help them achieve permanent
self sufficiency.
There has been lively and thoughtful discussion on the best ways to
do this--more than 43 amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee
for consideration. I would have welcomed the opportunity to debate
these options on the House floor. However, this closed rule, allowing a
substitute but no other amendments, denies us the opportunity. Frankly,
this is offensive to me and should be to the whole House as well.
My concerns abut the shortfalls in this legislation are numerous.
This bill imposes a huge unfunded mandate on the States and reduces the
States' flexibility in determining the optimum mix of activities to
help recipients become more self-sufficient. In addition, it doubles
the number of required work hours for mothers with young children but
provides minimal new child care funding to support this increased work
requirement. Two particular items in this legislation are of serious
concern to me.
First, this bill fails to provide individuals and families the
opportunities and help they require to rise out of poverty and gain
self sufficiency. To attain a job with promotion potential and earnings
above the poverty level requires experience, education, and job skills.
I wish that success could be achieved as easily as the supporters of
this bill lead us to believe. But while an entry level or minimum wage
job is certainly a laudable start, the only way to get out of poverty
and achieve permanent self sufficiency is through education and
training. If you train someone for a dead end job, you will lead them
to a dead end.
With its emphasis on ``make-work'' jobs that fail to offer any
training or promotion opportunities, couple with its failure to
acknowledge the importance of education, this bill fails to offer any
substantive solutions to help our Nation's poor out of poverty.
Mr. Speaker, the second issue I have with this bill is that it
discriminates against legal immigrants by denying them Federal
assistance.
Both the National Governors Association and the National Conference
of States Legislatures have recommended that States be given the option
to use TANF funds to serve legal immigrants immediately. However, under
the Republican bill, legal immigrants must be living in this country
for 5 years before they are eligible for Federal aid. Even more
distressing is the fact that many of those affected by this
discrimination are children who were born in this country and are, in
fact, U.S. citizens.
In 1996, the most current year for which records are available,
28,565 refugees were granted permanent residence in the United States.
The responsibility for housing, feeding, and caring for those who
require assistance falls to the States--and the top four States
carrying this responsibility are California, New York, Texas, and
Florida.
I believe that States should be granted the option of using TANF
dollars for legal immigrants.
I regret that this closed rule has denied us the opportunity to
debate these and a host of other issues on the floor.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the base bill,
and in strong support of the Democratic substitute.
In good conscience, I cannot support H.R. 4737. The Republican base
bill, which does not allow for amendments, would increase poverty and
its sequelae, instead of reducing it as it purports to do. This bill
imposes massive new mandates and additional costs on states at a time
when they are struggling and cannot absorb not one penny more of new
costs. In light of the fact that 39 States and the territories are
struggling to meet work requirements in an atmosphere of recession and
lack of available jobs, this bill would create the scenario where
precious resources are spent on fines and the safety net becomes full
of holes.
This country's offshore areas, would be particularly negatively
impacted, because of even less resources, and poor economic conditions
with fewer jobs within geographical limitations.
Even worse, Mr. Speaker, this bill tightens the vise on those trying
to transition from welfare to work. It eliminates education from the
list that count as work related activity and does not provide adequate
resources for childcare. On the other hand it doubles the amount of
hours that recipients are required to work, creating more hardship for
mothers with children under school age.
Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of conservative ideology represented
here. Where is the compassion?
The Democratic substitute would give States and territories more
flexibility by giving them the option to require 40 hours if childcare
and educational resources are available, but would only require 30
hours of work if not. The Democratic substitute would also remove the
ban that prohibits states from serving legal immigrants. The Democratic
substitute would also give the territories the tools they need to
successfully transition people from welfare to work.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4737 is a set back, not forward. If the reactionary
political climate of an election year precludes us getting a good bill,
lets simply extend the current authorization for one more year, and
lets sit down again next year and do it right.
Let's this of the people who are most affected by our actions, Let's
give our states and territories flexibility and let's give our people
hope.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this misguided bill.
If this is welfare reform, our States don't need it. They will have
to raise taxes or cut services to compensate for the 5-year, $11
billion State government cost of this one-size-fits-all, heavy-handed
Federal policy. Maine will need $56 million to meet the new work
requirements.
If this is welfare reform, our families can't take it. The bill
requires mothers with children under 6 to double their required work
week from 20 hours to 40 hours per week.
For these mothers, this bill means less time with their children, and
not enough money to cover expanded child care costs. It probably means
at least two jobs for many mothers, because low-wage jobs are usually
part time.
For States like Maine, this bill reduces flexibility. For example,
Maine's successful ``Parents as Scholars'' program, which provides
access to post-secondary education, has increased the wages and
benefits of participants

[[Page H2554]]

when compared to other strategies. But Maine would probably be forced
to divert those dollars to other mandated work activities in order to
meet the requirements of this bill.
To all those wealthy individuals who came to Congress last year with
their hands out, the Republican party said, ``Here are your tax cuts.''
To all those families who need a hand up to move from welfare to
work, this Republican bill says get off welfare, but do it by yourself,
with inadequate child care, longer work hours, and less vocational
education.
I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and vote in favor of the
Democratic substitute. The Democratic substitute would give States the
option of raising the work requirement to 40 hours where adequate
childcare and educational resources are available, allow States to
credit education toward the work requirement, and increase childcare
funding by $11 billion over 5 years.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to
vote against H.R. 4737, the Republican TANF reauthorization bill.
Anyone who looks at this bill can see that the Republican plan does not
provide real assistance to needy families. Instead, this bill aims to
place further restrictions and requirements on those most in need and
those who already face tremendous barriers to work and self-
sufficiency.
If the Republican leadership truly cared about providing assistance
to needy families, it would have considered the needs of those
families--the women, children, and parents who are directly affected by
this program. Their bill would have focused on what TANF should really
be about--helping families out of poverty so they will have an
acceptable standard of living. Instead, this bill only succeeds in
defining those families as statistics that should be controlled and
told what to do.
First and foremost, the amount of funding this Republican proposal
gives to TANF, the primary program in this country to help poor women
and children, is pitiful. Last week the House passed a $400 billion
Department of Defense authorization bill that included a $48 billion
increase. Not only is this the biggest increase in Defense spending
since the cold war, but it was also provided despite the fact that the
Department cannot pass an audit and cannot account for $1.2 trillion in
spending. Yet, this increase is three times greater than the amount the
Republicans propose for the TANF block grant. This Congress has bailed
out the airlines and given a $254 million rebate to Enron. It is a
disgrace that we cannot give more to those in this country that need it
most. It is a disgrace that this bill does not provide a single
additional dollar in TANF funds. In my State of Illinois, it would cost
at least an additional $322 million in order to implement the increased
work requirements and meet the child care needs that this bill would
require.
Second, this bill neglects to help women get assistance to overcome
barriers, such as substance abuse, limited English proficiency, and
domestic and sexual abuse. Instead, it requires that recipients work
longer hours. Besides causing great hardship on single moms and
children, this increase from a 30-hour requirement to one that demands
women work 40 hours a week will likely force States to create workfare
programs--programs that have been proven not to work and which threaten
workers' rights to earn at least minimum wage and have other
protections afforded all other workers in this country.
Third, this bill does not provide adequate training for jobs that
would open the door for people to earn a living wage so they can
support their families. Instead, H.R. 4737 takes away recipients'
ability to fully engage in vocational education, often a necessary step
in getting a job that pays and provides the opportunity for
advancement. This bill also does not provide support to women who care
for young children or children with disabilities, and instead it
doubles the amount of hours women with children under 6 years old are
required to work. Furthermore, H.R. 4737 continues to deny legal
immigrants access to benefits, instead of allowing these families who
pay taxes and work hard to receive assistance when they hit tough
times.
Besides placing further restrictions on TANF recipients, H.R. 4737
also places further restrictions on States. Instead of helping States
to be innovative in addressing the particular needs of their low-income
population, this bill applies a one-size-fits-all philosophy and
dramatically diminishes States rights.
And, if all that was not bad enough, this Republican bill includes a
``superwaiver'' provision that extends to programs far beyond TANF and
could bring greater hardship to low-income people helped by these
programs. For example, this provision would have adverse affects on
Federal public housing and homelessness programs because the rules and
regulations governing them could be swept away at the whim of the
Federal agencies. In these cases, the real impact would be felt by
families who would then be threatened with losing their housing
assistance and being forced onto the streets. Such far-reaching changes
are unacceptable, particularly given that the various committees with
jurisdiction over programs affected by this ``superwaiver'' did not
have the opportunity to consider them nor to assess their negative
impact.
But none of this should come at any surprise. This Republican bill is
in line with all the other legislation this leadership and the Bush
administration have offered in this Congress, legislation that has
aimed to deprive those most in need while giving to those who have
plenty.
Fortunately, we have an alternative in a Democratic substitute that
actually gives families the tools they need to become self-sufficient.
This substitute allows women more opportunity to access vocational or
post-secondary education, or go to ESL or GED classes if needed; it
restores benefits to legal immigrants; it provides worker protections
to all TANF recipients; it provides resources to states to foster
employment advancement and promotion among recipients; it makes Puerto
Rico and the territories eligible for assistance; it gives States the
incentive to actually work toward decreasing poverty. In addition, the
Democratic substitute increases child care funding by $11 billion
dollars and accounts for inflation in TANF block grant funding.
I urge every one of my colleagues to reject the Republican bill, H.R.
4737, and instead, to think about all the individual lives we are
affecting. H.R. 4737 does not provide assistance to needy families, it
places arbitrary and restrictive mandates on needy families. If we
truly want to help people leave poverty and become self-sufficient we
must vote for the Democratic substitute and against H.R. 4737.
Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, when I came to Congress, the welfare system
was in crisis--a record number of families were on welfare, dependency
on the system was enormous and caseloads were rising. But in 1996, in
the face of fierce ideological resistance, we reformed the welfare
program, establishing work standards and setting time limits while
giving states the flexibility to implement them in a way that suited
their local situation. We did this after a 30-year period when the
Democratically controlled House had spent $5 trillion of taxpayer money
on the welfare program, which resulted in skyrocketing poverty rates
and welfare cases.
It was compassionate conservatism--and it was marvelously successful.
The results speak for themselves: Caseloads have fallen by 60 percent
to their lowest levels since 1965 and 9 million recipients have gone
from welfare to work--from dependency to independence. In Pennsylvania
alone, more than 319,000 people were graduated from the caseloads,
working their way out of the welfare system. This change is not only
extraordinary, but unprecedented.
It was clear that the welfare system was the biggest, most costly
domestic policy failure of our time. And today, we have been hearing
complaints from many who consistently opposed welfare reform until just
before the bill signing ceremony. But we have learned from experience
that you can strengthen work requirements; require states to closely
monitor caseloads. And what we have learned is that we can help people
prosper and become self-reliant, independent and proud.
We have the opportunity to build on our success without creating a
personal entitlement program which deadens individual responsibility,
creating incentives for dependency. The Personal Responsibility, Work,
and Family Protection Act takes dramatic steps to maintain and
strengthen the current program. Despite the enormous declines in
caseloads, this bill gives states the same record federal welfare and
child care funding, which means more money per family.
H.R. 4737 maintains the flexibility that has allowed states to tailor
the program to meet the specific needs of its residents, rewarding
states for engaging recipients and reducing caseloads. More
importantly, it also provides an additional $2 billion for child care,
ensuring that parents who are working hard to improve the lives of
their families are not being slammed back to the ground by staggering
child care costs.
But my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not interested
in building on the welfare reform of 1996, but rather that they want to
dismantle it. They want to allow welfare recipients to work two days
per week and stay on welfare forever.
Let me share with you some facts about the Democratic substitute--it
allows welfare recipients to work two days per week and stay on welfare
forever. It also provides partial credit towards work rates for adults
who work as few as 10 hours per week while collecting full welfare
benefits. In fact, according to the Department of Health had Human
Services, the Democrat's a new ``employed leaver credit'' would
effectively eliminate the work requirements in 2003--reducing from 50
percent to 2 percent the share of the welfare caseload expected to
work.

[[Page H2555]]

The Democratic proposal increases welfare dependence and poverty
while seriously undermining the time limits designed to promote self-
sufficiency. But Mr. Speaker, if that is not enough let's look at the
cost. For about $70 billion over 10 years, the American taxpayers would
see welfare return to a program where able-bodied people do not work
for their benefits and bear little personal responsibility. The
Democratic substitute is expensive and would increase deficits.
Unlike the Republican bill, the Democratic substitute includes NO
offsets for its new spending, so it simply adds to deficits in the
future. These are the same Democrats who consistently opposed welfare
reform until just before the bill signing ceremony in 1996. The
Democrats also want to place additional, burdensome mandates on the
states, essentially tying the hands of states who know how best to meet
the needs of their residents.
We cannot take a step backward--as the Democrats advocate--returning
to a welfare program where able-bodied people do not work for their
benefits and bear little personal responsibility. No public policy
rationale exists for the additional spending they propose to mandate.
This is not to say that at some point in the future more money will be
needed for this program but the case for that has not been made today.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on the substitute, ensuring that the
reforms we enact maintain and strengthen the current program, not
return us to an entitlement program with a staggering price tag and
even greater social costs.
Six years ago, we changed the way people look at welfare, making it a
program that helped people find work, renew their self-sufficiency and
gave them financial freedom and personal dignity. We must act
responsibly and continue these reforms. Vote yes on H.R. 4737.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, if self-sufficiency can be defined as
raising a family just on or below the poverty level, with little or no
chance of increasing earning potential because the breadwinner is not
equipped with competitive education or job training, then I agree with
my colleagues that 1996 welfare reform has been a success. If self-
sufficiency means earning a median hourly wage of $6.61 or $13,788
annually, as the Urban Institute reported former welfare recipients
earned in 2000, in jobs that 60% of time do not provide health care
benefits, according to NOW, then I agree with my colleagues that
welfare reform has been a resounding success. However, I am reluctant
to believe that my colleagues would consider any of those circumstances
to be anything near self-sufficiency and therefor I implore you to
rethink this idea that welfare reform has been genuinely successful.
The goal of welfare reform should be to create a system that promotes
self-sufficiency, not just lower numbers on the rolls and higher
numbers in low-wage, unstable jobs. H.R. 4737 provides a short term
solution to a long term problem. We should not be battling welfare
dependency as much as we should be battling poverty. H.R. 4737 will
only encourage pushing recipients off the rolls and into the league of
the working poor, under-educated and constantly struggling to make ends
meet. So that one negative circumstance, one set-back, such as illness
or domestic violence, could see them plummeting back into poverty.
Living one paycheck away from homelessness is not self-sufficiency by
anyone's standards. We need reform that will arm welfare recipients
with the artillery they need to permanently improve their economic
situations.
This necessary artillery is education and training for marketable
jobs. Improving education never stops paying off for an individual or
for society as a whole; 82.2% of high school graduates with parents who
attained a bachelor's degree or higher go on to college. This is
compared to only 36.6% with parents who attained less than a high
school diploma, according to the American Association of University
Women. It should be clear that education is hereditary and the more
education parents have, the more likely their children are to go on to
college. Why in the world would we advocate legislation that impedes
access to education for these individuals? H.R. 4737, which imposes a
40-hour work week on single mothers, significantly hinders their
chances of furthering their education. It is plainly counterproductive
to finding a long-term solution to poverty.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4737, says clearly to America's struggling
families, ``We don't really care about helping you. We don't care that
the jobs we are pushing you into will do little to help you provide a
better life for your children. What we are most concerned with is no
longer having to support you.'' We are dealing with human beings here,
and more importantly, with children, and H.R. 4737 is legislation about
numbers. Please vote no on H.R. 4737.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the
Representative of California's 37th Congressional District and
representing some of the country's most impoverished areas! I would
like to draw the attention of Congress to one of the key issues
relating to the reauthorization of TANF.
My concern is with the mandates imposed by H.R. 4737. By forcing
states to absorb costs that will total up to $11 billion over the next
5 years, we are in effect crippling their ability to help people
transition to work. The Republicans' emphasis on creating ``make work''
workfare programs will defeat the purpose of trying to move individuals
and families off of welfare. Workfare programs have been problematic
for states to implement for years and have in fact been scaled back.
Without guaranteeing minimum wage protections, let alone creating
jobs imparting meaningful work experience, we are dooming our states
and the people they serve to fail. We can do better. By limiting
states' ability to be flexible, and by forcing them to reinstate work
requirements that have already been rejected, we're preventing welfare
recipients from attaining financial independence.
If we are serious about wanting to move people from welfare to work,
we must enact legislation that preserves state flexibility, creates
real work, and elevates families from poverty to full-time work. We
cannot help anyone become self-sufficient by giving a ``superwaiver''
authority to the executive branch that would sanction the waiver of any
and every federal requirement pertaining to food stamps and housing.
The proposed changes to TANF could cause this state of affairs to
change.
The reason for this relates to the level of funding, which does not
take into account how inflation will negatively impact the $1 billion
now proposed by the Republicans to provide for child care. This
proposal will require families to work longer hours. In order for
California to fulfill its work participation requirements, parents
would have to participate in work-related activities for 40 hours each
week.
If we double the number of hours mothers with children younger than 6
must work from 20 to 40, we simply must allot a more realistic level of
funding for child care.
California now has 280,000 children waiting to be placed into child
care programs, and H.R. 4700 would require $1.23 billion in additional
child care funding over the next 5 years. With California facing a
deficit, due to Enron's rogue statics with our energy, H.R. 4737 will
not allow us to help individuals successfully transition to full-time
work.
By enacting the Democratic Substitute, we will require states to
increase to 70 percent the number of individuals who must work out of
the overall population receiving benefits. Further, states will be able
to raise the work requirement to 40 hours provided they have sufficient
child care and educational resources, as current law permits. Under the
Substitute, $11 billion in additional child care funding will be
available over the next 5 years so the stringent work requirements will
be achieved without hurting children. The Substitute will remove the
ban that now prohibits states from serving legal immigrants.
Under the Democratic substitute to H.R. 4737, we would have up to $6
billion in additional funding which must be earmarked in part to
provide access to transportation so that individuals can get their
children to child care providers and get to work on time. Yet another
reason why current funding levels will be insufficient to maintain
child care assistance in the future is related to the problem of
inflation.
The proposed TANF bill will freeze funding for both the TANF and
child care block grants at the current levels. Over the next 5 years,
the purchasing power of these funding sources would erode steadily with
inflation. This could occur at the same time that states such as
California could be required to meet costly new work requirements.
In the case of California, the non-partisan Legislative Analyst's
Office (LAO) estimates that California will have to spend an addition
$2.8 billion over 5 years to meet the proposed work requirements. About
half the $2.8 billion will go toward increased employment services'
costs. The other half, $1.4 billion, will be spent on increased child
care costs. An annual rate of inflation of 3 percent would increase
costs to California by nearly $250 million between 2003 and 2007.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the TANF reauthorization provisions do
not take into account the points that I have brought up and that the
new provisions will not achieve their purpose. In addition, extra
burdens will be placed on the states, and, in the long run, children
and families will suffer.
I will be voting against the TANF reauthorization bill. It will do
nothing to help persons to become self-sufficient who are trying to
move from welfare to work.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R.
4737, the Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of
2002. The federal restrictions on state flexibility in H.R. 4737 are
counter productive to achieving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) primary goal to assist impoverished families and to end the
dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job
preparation. Despite its faults, the

[[Page H2556]]

1996 Welfare Reform Act was able to help many families reach self-
sufficiency. This was possible largely because of the amount of state
flexibility allowed in the TANF program. H.R. 4737 removes that state
flexibility and replaces it with unfunded mandates that undermine the
state's ability to help needy families achieve sustained self-
sufficiency. This bill will destroy the key and successful elements of
TANF.
The changes made to the work requirements in this bill eliminate each
state's ability to determine the best approach to place their
recipients into paying jobs. In particular, this bill will remove
current state discretion to assign work requirements and amount of work
hours. It mandates that the work participation rate be at 70 percent by
2007, it requires all recipients be assigned 40 hours work or work
related activities a week--even for mothers with children under six
years of age, and compounds the restrictions by narrowing the
definition of work related activities. Rather than allowing states to
develop their own plans based on the unique needs of their recipients,
this bill restricts what work-related activities can count toward the
work participation rate and the mandated 40 hours of work.
States need the flexibility to assign the most appropriate activities
to recipients based on an assessment of individual needs. For example,
recipients with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) need access to
English as a second language programs before they can gain the needed
job skills and training that result in lasting jobs that pay livable
wages and include benefits. Recipients with children need access to
quality child care before they can leave home to work. In 2000, the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for
Children and Families issued a report stating that only 12 percent of
those eligible for federal child care assistance receive this much
needed assistance. Instead of providing the funding necessary to offer
assistance to the 88 percent of parents in need of child care, this
bill doubles their amount of work hours required.
Most importantly this bill does nothing to restore federal assistance
to Legal Permanent Residents (LRPs). On the contrary, H.R. 4737
contains two extremely harmful provisions that would further restrict
LPR access to federal assistance, including to the food stamp program.
The superwaiver provision will allow the Executive Branch to waive
virtually all program rules completely disregarding Congressional
intent. Additionally, the food stamp block grant provision would allow
five states to opt for a fixed amount of food stamp funds for the next
five years. The incentive to ensure program participation will be
eliminated. These two provisions have the potential of reversing the
gains made by the restoration of food stamp benefits for LPRs in the
Farm Bill, which was just signed into law earlier this week. In times
when states face increasing budgetary deficits, a fixed block grant
that can be used for other programs sends the wrong message.

LPRs are disproportionately represented in industries that are most
affected during economic downturns. During these times LPRs are often
hit the hardest, and they, like all Americans, must be allowed to
access the program that can help them to get back to work. States have
recognized the importance of providing services to LPRs, but with more
and more states running budgetary deficits restrictions on immigrant
access to federal programs impose a serious dilemma. The federal
government should not continue to ignore the needs of LPRs. Since many
LPRs work in the service industries that are affected most acutely by
recessions, they are in need of the back to work assistance that TANF
can provide.
Mr. Speaker, this bill does nothing to address the barriers that
prevent recipients from achieving sustained independence and self-
sufficiency. It does nothing to facilitate the education or job skills
needed for recipients to gain employment. It does nothing to address
the overwhelming backlog of single parents who need adequate child
care. It does nothing to restore federal assistance to LPRs. It does
nothing to address poverty reduction or advance employment.
For these reasons and more, I urge Members to oppose H.R. 4737.
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this
bill. I believe that the test of success of welfare reform is its
capacity to lift families (especially children) out of poverty. This
bill fails that test.
I recently attended a listening session at the Vera Court
Neighborhood Center in Madison, Wisconsin to hear from people in my
district who are affected by the changes being proposed in this TANF
reauthorization. The personal stories of those who came to this
listening session were powerful, and they made it clear how important
child care and education are to enabling people to break the cycle of
poverty.
H.R. 4737 would limit opportunities for education and training to 16
hours per week, at the most, and participants would have to be working
at least 24 hours per week at the same time--a difficult task for
parents caring for infants and young children. For parents to even
think about expanding their work hours they need affordable, reliable
and safe child care. Unfortunately, the increase in child care funding
over the next 5 years in this bill is barely enough to keep up with
inflation let alone the expanded work requirements in this bill. It is
estimated that in order to implement this bill, it would cost Wisconsin
about $44.5 million over 5 years in additional child care funding.
Meanwhile, Wisconsin is suffering from a deficit of $1.1 billion. We
cannot shift this burden to the states and, more importantly, we cannot
let our children be the ones who suffer because of this policy.
As many of my colleagues know, Wisconsin was at the forefront of the
welfare reform debate 5 years ago. Today, Wisconsin parents are making
a good-faith effort to support their families through work but are not
succeeding in raising their families standard of living--even to the
poverty level. A Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau Report found that
of those who left the Wisconsin Works (W-2) program in the first
quarter of 1998 (a period when the economy continued to expand), more
than two-thirds reported having incomes below the federal poverty
level. An even sadder statistic is that one-third of those who left W-2
had no reported earnings at all.
H.R. 4737 would discourage efforts in Wisconsin to change W-2 in
order to serve low-income families better. The audit bureau report
recommended that legislators, in order to ensure the future success of
W-2, focus on increasing former W-2 participants income above the
poverty level, addressing the needs of returning participants, and
responding to a possible downturn in the economy. We should be helping
Wisconsin implement these recommendations by increasing education and
training opportunities, not by cutting back on them as this bill does.
Martha Garel could benefit from these educational opportunities.
Martha lives in Madison and has received W-2 payments for 3 years. When
she first applied in 1999, she had recently left an extremely abusive
husband. Martha does not have a college degree, but she would like to
obtain a degree in social work. Two of her three children living at
home have disabilities. Her 10-year-old son has a disorder that
requires him to take medication, and during the summer, Martha cannot
find a child care provider who will watch him. Her oldest daughter
receives Supplemental Security Income due to brain damage she received
at birth.
Martha has been avidly searching for a job and interviewing since
last fall, but nothing has come through. The only jobs Martha appears
to be qualified for pay only minimum wage, and she knows that a minimum
wage job will not meet the needs of her family. The medications her
family requires run over $1,000 per month. It is clear that we need to
expand the educational and job-training opportunities for people like
Martha.
I urge my colleagues to help families escape poverty by giving them
the support they need to secure jobs that can support a family. I urge
my colleagues to vote against H.R. 4737.
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss my views on H.R. 4737
and explain my reasons for opposing this legislation and supporting a
moderate, workable substitute.
I believe in a ``work first'' policy for welfare recipients--the best
path to independence for welfare recipients is a job. I also believe
that we should do all that we can to ensure that work pays and remember
that the reduction of poverty, especially child poverty, is the
ultimate goal of this reauthorization.
I have entered into the Record a letter from Janet Schalansky,
Secretary of the Kansas Department of Social Services. Ms. Schalansky's
letter expresses clearly many of my concerns with H.R. 4737, and I
believe that the substitute that I support addresses many of her
concerns with the underlying legislation, especially her concerns
regarding unfunded mandates and the need for education, training and
other supports for individuals leaving welfare.
States, including my own state of Kansas under Secretary Schalansky's
leadership, have done a good job implementing the provisions of the
1996 law. Kansas has reduced the cash assistance caseload by more than
half, and helped approximately 37,000 adults become employed and retain
employment. I want to continue to do what I can to ensure that the
states have the tools and flexibility they need to help welfare
recipients move from welfare to work, but H.R. 4737 falls far short of
that goal.
Education is the path through which welfare recipients will truly
find long-term, well-paying, permanent employment. Only education and
training will give welfare recipients the skills they need to move
permanently to a life of self-sufficiency. Unfortunately, H.R. 4737
greatly reduces the states' discretion to allow welfare recipients to
get education and training

[[Page H2557]]

to pull themselves out of poverty. This legislation removes vocational
education from the list of work-related activities that count toward
the core work requirement. In addition, the bill does not provide an
employment credit to the states when individuals leave welfare for
work.
That is why I am supporting a substitute that will allow states to
combine successful ``work first'' initiatives with education and
training. The substitute will give states credit when they move
individuals from welfare to private-sector jobs, rather than giving
them an incentive to create government ``make work'' programs.
H.R. 4600 imposes an unfunded mandate on the states to the tune of
$11 billion--$67 million for the state of Kansas alone. Kansas is
currently facing a budget crisis and its leaders are cutting services
and raising taxes as we speak just to balance next year's budget. An
unfunded mandate of this magnitude could devastate the state budget. If
we are going to raise the bar for the states, we must provide support
so that states can reach the bar. As Secretary Schalansky notes in her
letter, level funding for TANF is not sufficient to accomplish and
sustain the goals of the TANF program. Furthermore, H.R. 4737 allocates
funding for child care that barely keeps pace with inflation and does
not begin to provide the funding necessary to provide the child care
that the additional work hours will demand.
For these reasons, I am supporting a substitute that will provide an
extra $11 billion for child care funding over five years to help states
provide child care for working welfare recipients and provide an
inflationary increase for the TANF block grant.
Finally, I have great concerns about the so-called ``superwaiver''
provisions of this legislation. Although I am pleased that the authors
of H.R. 4737 decided to remove some of the most egregious provisions of
the superwaiver, I am still concerned that the legislation will permit
broad and unaccountable waivers of federal requirements in several
programs, including the Food Stamp program, Workforce Investment Act,
Adult Education, and the Child Care Development Fund. The states should
be given the funds and flexibility they need to run a welfare program,
and they should be accountable for the result. The substitute that I
support includes no such broad waiver.
Mr. Speaker, the House should reject H.R. 4737 and approve the
substitute. Our goal is to move welfare recipients to work and help
people lift themselves out of poverty. The substitute gives the states
the tools they need to achieve that goal.

Kansas Department of Social

and Rehabilitation Services,

Topeka, KS, March 14, 2002.
Hon. Dennis Moore,
U.S. Representative, Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Moore: As you study the issues
surrounding the reauthorization of the Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families (TANF) program during this Congressional
session, please keep in mind that it is the flexibility
afforded the states by TANF that has allowed Kansas to
develop programs and initiatives which promote adult self-
sufficiency and strengthen families. As a result of this
flexibility, Kansas has been able to:
Reduce the cash assistance caseload by 10,000 families
since welfare reform began on October 1, 1996.
Help approximately 37,000 adults become employed and retain
employment for a year or longer.
Provide cash assistance to approximately 9,030 adults and
22,465 children each month.
Create unique employment preparation strategies and support
services for addressing the multiple employment barriers of
many TANF recipients.
Provide innovative child care improvements, including an
Early Head Start Program; an infant/toddler specialist in
each of the sixteen child care resource and referral
agencies; and an early care and education professional
development initiative.
Integrate child welfare services and TANF to help more
children remain in their own home or be returned to their
homes more quickly.
On February 26, the Bush Administration introduced the
outline of its TANF reauthorization proposal. Although the
department supports the President's overall goals for the
TANF program, we do not support all of his recommended
changes to the program. His proposal to require all families
to participate in work activities for 40 hours per week with
24 of those hours mandated to be in subsidized or
unsubsidized work is especially problematic. Attached to this
letter is a review of the department's position on the key
provisions of the President's proposal. I hope you will
consider the agency's position when these issues are debated
and voted on in Congress.
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant has
been successful in getting families employed and off cash
assistance. While much has been achieved, there is an
unfinished agenda of welfare reform, one that involves on-
going supports to low-income working families as well as one
that seeks to remove the barriers for TANF recipients with
multiple barriers to employment. The work of the TANF agency
does not end when families exit the cash assistance caseload.
SRS supports continued emphasis on the work first approach
which is appropriate and integral to continued success. The
Department recognizes that the caseload is not homogeneous
and some clients can move to work easily while others require
more intense interventions. In order for employed clients to
remain employed, to increase wages, and to seek and obtain
new and better opportunities, the state's work must continue.
In order to continue helping families be successful, it is
important that the flexibility currently afforded to states
be continued and federal funding levels for the program
remain adequate. We need to stay the course to accomplish the
goals of welfare reform.
If you have any questions about the President's proposal or
other TANF reauthorization bills that are introduced, please
feel free to contact me. I would like to keep you updated on
how these proposals will affect the low income citizens of
Kansas.
Sincerely,
Janet Schalansky,
Secretary.
Enclosure.

Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services

On February 26, 2002, the Bush Administration introduced
the outline of its TANF reauthorization proposal, called
Working Toward Independence. The administration indicates
that child well-being is the overall goal of its plan. The
plan also incorporates fatherhood and the formation and
maintenance of healthy two-parent married families into the
fourth purpose of the TANF program. Main components of the
President's reauthorization proposal include the following:
Mandates More Stringent Work Requirements. The President's
proposal requires that all families engage in constructive
activities leading to self-sufficiency for 40 hours per week,
at least 24 hours of which must be in unsubsidized or
subsidized work, on-the-job training, supervised work
experience or supervised community service. Kansas does not
support this change. There is overwhelming evidence from
states that persons now receiving TANF cash assistance have
significant barriers to employment, such as mental illness,
IQ's below 75, domestic violence etc. Until these barriers
are overcome or accommodated, it is unrealistic to require
TANF recipients to work 24 hours per week. Many of the
current TANF recipients will always struggle to find and keep
even part time jobs in a competitive work environment. States
will have to start-up or expand subsidized work, on the job
training (OJT), supervised work experience and community
service in order to meet the 24 hour per week work
requirement. According to recent press releases states will
also have to continue paying minimum wage for work experience
or community service jobs. The result of these proposals will
require increased expenses not funded in the Bush plan.
Funding cuts in other TANF services, such as post employment
services that assist the working poor to retain or advance in
their jobs, will likely be the result. Additionally,
employers do not hire employees for twenty-four hour per week
jobs. They generally hire for either 20 hours per week or 40
hours per week. The TANF program has been successful due to
the design flexibility given states to develop programs
tailored to the needs of their recipients. The Department
believes the more stringent work requirement is
counterproductive and unnecessary to achieving the purposes
of the TANF program.
Increases Work Participation Rates. Under the Bush
proposal, the state will be required to have 70 percent of
its adults participating in 40 hours a week of constructive
activities leading to self-sufficiency, 24 of which must be
actual work, by the year 2007. There will no longer be a
caseload reduction credit or a separate two-parent
participation rate. Under the work participation requirements
of the current TANF law, Kansas has 86 percent of its
families participating 30 hours per week, and 60 percent
participating 40 hours per week. Kansas would support the
proposed participation rate change only if the 24/40 hour
work requirement explained above is removed. Should the Bush
plan be passed as is, the state will have to choose between
requiring recipients, who may not be ready, to work for 24
hours a week knowing they will fail; or placing them in the
right activities and accepting a penalty for failure to
meet the participation rate requirement. The right
activities might include remedial education, learning
disability accommodation training, substance abuse, mental
health or domestic violence counseling, or basic job
skills training. The penalty for not meeting the work
participation requirement would be a loss of $5.095
million in federal funds and a requirement to make up the
loss with state funds for a total penalty of $10.19
million. In lieu of the 24 hour work requirement of the
Bush plan, Kansas supports retention of the current law
which designates that 20 hours of participation must be in
primary activities, which include work, on the job
training, work experience, and job readiness activities.
Requires universal engagement of all TANF families. States
will be required to engage all families in work and other
constructive activities leading to self-sufficiency. Within
60 days each family must have a self-sufficiency plan for
pursuing their maximum degree of self sufficiency. The
family's progress must be monitored. Kansas supports this
requirement as we currently develop and

[[Page H2558]]

monitor self sufficiency plans for all TANF families.
Retains the Current Five Year Time Limit and 20 Percent
Exemption Limit. The Department supports retention of these
provisions. The five year time limit has been a good
motivational tool for those recipients who are capable of
working. Continuation of the twenty percent exemption will
allow persons with documented hardship conditions to receive
assistance past the 60 month limit.
Maintains TANF and Child Care Funding Levels. The
President's proposal maintains the current level of funding
for both the TANF and Child Care programs with no indexing of
grants for inflation. Level funding will not be sufficient to
accomplish and sustain the goals of the TANF program for the
following reasons: Families now receiving cash assistance
face serious work, family, and social barriers which they
must overcome before becoming successfully employed. These
services are expensive and far exceed the expenditures for
cash grants. Working poor families continue to need support
services, such as child care, transportation, tools, uniforms
and other work related items, long after cash assistance
eligibility ends, to retain work, advance in their jobs, and
improve their prospects to become self-sufficient. As states
transform TANF from cash assistance to work supports, a
larger clientele becomes eligible for these benefits. With
the additional participation requirements placed on states by
the Bush proposal, Kansas will not be able to continue
funding all needed child care services. For example,
expanding the participation requirement to 24/40 will cost
$1.89 million more for child care each year if the parent and
child are apart during all of the participation activities.
If new work requirements are mandated for TANF, federal child
care funding must be increased as well. In Kansas, the cash
assistance caseload has increased due to the weakened
economy. This trend puts Kansas and other states in a
difficult financial position as the increasing demands for
cash assistance make it difficult to continue providing the
child care, diversion benefits, state income tax credits, and
job and transportation assistance to the working poor who are
no longer receiving cash assistance. Unless TANF and child
care funding levels remain adequate, states will be forced
to choose between reducing work support services and
turning away some of the neediest families. Kansas,
therefore, supports indexing the block grants for
inflation and providing increased funding for additional
federal mandates. Kansas also supports the continuation of
the states' Maintenance of Effort (MOE) requirement as it
exists in the current law.
Restores Supplemental and Contingency Funds, Allows for
Rainy Day Funds, and Restores Ability to Transfer 10 Percent
of TANF Grant to Social Services Block Grant. Although these
provisions will be of no help to Kansas, they will greatly
benefit some states. Kansas does not have the low rates of
unemployment or poverty required to benefit from the
supplemental or contingency funds and does not have any
carry-over funds to benefit from the rainy day allowance.
Since all TANF funds are now obligated, transferring
additional TANF funds to the Social Services Block Grant
would require cuts to TANF services. Kansas supports restored
federal funding of the Social Services Block Grant.
Discontinues State Program Waivers. The Bush administration
proposes to discontinue TANF program waivers granted prior to
the 1996 welfare reform legislation. Kansas does not support
this recommendations. Kansas has received much national
recognition for the programs it has developed to address
learning disabilities, substance abuse, and domestic
violence. The state has been able to accomplish this because
of its waiver which allows all participation in job readiness
activities to count toward meeting the state's work
participation rate. With the administration's proposal to
discontinue current waivers, impose a new 24/40 work
participation requirement, and limit full time rehabilitative
and substance abuse treatment to 3 months out of each 24
months, Kansas will be forced to drop the successful programs
described above, or fail the work participation requirement
and accept a financial penalty. Kansas does support removing
the limitation that exists in current TANF law of not
allowing more than 6 weeks of job readiness activities (only
4 of which may be consecutive). The family, social and work
barriers faced by TANF recipients require much more than 6
weeks of job readiness activities to resolve.
Promotes Child Well-Being and Health Marriages. The Bush
plan includes enhanced funding for research, demonstrations,
technical assistance, and matching grants to states. An
increased focus on marriage and child well-being will be
added to both the purposes of the program and the state plan
requirements. This approach is designed to provide states
with greater resources to pursue these goals while
maintaining flexibility so that states can design programs
that work.
Encourages Abstinence and Prevention of Teen Pregnancy. The
administration's goal for federal policy is to emphasize
abstinence as the only certain way to avoid both unintended
pregnancies and STDs. Although the scientific evaluation
funded by Congress to study the effectiveness of abstinence-
only programs will not be completed until 2003, the
administration proposes refunding the Abstinence Education
program at the same level as in 1996 and retaining its strong
definition of how funds may be spent. The administration also
proposes increasing funding for community-based abstinence
education grants by 83 percent to $73 million in 2003,
including funding for comprehensive evaluations of abstinence
education programs. While the government's evaluation of
abstinence education programs has not yet been completed,
many independent evaluations have found that abstinence-only
programs are ineffective in reducing unintended pregnancies,
including teen pregnancies, and STD's. Because comprehensive
programs which include both abstinence education and birth
control information have been found to be the most
effective, especially if they have a youth development
focus, Kansas does not support dedicating funds
exclusively to abstinence education. If the goal is to
reduce out-of-wedlock births, teen pregnancies, STD's, and
deaths from AIDS and Hepatitis, then states should be
allowed the flexibility to develop the programs that work
best in reaching the youth and adults in their states.
Focuses More on Program Performance. States will be
required to set performance standards in their state plans
for addressing each purpose of the TANF program, to annually
update their progress in meeting their goals, and to provide
data to HHS to allow federal oversight of the program. The
Secretary of HHS will annually rank all states in the order
of their performance on indicators measuring employment,
retention, and wage increase. The administration will
establish a $100 million a year bonus to regard employment
achievement. Each state will have numerical targets to strive
for and will compete against their performance in the
previous year. All states could be eligible for a bonus in
any given year if their performance meets established
targets. Kansas supports this bonus plan which is superior to
the current bonuses measuring high performance and reduction
of out-of-wedlock births. The state plan requirements,
however, will be more stringent and intrusive, and thus is
not supported. More authority is given to HHS for oversight
in the approval process, which will hinder state flexibility.
Enhances Child Support Enforcement Strategies. The
administration's proposal continues rigorous enforcement of
child support obligations while targeting additional child
support collections to the families with greatest need by:
Providing federal matching for states to provide or improve a
pass through of child support to families that receive TANF;
giving states the option of providing families that have left
TANF the full amount of child support collected on their
behalf with federal sharing of the costs; collecting a $25
annual user fee from families that have never received
welfare; lowering the threshold for passport denial to
$2,500; and expanding the federal offset program to allow
states to collect past-due child support by withholding a
limited amount of Social Security Disability Insurance
payments from appropriate beneficiaries if benefits exceed
$760 per month. Kansas supports these proposals if they
remain options to the state.
Reforms Food Stamp Program. The reforms proposed by the
administration, such as simplifying some program rules, will
make it easier for states to fashion a food stamp program
that is friendlier to working families. However, the
President's proposals are not as extensive as those in the
recently passed Senate version of the Farm Bill. We support
the Senate proposals. Kansas supports the President's
proposal to provide food stamps to legal immigrants and to
eliminate the cap on EBT costs. Kansas is not supportive of
the President's proposals regarding Quality Control. If the
proposals had been in place for FY 2000, the impact would
have been substantial. Our sanction would have increased from
$79,313 to $804,036.
Integration Waivers. Kansas is supportive of the ability to
coorindation among agencies that provide services to TANF
recipients. Waivers have the potential to increase cost-
effectiveness, reduce duplication, improve performance,
streamline services, and forge a client-friendly seamless
system. Waivers may be a means of: Coordinating data
collection and reporting requirements across programs and
agencies; developing common goals, policies, and performance
measures for relevant aspects of TANF, Food Stamp, Medicaid,
child care, child support, child welfare, and workforce
development programs; coordinating eligibility standards,
definitions, etc., for programs serving similar populations;
enhancing federal funding for cross-program information
technology initiatives, including the sharing of
administrative and program data across agencies; simplifying
federal procurement rules to better meet state needs;
modifying federal confidentiality rules to allow for client
eligibility verification activities and tracking; and
integrating federal funding streams at the state level for
programs with similar goals for serving common clients.

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4737,
the Republican welfare bill. This bill does nothing to improve the
welfare system.
Six years ago, Congress passed a sweeping welfare reform bill to fix
the failed system of cash payouts that rewarded not working. That bi-
partisan bill encouraged work through both job training and child care
services and by mandating a cut off of benefits after a fixed period of
time for those who refused to find work. The result, millions taken off
the welfare

[[Page H2559]]

rolls and put into jobs. This was good for America and great for
working, tax-paying Americans.
But that bill was not perfect. For one, it excluded millions of tax-
paying residents from qualifying for these work assistance programs,
namely America's legal immigrants.
Today, we have the opportunity to make changes in those sections that
failed and improve upon our successes. Unfortunately, that will not
happen.
Congressman Xavier Becerra and I planned on offering an amendment
that would have rectified this biggest of injustices of the 1996
welfare bill. Our amendment would have allowed legal immigrants--legal,
tax paying residents--to participate in the education, job training and
pregnancy prevention programs of this personal responsibility bill. But
the House Republican leadership overruled us and threw away the hopes
of millions of our constituents.
Essentially, this bill discriminates against legal, tax-paying,
residents, leaving them hungry and out in the cold without assistance.
I am particularly concerned about the effect this bill will have on
my immigrant constituents. Queens is the fastest growing borough of New
York City and my Congressional District is one of the most diverse in
the world. Over 100 languages are spoken in my part of Western Queens,
many by immigrants who came here for a better life for themselves and
for their children.
Most of these people are here legally. They pay taxes, and they
contribute to the social and economic character of the United States.
We are richer for their presence, and I am proud to represent them.
However, many need a temporary helping hand to get on their feet, get a
job and taste their slice of the American pie.
This bill however would leave these families, and their children,
without any resources when in need of a helping hand.
I do not believe that this is right or fair and I am greatly
concerned that it will have a significant impact on the one in five
children in this country with immigrant parents. This bill undermines
the civil rights of the over 35 million Latinos living in the U.S.
legally and is not responsive to the needs of all immigrant families
struggling through tough times.
This bill limits access to job-training and higher education
opportunities, ensuring that individuals on welfare stay on welfare.
Under this bill, those who do, by some miracle, manage to get off of
public assistance, would not be given any additional support, such as
transitional healthcare coverage, to stay off of welfare.
Perhaps most importantly, this bill devotes almost nothing to child
care, while increasing work requirements, effectively forcing working
mothers to leave their children unattended in order to earn enough
money to feed them. In short this bill is a disgrace. However does such
a law serve our society?
Every 93 seconds a child is born into poverty in this country, and
this bill does nothing to help them. The GOP bill would increase
mandatory child care funding by only $1 billion over the next five
years, that's barely enough to keep pace with inflation, and nowhere
near enough to implement the bill's new work participation
requirements, not to mention provide child care coverage to the 15
million children who are now eligible for day care assistance but who
are not currently covered because States lack sufficient resources.
Again, I worked to add an amendment to the bill to allow for $20
billion to be invested over the next 5 years for child care for all of
those participating in this program, but was again denied by
Congressional Republicans. The result, a greater difficulty getting
families with children either into jobs and off welfare, or more latch-
key kids left alone in the after school hours to do whatever they
please without parental supervision.
And so, not only does this bill not give welfare beneficiaries the
tools necessary to become economically self-sufficient. But the process
of bringing this bill to the floor has been geared towards silencing
dissenting voices.
My friends on the other side will try to say that I am trying to give
taxpayer money to people who, they claim, refuse to work.
If we are to believe their premise that the 1996 welfare bill was a
proven success at providing a temporary helping hand to get people off
the dole and into jobs, then why shouldn't Congress extend this same
helping hand to all of our residents in need. Shouldn't we encourage,
as opposed to discourage, work?
This current bill leaves more of my working constituents paying a
greater share of their hard earned taxes to provide for those who are
not given the tools to enter the workforce and get off of government
assistance.
This Republican bill makes no sense. Let's vote it down and start
again. Let's invest in our people and give them the tools to get jobs,
get off welfare and contribute to our national economy.
This is not a question of budgets, this is about priorities. I urge
the House to reject this Republican bill.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, there's no small amount of irony that
just one week after Congress reinstated welfare for some of the largest
agricultural interests in this country in the farm bill, the Bush
Administration and Republican leadership in the House are imposing new
burdens on the poorest and most vulnerable of our citizens. This
Welfare Bill denies states the ability to use their own approaches,
field-tested and improved by real-world experience, to meet their own
citizens' needs. That's why the majority of governors, both Republicans
and Democrats, have opposed the approach in the Republican Welfare
Bill.
As the national unemployment rate has increased, Oregon has had the
highest rate in the country. Welfare reform is no longer propped up by
a full-employment economy, and moving from welfare to work has become
much more difficult. The Administration and Republican leadership bill
offers a rigid, designed-in-Washington, one size fits all approach.
Instead, we should focus on supporting what works: flexibility for the
states, and total support for families through a combination of work
experience, training, education and child care.
I support the substitute offered by my colleague, Ben Cardin, because
it meets our goals, and supports efforts in the State of Oregon.
Instead of unfunded mandates, the substitute increases flexibility and
encourages real work. It also provides increased funding to make a down
payment towards the needs of the 15 million unserved children eligible
for childcare. Most importantly, it provides guarantees that our
poorest and most vulnerable citizens who have the least political power
will get real help moving into the workforce, not just more rules and
requirements.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of our Nation's
families. As co-chair of the Congressional Child Care Caucus, child
care should not be a partisan issue. Every day in this country,
thirteen million children under the age of six are cared for by someone
other than their parents. And each day, children are needlessly placed
in harm's way because parents cannot afford to use high quality child
care services.
The need for quality child care and after school care continues to
grow throughout the country and with the President's recent call for
increased welfare work requirements, which I support, it is imperative
that the child care development block grants, CCDBG, are increased by
$11 billion over the next 5 years.
In New York State alone, there is a need for an increase of $1.4
billion in CCDBG money over the next 6 years, which would allow an
additional 79,000 families to enroll in the program each year.
Without this increase, many families are forced to choose more
affordable, yet low quality child care services, and in turn, put their
children at an unnecessary risk. In other cases, parents work 3 and 4
jobs in order to pay for child care, which increases their need for
child care due to additional work hours.
This endless cycle of working to pay for child care and needing child
care because of work, serves no one and in the long run, it only hurts
families as the number of hours spent together diminishes.
Each year, hundreds of children are injured or killed as a result of
deplorable conditions, unqualified personnel and the blatant lack of
respect for the laws intended to protect our children.
Many parents know that they are leaving their children in an
unlicensed or unaccredited center, but their hands are tied because
this is all that they can afford. By providing additional funds for the
CCDBG, We can expand the availability of child care services and
increase the amount of assistance to those families already enrolled in
the program, allowing them to place their children in safe child care
conditions.
There are already too many horror stories on the news about infants
left in the hands of unqualified caregiver. This is our opportunity to
make a difference and to ensure that every child, regardless of
economic background, has access to quality child care opportunities.
Accordingly, I urge colleagues to support the $11 billion increase in
the CCDBG to provide a better future for our children by making them
our priority.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, today, the House of Representatives
debated key legislation on Welfare Reform Reauthorization.
Unfortunately, the legislation we passed does not represent a step
forward in welfare policy. Since Congress passed the 1996 Welfare
Reform law, many have touted its success in reducing welfare rolls.
While this is true, it paints a distorted picture on the realities of
welfare. Yes, many States have seen a reduction in welfare rolls, but
many of the families that are moving off welfare are moving straight
into low-income, minimum wage jobs. Many still rely on federal
supports, such as Medicaid and food stamps to stay afloat. Is this
success?
We cannot expect families to move forward unless we provide them with
the essentials to succeed in life. Unfortunately, the bill that the

[[Page H2560]]

Republicans introduced does not address or contain sound policies and
provisions that will help lift individuals out of poverty and off of
welfare. This should be the focus of welfare reform reauthorization--to
help lift families out of poverty. If this isn't the main goal, and it
is not in the Republican bill, then we are failing the system and more
importantly we are failing families.
We need to improve upon what we know from the 1996 Welfare Reform law
and work with States to provide them with the funds and flexibility
they need to help families and children not simply move off of welfare,
but more importantly, move out of poverty. Greater emphasis should be
placed on educational opportunities and programs--an approach that
would ensure that families are able to move up the economic ladder.
Without the opportunity to learn a trade or pursue post-secondary
educational options, the outlook for families being able to move off of
welfare and improve their economic status is bleak.
Education is the key to success--we all know that. Yet, the
Republican bill does not stress the importance of education. Instead of
providing States with the flexibility of offering more educational
programs, the provisions in the Republican bill put States in a
compromising position. In order to adhere to the strict work
requirement of a 70 percent participation rate by 2007 and a 40 hour
work week requirement, States would need to focus more on pushing
recipients into low-income or workfare type programs that offer no
chance of a brighter future. This is the wrong choice for families.
While the Republican bill puts forth unrealistic expectations on
States and welfare recipients, it does not, at the same time,
adequately increase Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
funding and child care funding to States to help them meet the
requirements. In fact, there is no increase in TANF spending and only a
$1 billion increase in mandatory child care funding over five years.
Currently, many working parents on welfare are not able to find quality
child care. How can we expect working mothers to work a 40 hour week if
they do not have access to quality child care? Children should be our
first priority, but they are not in this bill.
The Republican Welfare Reform bill focuses on a one-size-fits-all
policy that is concerned more with moving families off of welfare rolls
than providing families with opportunities to succeed. Instead of
looking at disingenuous numbers on paper, Congress needs to focus more
on looking at individual families when implementing policies. If
Republicans did this they would realize how unrealistic their bill
truly is. It restricts States instead of providing them with more
flexibility to determine what is the right approach for individual
families in their State. Helping families to succeed is the Democratic
approach--and the right approach. If we fail to enact policies that
will give families a chance to create a better life, we fail families
and we fail children.
For these reasons, I vote ``no'' on H.R. 4737.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to
this legislation which is falsely named, the Personal Responsibility,
Work and Family Promotion Act.
In 1996, when this body passed the ``welfare to work'' bill, we
changed welfare forever and it was a giant in the right direction. Now
6 years later, we have seen results from this law being put in place.
However, this welfare bill is a step in the wrong direction.
No one will argue that the ``welfare to work'' law isn't successful.
I believe that in our hopes to move forward on welfare reform, we are
ignoring an important population in our communities: our children. How
can we support a bill that wants welfare recipients to work 40 hour
work weeks but provides no additional funding for care? And how can we
as a body entertain providing tax benefits for stay at home mothers,
while at the same time, forcing low-income mothers to work more hours
and be separated from their children for longer periods of time? The
bottom line is that you cannot expand work requirements without
expanding child care.
Should welfare recipients really have to choose between being a good
worker or a good parent? The Democratic substitute provides states with
the necessary resources, such as child care funding, to meet the
stronger work requirements. The Republican bill does not. The
Democratic substitute provides recipients with the chance to allow
education, vocational education as well as training, as well as
participation in English as a second language and GED programs to count
toward the participation rate. The Republican bill eliminates
vocational education from the list of work-related activities.
Most of us are parents. We know the daily struggles of balancing work
and family. Sometimes these struggles prove even more difficult for
single-parent families. We need a system that does not discriminate by
family type or marital status. The Republican bill does just that.
In a perfect America, children would be raised in two-parent
families. In a perfect America, all citizens would be trained and
educated in order to choose any job they wanted, not limited to only
the ones they are qualified to do. Regrettably, this bill imposes
heavier work responsibilities on welfare recipients without providing
the tools to protect their families.
Another population that is largely ignored by the Republican bill is
our immigrant population. While I still have many concerns with the
farm bill that was signed into law on Monday, I was pleased to support
the provision which restores food stamp benefits to legal immigrants.
Let's do one better for our immigrant population. Let's allow states to
be able to provide welfare benefits to legal immigrants. The welfare of
all our nation's children, whether they are born here in the United
States, or somewhere else, should be today's most important
consideration. The Democratic substitute does just that. It will also
allow states to provide Medicaid to legal immigrant pregnant women and
children, certainly our most underserved citizens.
Today, let's send a message to America that we want citizens on the
road to economic independence. Let's arm these citizens with the
training and education necessary to sustain and advance employment,
while ensuring their family's security by providing child care. Let's
protect the welfare of our most important commodity, our children. I
urge all my colleagues to vote against H.R. 4700 and vote in favor of
the Democratic substitute. Let's pass a meaningful welfare reform bill
today.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, as the House debates Welfare
Reform, we must focus on how we are going to help families move from
welfare and poverty to work and prosperity. As I looked at both the
Republican and Democratic bills, I found the Democrat proposal did a
lot more to move families from handouts to becoming active workers in
today's market.
To begin with, the Democrat substitute strengthens the current work
requirements by: Increasing the number of work-focus activity hours
from 20 to 24 hours; requiring a minimum of 30 hours of work and
provides states the option of increasing the number of required hours
to 40 hours a week; and replaces the current caseload reduction credit
with an employment credit that reduces states participation rate
according to the number of people leaving welfare to work.
In addition, the Democratic substitute provides the state with the
necessary resources to meet the stronger work requirements.
The Republican bill places a large unfunded mandate burden on the
states. The Democratic substitute raises the bar on the work
requirements and provides the states with the resources to meet these
changes.
For example, it provides an additional $11 billion for mandatory
childcare funding over five years to meet the work requirements. In
addition, the bill increases the set-aside for child care quality from
4 to 12 percent.
Furthermore, the Democratic substitute provides states with the
flexibility. The most promising state programs that help welfare
recipients obtain and advance in a job combine a ``work first''
approach with supplemental training and education. The Republican
proposal eliminates vocational education training from the list of work
related activities that count toward the state's participation rate.
Finally, the Democratic substitute rewards self-sufficiency and gives
families the help they need to successfully move from welfare to work.
It improves the Individual Responsibility Plan so that every family has
a specific plan detailing the steps and work supports needed to move
the parent into meaningful work activities and achieve self-
sufficiency. It also provides a 5-year extension of Transitional
Medical Assistance (TMA) for parents and children leaving welfare. The
Republican bill only extends TMA for 1 year.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this Democrat
alternative and reject the underlying bill that hurts American
families.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4737, the Personal
Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act.
The 1996 welfare law was the most significant change in American
social policy in a generation. By liking benefits to work, the law
introduced economic rewards to families isolated in a cycle of
dependence and despair.
Welfare reform has changed many lives in dramatic ways, but there is
still more to do. Despite the emphasis on work, nearly 58 percent of
adult welfare recipients today are not working. Far too many
individuals still do not know the satisfaction of a job well-done and
the dignity of a steady paycheck. This legislation sets a more
challenging standard on work, one that is tough but achievable.
H.R. 4737 requires states to engage at least 70 percent of their
welfare recipients in 24 hours of direct work each week, and the other
16 hours in job-related activities like education, training, or
counseling. This will allow individuals to work 3 days and go to school
2

[[Page H2561]]

days each week. Meaningful work requirements blended with education and
training will lead to greater self-sufficiency.
As we set a higher standard of work and require welfare recipients to
be active participants in improving their lives, Congress must give
families the support necessary to make this transition. A combination
of work and social services will provide a more effective approach to
fighting welfare dependency and poverty than an approach that relies
primarily on government handouts.
We also must remain responsive to people with multiple barriers to
employment. As the reauthorization process moves forward, I am hopeful
there will be a focus on allowing older individuals to take the time
necessary to get a GED, as well as a greater emphasis on helping those
who need intensive drug rehabilitation.
I applaud the decision to provide an additional $2 billion in child
care funds. Safe, affordable, high-quality child care is an important
part of the support network needed to move people from welfare to work.
Additional child care funds will allow parents to hold jobs.
I am also pleased this bill helps states address the unique
challenges faced by their populations. H.R. 4737 enables states to
conduct innovative demonstration projects and coordinate a range of
problems in order to improve services. It gives states the freedom to
better meet the needs of welfare recipients as they work toward
independence.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, no one can deny that welfare programs have
undermined America's moral fabric and constitutional system. Therefore,
all those concerned with restoring liberty and protecting civil society
from the maw of the omnipotent state should support efforts to
eliminate the welfare state, or, at the very last, reduce federal
control over the provision of social services. Unfortunately, the
misnamed Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act (H.R.
4737) actually increases the unconstitutional federal welfare state and
thus undermines personal responsibility, the work ethic, and the
family.
H.R. 4737 reauthorizes the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families
(TANF) block grant program, the main federal welfare program. Mr.
Speaker, increasing federal funds always increases federal control as
the recipients of the funds must tailor their programs to meet federal
mandates and regulations. More importantly, since federal funds
represent resources taken out of the hands of private individuals,
increasing federal funding leaves fewer resources available for the
voluntary provision of social services, which, as I will explain in
more detail later, is a more effective, moral, and constitutional means
of meeting the needs of the poor.
H.R. 4737 further increases federal control over welfare policy by
increasing federal mandates on welfare recipients. This bill even goes
so far as to dictate to states how they must spend their own funds!
Many of the new mandates imposed by this legislation concern work
requirements. Of course, Mr. Speaker, there is a sound argument for
requiring recipients of welfare benefits to work. Among other benefits,
a work requirement can help a welfare recipient obtain useful job
skills and thus increase the likelihood that they will find productive
employment. However, forcing welfare recipients to work does raise
valid concerns regarding how much control over one's life should be
ceded to the government in exchange for government benefits.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, it is highly unlikely that a ``one-size-
fits-all'' approach dictated from Washington will meet the diverse
needs of every welfare recipient in every state and locality in the
nation. Proponents of this bill claim to support allowing states,
localities, and private charities the flexibility to design welfare-to-
work programs that fit their particular circumstances. Yet, as
Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura points out in the attached article,
this proposal constricts the ability of the states to design welfare-
to-work programs that meet the unique needs of their citizens.
As Governor Ventura points out in reference to this proposal's
effects on Minnesota's welfare-to-welfare work program, ``We know what
we are doing in Minnesota works. We have evidence. And our way of doing
things has broad support in the state. Why should we be forced by the
federal government to put our system at risk?'' Why indeed, Mr.
Speaker, should any state be forced to abandon its individual welfare
programs because a group of self-appointed experts in Congress, the
federal bureaucracy, and inside-the-beltway ``think tanks'' have
decided there is only one correct way to transition people from welfare
to work?
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4737 further expands the reach of the federal
government by authorizing $100 million dollars for new ``marriage
promotion'' programs. I certainly recognize how the welfare state has
contributed to the decline of the institution of marriage. As an ob-gyn
with over 30 years of private practice. I know better than most the
importance of stable, two parent families to a healthy society.
However, I am skeptical, to say the least, of claims that government
``education'' programs can fix the deep-rooted cultural problems
responsible for the decline of the American family.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, federal promotion of marriage opens the
door for a level of social engineering that should worry all those
concerned with preserving a free society. The federal government has no
constitutional authority to promote any particular social arrangement;
instead, the founders recognized that people are better off when they
form their own social arrangements free from federal interference. The
history of the failed experiments with welfarism and socialism shows
that government can only destroy a culture; when a government tries to
build a culture, it only further erodes the people's liberty.
H.R. 4737 further raises serious privacy concerns by expanding the
use of the ``New Hires Database'' to allow states to use the database
to verify unemployment claims. The New Hires Database contains the name
and social security number of everyone lawfully employed in the United
States. Increasing the states' ability to identify fraudulent
unemployment claims is a worthwhile public policy goal. However, every
time Congress authorizes a new use for the New Hires Database it takes
a step toward transforming it into a universal national database that
can be used by government officials to monitor the lives of American
citizens.
As with all proponents of welfare programs, the supporters of H.R.
4737 show a remarkable lack of trust in the American people. They would
have us believe that without the federal government, the lives of the
poor would be ``nasty, brutish and short.'' However, as scholar Sheldon
Richman of the Future of Freedom Foundation and others have shown,
voluntary charities and organizations, such as friendly societies that
devoted themselves to helping those in need, flourished in the days
before the welfare state turned charity into a government function.
Today, government welfare programs have supplemented the old-style
private programs. One major reason for this is that the policy of high
taxes and the inflationary monetary policy imposed on the American
people in order to finance the welfare state have reduced the income
available for charitable giving. Many over-taxed Americans take the
attitude toward private charity that ``I give at the (tax) office.''
Releasing the charitable impulses of the American people by freeing
them from the excessive tax burden so they can devote more of their
resources to charity, is a moral and constitutional means of helping
the needy. By contrast, the federal welfare state is neither moral or
constitutional. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government
given the power to level excessive taxes on one group of citizens for
the benefit of another group of citizens. Many of the founders would
have been horrified to see modern politicians define compassion as
giving away other people's money stolen through confiscatory taxation.
In the words of the famous essay by former Congressman Davy Crockett,
this money is ``Not Yours to Give.''
Voluntary charities also promote self-reliance, but government
welfare programs foster dependency. In fact, it is the self-interests
of the bureaucrats and politicians who control the welfare state to
encourage dependency. After all, when a private organization moves a
person off of welfare, the organization has fulfilled its mission and
proved its worth to donors. In contrast, when people leave government
welfare programs, they have deprived federal bureaucrats of power and
of a justification for a larger amount of taxpayer funding.
In conclusion, H.R. 4737 furthers federal control over welfare
programs by imposing new mandates on the states which furthers
unconstitutional interference in matters best left to state local
governments, and individuals. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose
it. Instead, I hope my colleagues will learn the lessons of the failure
of the welfare state and embrace a constitutional and compassionate
agenda of returning control over the welfare programs to the American
people through large tax cuts.

Welfare: Not the Fed's Job

(By Jesse Ventura)

In 1996, the federal government ended 60 years of failed
welfare policy that trapped families in dependency rather
than helping them to self-sufficiency. The 1996 law scrapped
the federally centralized welfare system in favor of broad
flexibility so states could come up with their own welfare
programs. It was a move that had bipartisan support, was
smart public policy and worked.
Welfare reform has been a huge success. Even those who
criticized the 1996 law now agree it is working. Welfare case
loads are down, more families are working, family income is
up, and child poverty has dropped.
The reason is simple: state flexibility. In six short years
the states undid a 60-year-old federally prescribed welfare
system and created their own programs which are far better
for poor families and for taxpayers.

[[Page H2562]]

But now it appears the Bush administration is having second
thoughts about empowering the states. The administration's
proposal would return us to a federally prescribed system. It
would impose rules on how states work with each family,
forcing a ``one size fits all'' model for a system that for
the past six years has produced individualized systems that
have been successful in states across the country.
I would hope that as a former governor, President Bush
would understand that these problems are better handled by
the individual states. The administration's proposal would
cripple welfare reform in my state and many others.
I know that my friend Health and Human Services Secretary
Tommy Thompson did a wonderful job of reforming Wisconsin's
welfare system. But that doesn't mean the Wisconsin system
would be as effective in Vermont. My state of Minnesota is
also a national model for welfare reform. It is a national
model, in part because we make sure welfare reform gets
families out of poverty. How do we do this? Exactly the way
President Bush and Secretary Thompson would want us to do it:
by putting people to work.
But here's the rub--it matters how families on welfare get
to work. In Minnesota, we work with each family one on one
and use a broad range of services to make sure the family
breadwinner gets and keeps a decent job. For some families it
might take a little longer that what the president is
comfortable with, but the results are overwhelmingly
positive. A three-year follow-up of Minnesota families on
welfare found that more than three-quarters have left
welfare or gone to work. Families that have left welfare
for work earn more than $9 an hour, higher than comparable
figures in other states. The federal government has twice
cited Minnesota as a leader among the states in job
retention and advancement.
An independent evaluation of Minnesota's welfare reform
pilot found it to be perhaps the most successful welfare
reform effort in the nation. The evaluation found Minnesota's
program not only increased employment and earnings but also
reduced poverty, reduced domestic abuse, reduced behavioral
problems with kids and improved their school performance. It
also found that marriage and marital stability increased as a
result of higher family incomes.
The administration's proposal would have Minnesota set all
this aside and focus instead on make-work activities. In
Minnesota we believe that success in welfare reform is about
helping families progress to a self-sufficiency that will
last. While it may be politically appealing to demand that
all welfare recipients have shovels in their hands, it makes
sense to me that the states--and not the feds--are in the
best position to make those decisions.
We know what we are doing in Minnesota works. We have
evidence. And our way of doing things has broad support in
the state. Why should we be forced by the federal government
to put our system at risk?
I believe in accountable and responsive government, and
have no problem with the federal government holding states
accountable for results in welfare reform. But I also believe
that in this case the people closest to the problem should be
trusted to solve the problem and be left alone if they have.
Secretary Thompson, with the blessing of the president,
seems to be taking us down a road that violates the tenets of
states' rights.
Say it ain't so, Tommy. As long as it's working, why not
let the states do our own thing?

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker since the historic
overhaul of this country's welfare system in 1996, we have witnessed
dramatic changes in how this nation treats our poor children and
families. While welfare rolls have dropped by more than 50 percent,
many families have lost Food stamp benefits and Medicaid despite
continued eligibility. In addition, numerous low-income families remain
below the poverty line despite employment.
One of the most important issues Congress must address when
considering reauthorization of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act is how race
and ethnicity factor in why some welfare recipients have failed to
obtain gainful and lasting employment. Research has shown that
minorities face significantly more discrimination in the services they
receive from welfare agencies as well as in the treatment they receive
on the job.
Numerous studies have documented cases of racial disparities in
Welfare Reform, and I believe they are worth mentioning.
A recent Chicago Urban League study found that while more than 50
percent of white recipients were referred to education programs, less
than 20 percent of African Americans were referred to the same
programs.
A statewide study of welfare recipients in Virginia by Professor
Susan Gooden of Virginia Tech found that although African American
program participants were, on average, better educated than whites,
zero African Americans were directed to education programs to fulfill
their requirements. At the same time, 41 percent of whites were steered
to education programs. The study also found that African Americans were
also less likely to receive discretionary support such as
transportation assistance, less likely to be placed in jobs by the
state employment agency, and more likely to be subjected to drug and
background tests, than white recipients.
A Gooden Employer study (1999) found that whites were more likely to
have longer interviews than blacks (25 min v. 11 min), less likely to
have a negative relationship with their supervisor (29 percent v. 64
percent), and less likely to undergo pre-employment testing (24 percent
v. 45 percent).
Cruel and Usual, an Applied Research Center survey of more than 1,500
welfare recipients in 13 states, found that discriminatory treatment on
the basis of gender, race, language, and national origin was a common
experience. Forty-eight percent of African American women and 56
percent of Native American women who received job training were sent to
demeaning ``Dress for Success'' classes, compared with only 24 percent
of white women.
At the same time that people of color are being marginalized by our
welfare system, (according to an Applied Research Center study) African
Americans and other minorities are disproportionately affected by our
current recession:
After September 11, the increase in unemployment rates for African
Americans and Latinos was more than double that for whites.
Unemployment among African Americans soared to 11.2 percent in April of
this year and rose to 7.9 percent for Hispanics. African Americans has
reached its highest point in 8 years, while Latino unemployment is its
highest in 5.
In New York City, where unemployment has skyrocketed since the events
of September 11, the New York Times reported in February that African
American workers accounted for only 27 percent of those collecting
unemployment insurance benefits, even though they account for about 37
percent of the jobless. For Latinos, the Pew Hispanic Center reports
that out of 1.26 million unemployed Latinos in December 2001, only 40
percent are likely to be receiving unemployment benefits, leaving some
756,000 unable to access the benefits to support their families.
Let me be clear: efforts to improve our economy are not reaching
people of color. African Americans are losing their jobs at nearly
twice the national average. Latino unemployment hovers near 5 year
high. These numbers are an outrage and are unacceptable. But, they
don't even tell the whole story. While these workers are losing their
jobs and their families are suffering, the Bush Administration is
proposing cutbacks in job training programs and reductions in education
funding that would help put people in a better position to earn a
living wage.

Here we are poised to reauthorize welfare reform with Members on both
sides of the aisle calling for an increase in the number of hours
recipients must work to stay eligible for transitional assistance. I
hope that these new unemployment numbers indicating that more Americans
are getting laid off will force Members to rethink their positions. How
can we look these people in the eye and tell them to work longer hours
when there aren't even jobs available to them?
In 1996, we handed the administration of the welfare programs over to
states. And who know better than the states that have been
administering the TANF programs what will and what won't work?
The National Governors Association (NGA) is very concerned about how
the Republican plan takes away the state's flexibility in administering
TANF programs. In April of this year the National Governors Association
(NGA) and the American Public Human Services Association (APHSA)
conducted a joint survey of Governors and state TANF administrators to
assess the impact proposed changes to the work requirements would have
on current state welfare reform initiatives. This study found that:
``As states work with families on a more individualized basis, many
states are finding that a combination of activities on a limited basis,
such as work, job training, education, and substance abuse treatment,
leads to the greatest success for some individuals. Governors believe
the federal government should recognize the success of these tailored
approaches to addressing an individual's needs by providing states
greater discretion in defining appropriate work activities.''
Also in the NGA report, ``States expressed concerns over the impact
of level funding of the TANF block grant; citing inflation having
reduced the purchasing power of the block grant, making it unlikely
that the block grant will keep pace with the rising costs of services,
such as case management, employment and training, transportation and
child care.''
The majority of states (33) responding cited concerns about meeting
the proposed work requirements in rural areas where the economy is
often lagging and employment opportunities are limited.
The State of Illinois responded, ``A 70 percent participation rate
with a 40 hour a week requirement will probably require two things.
First, creation of a number of make work activities or greater use of
current ones, whether

[[Page H2563]]

or not warranted, just to fill the requirement. Second, a near total
abandonment of allowing any client that is able to work at all to
participate in such things as GED programs or post-secondary
education.''
Once we force States to send all these people to work in 40-hour
workweek jobs that don't exist, what are we going to do with their
children? Childcare is expensive! The states recognize this. In the NGA
report, States were asked to estimate the annual increase in child care
costs associated with the proposal to require 70 percent participation
in activities totaling 40-hours per week. Of the 32 states responding
to the question, 30 states indicated that the costs would increase and
two states indicated that there would be no additional costs associated
with the proposal.
But the Republican plan doesn't even begin to meet this enormous
expense--The CBO estimates the increased mandatory work hours imposed
on states by the Republican plan will increase child care cost an
additional $3.8 billion--almost 4 times as much as the Republican plan
provides! In fact, my state of Texas alone would have an estimate of
over 36,000 children on childcare waiting list.
For these reasons, I have introduced legislation that addresses
racial inequalities and mistreatment of minorities in welfare program.
While we are providing states the flexibility and funding they need to
empower welfare recipients and address important issues like access to
child care, education, and job training. The key provisions of this
legislation include ensuring equal access by expanding education and
training opportunities, strengthening fair treatment and anti-
discrimination protections and encouraging racial equality.
I believe we should all agree that welfare reform measures should not
punish racial and ethnic minorities attempting to better themselves.
Every American must be provided with the opportunity and the obligation
to be a productive member of society. As we continue to debate welfare
authorization, we must make certain that racial and ethnic
discrimination are not vehicles used to hinder access to the road from
poverty.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Republican bill.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill before
us today. I was proud to be a member of the conference committee that
wrote the welfare reform bill that was enacted in 1996. At the time,
there were many critics of welfare reform who said that the bill would
be a disaster for those truly in need. We found out that they were for
the most part wrong about welfare reform. We could move people from
dependence to work in a responsible way and not shortchange our
commitment to the neediest in our society.
States have proven that if we give them flexibility to develop
programs that work in their state they can effectively serve those
citizens who strive to break the cycle of welfare dependence. That is
why I am troubled by the provisions in the bill before us today that
severely restrict the flexibility of states such as Texas to continue
the activities that have been successful in their welfare to work
programs and place a tremendous unfunded mandate on states.
For my own state of Texas, this bill would create an unfunded mandate
of $166 million a year, in addition to the $78 million shortfall they
will face under current law by 2007. Texas would be forced to implement
a subsidized employment program which it has already rejected as
unworkable and change parts of its welfare reform effort that have been
a success in moving welfare recipients into real jobs. It would be the
height of arrogance for me to stand here in Washington and vote to
require Texas to implement policies on welfare reform that the Texas
legislature has already considered and rejected.
I must express my strong concern for the process that has brought us
to the floor today. On February 7, 8, 9 and 14, 1995 the Committee on
Agriculture held hearings on Reforming the Present Welfare System
(Serial 104-2). That is 4 days of hearings. That does not include other
related hearings that the Committee held on other nutrition issues. A
record was built on the issues regarding welfare reform. I will grant
you that the eventual path to enactment of Welfare Reform was a
tortuous and contentious one, but everyone understood the issues
compiling the legislation.
Today is a totally different situation. We are considering a bill
that was only recently introduced. The Committee on Agriculture which
has jurisdiction over the Food Stamp provisions contained in the
Welfare Reform Reauthorization legislation has not even considered the
bill. Welfare Reform Reauthorization should be accorded the same
consideration as other important legislation. We should hold hearings
on the proposals, mark it up in Committee and then bring it to the
floor. No one here today can tell us if the provisions concerning food
stamps are reasonable. They are concepts that the majority is willing
to put into law without asking any of the affected--nutrition
advocates, state welfare administrators, and others what the practical
effect will be upon the floor stamp program.
We have a largely positive record to build upon with welfare reform.
Why are we risking that success for cheap political expediency. If the
concepts contained in the legislation are good, public scrutiny will
only strengthen them.
I have grave concerns about this process. The people that participate
in these programs are the most vulnerable in the country. The programs
that they rely on deserve a thorough examination.
The so-called ``super-waivers'' advocated in this legislation has the
potential to undermine current food stamp policy of providing nutrition
assistance to all eligible citizens if they face economic hardships.
The question is not whether states should or should not receive the
flexibility under waiver authority to tailor the food stamp program
rules. States already have that flexibility. The question is whether
states should be allowed even greater flexibility to change the very
nature of the food stamp program.
If there are innovative reforms that states would like to implement
that are prohibited under current law, should examine how to address
those specific problems. That is what the Committee process is intended
to do. Let state administrators testify before the Agriculture
Committee about the changes they believe would allow them to run the
program better and, let the Committee come up with legislation to
address those concerns.
The delay in bringing this bill to the floor today highlights the
problems of ignoring the committee process and writing bills in the
leadership offices. Welfare reform is too important of an issue to
consider under a process that has more to do with scoring political
points than building on what has been successful.
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of our
continued effort to reform welfare. Since 1996, more people across the
country and in my state of Kentucky have become independent and free
from their dependency on welfare. While in my district and through our
work in the Ways and Means committee, I've heard their success stories
and also learned that we can do more to build upon the 1996 reforms.
That is exactly what we are doing today. Our bill focuses on work and
education options, provides more flexibility for states and offers more
assistance to strengthen families.
One of the things we do in this bill is allow participants in their
state welfare programs to choose between job readiness activities and
job search activities. They have flexibility to receive the services
they need the most, whether that is job search help, basic education,
training for a new skill to help them find a job or recovering from
substance abuse. For up to five months, taking part in any of these
services fulfills their work requirement. Beyond that time, welfare
recipients still are able to receive a combination of education-focused
and work-focused services so they can become employed and can be
successful on their own. Requiring work helps welfare recipients
achieve independence and gives them the ability to care for their
families.
Last month I attended the graduation ceremony for the Reach Higher
welfare to work program in Bowling Green, Kentucky. The state and local
flexibility in the 1996 law allowed Reach Higher to develop services to
meet community needs, and the program has turned people's lives around.
Participants in Reach Higher must work 32 hours per week. They also
spend one day each week in life-skills and job training. Reach Higher
asks a lot of the participants, and they respond to the challenge
because they want a better life and find out that they are able to
succeed.
In 1998, a participant found herself trying to raise two small
children in public housing with no money and no job. Then she was
assigned to Reach Higher and completed the program. She now holds a
full time job with the Bowling Green Housing Authority and was approved
for a home loan this year. Here is what she had to say: ``I began to
accomplish things that I thought I would never accomplish alone. I
began to want more out of life for myself as well as my children. I
worked hard and had additional training classes that I knew would
further my skills.''
We have been on the right track with welfare. And this bill continues
to build on that success. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for
this legislation that gives more families who need help the chance to
succeed.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, today the House is considering the Personal
Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act, H.R. 4737. In keeping
with the strong welfare reform principles outlined by President Bush,
this legislation would reauthorize a very successful program that
encourages personal responsibility and work. H.R. 4737 builds upon the
successful reforms instituted in 1996 that I was pleased to support.
Welfare rolls have sharply declined since reform was enacted in 1996.
Poverty rates have

[[Page H2564]]

declined, employment rates have climbed and wages have increased. H.R.
4737 will build on those successes. This legislation will maintain full
funding for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF),
increase funding by $2 billion for improved child care programs over
the next 5 years, increase State flexibility in use of welfare funding,
and promote individuals in job preparation, work, and marriage.
Building on the successful work requirements of the 1996 reform, H.R.
4737 requires welfare recipients to work 40 hours per week, either at a
job or in a program designed to help them gain independence.
This is important legislation in the monumental task of bringing
Americans out of poverty into independence by raising expectations for
work and personal responsibility. H.R. 4737 will further strengthen
this nation's economy and workforce to prepare all our citizens for the
future. I urge the House to approve this legislation so that the
Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act can be
reauthorized without delay.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the
Republican Welfare Bill, H.R. 4737.
This welfare bill, of such far-reaching importance, does nothing to
help move families out of poverty. In fact, this bill would mean that
welfare families would be placed in an impossible situation. The
Republican bill requires a 40 hour work week for mothers with children
under six. That is twice the current work hour requirement, yet there
is an allotment of only $1 billion additional dollars for child care.
Can someone please tell me how a working mother of children under the
age of six is supposed to work a minimum 40 hour week without a way to
fund the care of her children? And too add insult to injury, this bill
doesn't even ensure that she will be compensated with minimum wage for
her forty hours of work.
A paltry child care allotment of $1 billion dollars over the next 5
years is unconscionable. It does not even keep pace with the current
rate of inflation, and there are already 15 million American children
eligible for child care who are not receiving it due to inadequate
funding. This increase does not address the current need, and will
certainly not address the need that will grow exponentially if the 40
hour requirement is imposed.
Also, this bill removes education from the current law-list of work
related activities. This measure strips needy families of their ability
to participate in GED and English literacy programs. With a mandate
which strips the ability to obtain a GED and learn English, the playing
field can never be level and the condition of needy Americans will
continue to deteriorate.
I cannot leave this debate without also addressing the renewed
omission of immigrant families from the welfare bill. For the second
time, my Republican colleagues intend to deny immigrant families the
tools they require to capture the American dream that brought them
here. It is hypocritical to celebrate the tradition of America's
melting pot while denying the people who make our rich diversity
possible.
All of this has been done in the interest of lowering welfare roles.
But, inhumanely forcing people off of welfare rolls by requiring them
to adhere to conditions that are both fiscally and practically
impossible does not constitute progress. Our constituents want the
freedom to work while trusting their children to competent and
affordable child care providers. Working families in America deserve
better than what this Republican inadequacy has to offer.
It is for this reason that I urge my Democratic colleagues to vote
yes for the Democratic substitute. It provides a realistic increase of
$11 billion dollars in mandatory child care funding, and increases the
role of training and education in improving the condition of our
neediest citizens. In addition it includes provisions for our neighbors
who have immigrated to this country. Vote ``yes'' on the Democratic
substitute. It is a true step toward ensuring that no child or family
is left behind.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R.
4735, a bill to reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
program.
Unfortunately, many of the provisions in this bill are unfair and
misguided. One of the most egregious examples, is the impact this
legislation will have on single mothers with young children. For
example, this bill provides insufficient funding for childcare, yet
increases the work requirement from 20 hours a week to 40 hours for
mothers with children under the age of 6. While the Republican bill
touts the $1 billion increase in childcare funding over the next 5
years, they fail to note that this increase barely keeps up with
inflation, let alone meets the increased demand for childcare created
under the bill.
Mr. Speaker, mothers already find it extremely difficult to find safe
and adequate day care. With the current backlog of approximately 15
million children waiting for day care due to a lack of funding, this
bill will only make a bad situation worse. Disadvantaged single mothers
and children are already a vulnerable population. Without sufficient
funding for childcare, many of these mothers will be forced to chose
between leaving their young children alone, or losing the benefits that
help them provide for their children. Congress should be working to
help these families get back on their feet--not penalizing them with
unrealistic requirements that keep mothers away from their children.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this punitive, unfair and
unrealistic bill.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill, which
will build upon the tremendous successes of the 1996 welfare reforms.
When those reforms were enacted, opponents predicted apocalyptic scenes
of poverty and suffering among America's low-income families. Time has
proven, however, that those reforms were right. Child poverty is at its
lowest level in 25 years and poverty among African-American children is
at its lowest level in history. By requiring welfare beneficiaries to
work and engage in productive activities, Congress helped change
society. Former welfare beneficiaries now testify that by being pushed
into work activities, they are now better members of society and better
parents to their children.
Although we have moved millions of families off welfare and into
work, the road to advancement and self-sufficiency remains a difficult
challenge. For a longtime I have been concerned by the disincentives to
working hard, earning more money, and marriage that we have created
over time. The lack of coordination between federal programs directed
towards low-income families has resulted in what I call ``The Poverty
Trap.'' As the earnings of low-income families increase, most of their
benefits, such as housing, food-stamps, child-care co-payments, and the
Earned Income Tax Credit, phase-out in a manner that discourages
working harder and advancing in a job. In some cases a pay raise of a
dollar an hour can mean the loss of benefits at a rate that exceeds
that raise. This effective marginal tax can exceed 100 percent and trap
families in poverty. I am pleased that this bill requires the General
Accounting Office to undertake a comprehensive study of the obstacles
created by the combined phase-outs of low-income support programs and
recommend ways to coordinate and reform these programs.
Because of this ``Poverty Trap,'' I also enthusiastically support
provisions within this bill which provide states and local governments
with the flexibility to implement demonstration projects that
coordinate multiple low-income support programs. Under these provisions
states can integrate eligible programs as long as those projects serve
the populations and achieve the purposes of the underlying programs.
This requirement further ensures that beneficiaries of these underlying
programs are going to gain, not lose, as a result of these
demonstration projects. While I wish these flexibility provisions went
further, they are an important step that will enable needed innovation
at the state and local level to help families escape poverty. The
states have proven to be the laboratories for successful change in our
welfare system, and this flexibility will enhance their capabilities.
As a recent Wall Street Journal editorial said, the state flexibility
provisions help get Washington out of the way of local progress.
I urge all my colleagues who want to help low-income families leave
welfare and achieve self-sufficiency to support this bill and the state
and local flexibility provisions within it.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, today we are debating the reauthorization
of the welfare program. I believe that we have a responsibility to help
families transition into the work force and provide essential support
to make work pay. The Democratic substitute will do that. Regrettably,
the Republican bill will not.
I focus these remarks on two provisions within this re-authorization
that were considered by the Committee on Energy and Commerce:
transitional medical assistance (TMA) and abstinence-only education.
TMA is a program that provides health insurance coverage for families
leaving welfare to go back to work. It is a program that makes good
sense. Individuals moving off welfare often wind up in jobs that do not
offer health insurance coverage or find that employer-sponsored
coverage is too costly on the family's limited budget. TMA allows these
families to keep their health insurance coverage in Medicaid so that
getting a job doesn't mean losing health coverage. The Republican bill,
however, only extends this program for one year; many of us prefer
making this common-sense program permanent, as the Democratic
substitute provides. Of added concern, Republicans would cut other
parts of the Medicaid program in order to pay for this extension. For
some reason, Republicans believe the only way they can afford to help
working families is if they cut other parts of safety net programs that
truly allow the poor to work. This is illogical and I oppose it.
The second provision extends the Title V abstinence-only sex
education program, but

[[Page H2565]]

locks states in to an inflexible curriculum; it is controversial, and
rightly so. The Democratic substitute to this bill provides states with
the flexibility to offer programs that are best suited to the needs and
desires of their citizens and to ensure that federal funds are spent on
effective programs that provide medically accurate information. State
flexibility allows each state to use federal funds to support the
abstinence-based comprehensive sex education program it determines will
be most effective in protecting its young people's health. Many leading
public and private sector health experts recommend school-based
comprehensive sex education programs, yet states are unable to fund
these types of programs with federal dollars.
The Democratic substitute also contains a requirement that Title V
programs provide information that is determined to be ``medically
accurate'' by leading medical, psychological, psychiatric, and public
health organizations. Some abstinence-only programs are actually
harmful to teenagers because they provide incomplete, inaccurate, and
misleading information with regard to contraceptives, pregnancy, and
sexually transmitted diseases. Depriving teens of medically accurate
information will not protect them; it will only make them more
vulnerable to the very problems that such information is supposed to
prevent.
The substitute also requires Title V programs be based on models that
have demonstrated effectiveness in reducing teen pregnancies or the
transmission of sexually transmitted diseases or HIV/AIDS, and calls
for a comparative evaluation of programs so policymakers can determine
the relative merits of abstinence-only programs versus comprehensive
school-based, age-appropriate, sex education curricula.
The Democratic substitute maintains state flexibility, helps welfare
recipients to find real work, helps families escape poverty, removes
the sunset on TMA, and makes important changes in the abstinence
education provisions. I support it.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4737--the
``Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act.''
As Chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, and an original
cosponsor of the legislation, I want to lend my support to H.R. 4737's
State flexibility authority that cuts statutory and regulatory red
tape, to allow States and/or local governments to conduct demonstration
projects to integrate Federal programs and funds. Under the plan,
entities, such as the public housing authority, and the local and State
governments could petition a Federal review board for this broadened
authority, with the appropriate Secretary exercising veto authority
over the plan.
As example of this waiver could be a child-care center and a local
public housing agency jointly petitioning the Federal Review Board to
waive the regulations and requirements of their applicable programs to
achieve a certain purpose. H.R. 4737 will knock down firewalls and
bureaucratic obstacles that many housing organizations complain about
when attempting to blend programs from different agencies.
This proposal represents an opportunity to permit some innovation in
Federal programs aimed at tackling the problem of service delivery,
poverty, and a permanent underclass. Everyone should have the
opportunity to move beyond public housing and homeless shelters to
fully integrate in the private sector through rental and homeownership
opportunities. We have heard time and time again that we need to blend
more of the programs from HHS and HUD, for example, to tackle
hopelessness. H.R. 4737 gives us that opportunity.
Moreover, to ensure that residents in public housing have an
opportunity to comment and participate in the development's strategic
plan, H.R. 4737 requires that the concerns of the residents to be
incorporated into not only the annual strategic plan submitted by the
Public Housing Authority but also the application for State
flexibility. This will provide a significant opportunity for
collaboration between the public housing authority management,
residents and the administrators of other entities to craft
demonstrations that will achieve meaningful results, as opposed to a
dictate from top-management only. I can't underscore the importance of
resident/tenant participation to the eventual success of these
applications and demonstrations. For that purpose, H.R. 4737 is
noteworthy.
One of the reasons the '96 welfare reforms were so successful is that
states had the flexibility and leeway to shape their welfare programs
in innovative ways. This bill enhances that flexibility, offering
``flexibility'' to allow states to integrate funding to improve
services. As Health & Human Services Secretary and former Wisconsin
Gov. Tommy Thompson said, flexibility is ``what the governors need and
that's what the governors will have.''
This new flexibility will help States create broad, comprehensive
assistance programs for needy families--as long as they achieve the
purpose of the underlying program and continue to target those in need.
This new flexibility will help States design fully integrated
assistance programs that could revolutionize service delivery. The
exemptions included in H.R. 4737 should alleviate any concerns that
fundamental rights and protections are jeopardized. Those exemptions
are: (1) civil rights; (2) purposes or goals of any program; (3)
maintenance of effort requirements; (4) health and safety; (5) labor
standards under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938; or (6)
environmental protection.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4737.
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this welfare
bill.
It does nothing to help people get the education and training they
need to earn high-paying jobs that will lift them out of poverty and
support their families. In California, more than half of our welfare
caseload doesn't have a high school degree. And in my community in Los
Angeles County, 41 percent of the welfare caseload has limited
proficiency in English.
These women and men want to be working, but they need education and
training that includes English as a Second Language courses, high
school equivalency programs, and college courses first. Only the
Democratic substitute allows this kind of education. So I urge my
colleagues to vote against the Republican bill.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4737, the
so-called Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act of
2002.
This Republican bill is bad public policy and hurts people who really
need help. The Republicans, unfortunately, care more about looking
tough on welfare than they do about lifting poor people out of poverty.
Poor people don't vote, they think, so it's easy to write them off.
That's a disgrace. This bill abrogates our responsibility to make laws
that protect and lift up all of our citizens.
The bill's added work requirements reduce state flexibility to tailor
a work plan for each individual welfare recipient. The Republican plan
limits the activities that states can count as work activities for the
first 24 hours out of 40 hours of work. This eliminates the capability
for poor people to spend most of their first years on welfare building
their jobs skills through education. The more skills a worker has, the
better job he or she will get. Moreover, this requirement traps poor
people in welfare or traps them at the poverty level. In Alabama,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Wyoming, and Texas, for example, anyone who
works 24 hours a week at minimum wage would not be eligible for welfare
at all. In other words, they would earn too much to get state help, but
not enough to get out of poverty. It's a catch-22!
The next major flaw in this bill is its paltry, inadequate commitment
to child care. Evidence shows that an overwhelming obstacle for welfare
parents who want to work is the lack of quality, affordable childcare
for their children. This bill totally ignores the current need for
childcare funds. Right now, less than one in five children who are
eligible for childcare assistance actually get it. Not only does this
bill do nothing for the current childcare pitfall, it also increases
the amount of hours that welfare recipients must work without providing
an equivalent increase in childcare funding.
Finally, the Republican bill spends $300 million dollars to promote
marriage between welfare recipients. This misguided policy intrudes on
private decisions between adults and takes needed funds away from
programs that actually help raise poor people out of poverty. In
addition, government interference in promoting or coercing people to
marry could have unintended, tragic consequences. According to a joint
report by the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services, 25
percent of women said they have been raped or physically assaulted by
their current or former spouse. More alarming still, research shows
that 60 percent of women on welfare have suffered from domestic
violence. As these statistics confirm, if government were to
encourage or coerce someone on welfare to get married, it would not
guarantee a healthier or safer family, and it could endanger the lives
of mothers and children.

Our Democratic alternative, on the other hand, addresses the real
problems facing our welfare system today. Our bill makes poverty
reduction an explicit goal of TANF. Republicans just want to kick
people off of welfare; Democrats want to lift people out of poverty.
Our bill has work requirements that are broad and flexible to allow
welfare recipients to spend time job searching, to get vocational and
post-secondary education, and to enroll in substance abuse programs, if
necessary. The Democratic bill increases our commitment to affordable,
quality childcare. If we want welfare parents to work, then they
shouldn't have to abandon their kids to do so. Our bill rewards those
states who reduce child poverty, giving them an incentive to really act
on this issue.
The Republican welfare bill has the wrong priorities, spends money
where it shouldn't

[[Page H2566]]

and does nothing to equip welfare beneficiaries with the tools they
need to get out of poverty. I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R.
4737 and to support the Democratic alternative.
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to H.R.
4737, the Republican welfare reform bill; a bill that will push
millions of American families off the welfare rolls into a life of
poverty.
America is the land of opportunity and in today's economic market,
education is the key to that opportunity. Higher levels of education
lead to higher earnings. Greater educational opportunities also
increase women's income, raise their children's educational goals, and
have a dramatic impact on their quality of life. Research shows that
families headed by someone with a high school diploma earn almost 50
percent more than families headed by someone without at least a GED. In
California alone, recipients who participate in education and training
activities enjoyed earnings almost 40 percent higher than those of
untrained recipients after 5 years.
Welfare laws need to emphasize general education as a critical first
step to achieving economic security. However, the Republican welfare
reform bill goes in the wrong direction by restricting State discretion
to provide education and training to welfare recipients. The bill goes
so far as to remove vocational education from the current law's list of
work-related activities that count toward the core work requirement.
When reviewing our Nation's welfare laws, we must also remember that
work first policies do not just affect adult individuals. We are
talking about families, with children who require quality and
affordable child care while parents are working. It is an unfortunate
reality that many of the jobs performed by TANF parents involve late
night hours or irregular shifts, when quality child care is hard to
find. These circumstances are especially harsh for families with young
children and children with disabilities. Even when childcare is
available, most jobs do not pay enough to cover food, housing and
utilities, let alone cover the child care bill. This is especially
critical in my district of San Jose, which has some of the highest
child care costs in the State of California.
Congress needs to stand up for working families by making safe,
quality child care accessible for all children. Fifteen million
children in this country are now eligible for day care assistance, but
are not currently covered because States lack sufficient resources.
However, the Republican welfare reform bill increases mandatory child
care funding by only $1 billion over the next 5 years--barely enough to
keep pace with inflation, and nowhere near enough to implement the
bill's new participation requirements.
The Republican welfare reform bill also neglects a critical community
in this country--legal immigrant families. Legal immigrant families
work and pay taxes, yet cannot access TANF benefits. Legal immigrants
pay the same taxes as citizens. This country reaps $50 billion from
taxes paid by immigrants to all levels of government. Legal immigrants
should therefore share equally in taxpayer funded services. Current
TANF regulations place undue burdens on State and local governments,
who are forced to use state funding to extend benefits to these
deserving families. This is especially true for states with large
immigrant populations, such as my State of California which has a 25
percent immigrant population. The Republican welfare reform bill does
nothing to correct this injustice. In fact, it maintains the current
restrictions against legal immigrant families.
Welfare reform will only succeed when it is adequately funded. Our
Nation's families cannot be expected to succeed off the welfare rolls
if they lack access to TANF benefits, educational opportunities, and
affordable child care. That is why I am please to support the
Democratic proposal that maintains State flexibility, focuses on real
work, and helps families escape poverty and achieve permanent
employment. The Democratic proposal has tough work requirements,
promotes education as a means of financial stability, and increases
childcare funding $11 billion over 5 years, so that the tough work
requirements can be met without harming the children of those receiving
benefits. The Democratic proposal also lifts the ban on federal funds
for legal immigrant families.
Mr. Speaker, accountability is a two-way street. Congress must commit
the necessary resources to make welfare reform a success. Only then
will we leave no family behind.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that if
we are to be successful with moving people from welfare to work, then
we must make sure there are adequate resources for transportation,
childcare and training. In rural America, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you
these services are critical.
I have several concerns with the H.R. 4737's strict and unrealistic
work requirements. These requirements are a bad idea for any area of
the country, but particularly in the areas of rural New Mexico that I
represent. With the extreme unemployment in rural areas and in tribal
lands, the idea of imposing harsher requirements is not just
unrealistic, it is bad social policy.
For that reason, I introduced an amendment that would have provided
much-needed flexibility to states struggling to cope with extremely
poor areas with high unemployment. Unfortunately, the Republican
leadership has chosen not to allow Democratic amendments today. As I
said before, that is not a democratic process. It does not serve this
body well. It does not serve the country well.
TANF recipients in rural or tribal areas who wish to move into
gainful employment are faced with a tight job market aggravated by the
lack of economic development. The last 6 years have shown that rural
and Native American TANF recipients were far less likely to leave the
TANF roles, and those who left were far more likely to quickly find
themselves unemployed or barely scraping by. Some tribal lands have
unemployment rates approaching 80 percent and the national poverty rate
on tribal lands is 54 percent. Those who are lucky enough to find jobs
must overcome the woeful inadequacy of transportation and childcare
that is so common in rural and tribal areas.
In today's economic conditions, it is unreasonable to expect State
and tribal TANF programs to enforce the strict and unfair work
requirements being proposed by the administration. TANF recipients in
these areas cannot be expected to find jobs where there simply are no
jobs, or inadequate services to make a working lifestyle possible.
Governors, legislatures, TANF caseworkers and the American people all
agree that it is unreasonable to demand quick results in areas where
residents face such significant barriers to employment.
Even without the new work requirements, Native American tribes that
have chosen to run their own TANF programs need assistance. While these
programs have made admirable strides in serving their populations, they
still face many problems. Many State TANF programs are unable to assist
tribal programs, and tribes are left with insufficient funds to provide
cash assistance and other programs. Ironically, those that can afford
cash payments are often forced to forego programs intended to move
people from welfare to work. This is all tribes can afford in the short
term, but in the long term this path is extremely expensive, both in
terms of dollars and in terms of human suffering.
Many tribal TANF programs need help to develop the infrastructure
that state and Federal welfare programs already have. Tribal programs
must struggle to provide services from dilapidated buildings, and they
do not have the resources to reorganize and modernize their facilities.
The Nation's rural and tribal areas need flexibility and support, not
unrealistic work requirements. As we work to bring TANF into the 21st
century, let us not forget the obstacles and challenges facing rural
areas; let us work to assist them in overcoming those challenges and
pursuing a vibrant future.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the majority's bill falls far short in
addressing these problems for rural Americans and those living in
Indian country. I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic
substitute and vote ``no'' on final passage of this unfair bill.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition not only to this
bill, but to the entire process for its consideration today.
Meaningful democracy in America requires open, honest debate in the
U.S. Congress. The Republican leadership has blocked this opportunity
by passing a rule that only allows for one substitute amendment. Their
new rule just passed today is equally restrictive.
Welfare reform affects every State and locality throughout the
country. Members have a right to engage in extended dialogue on this
legislation and to offer amendments to strengthen the bill. This is
particularly necessary due to the numerous problems with H.R. 4737.
This so-called welfare reform bill level funds one of the most
important national programs Congress has ever created and imposes
massive, costly new mandates on States that they cannot afford.
Today's economy is vastly different than it was when welfare reform
was first enacted. Six years ago, the economy was booming, unemployment
was at a 50-year low, and employers were straining to find qualified
workers. Today, the unemployment level is higher than it's been in
years. Workers are more vulnerable, and employers and struggling to
keep costs down by laying people off cutting employee benefits and
raising the workers' share of health insurance premiums. In Rhode
Island, 35,000 children--15 percent of all the children in the State--
are still living in poverty despite the fact that their parents are
working. With the economic boon long gone, H.R. 4737 needs to provide
increased funding, not level funding with expensive new mandates, for
this vital program.
Eighty percent of the States report they would have to implement
fundamental

[[Page H2567]]

changes to their current welfare programs in order to comply with H.R.
4737 which is precisely why I cannot support it.
Rhode Island has developed an effective welfare to work program that
moves parents into sustainable jobs as quickly as possible in a way
that is consistent with their employment readiness needs. Under the
Rhode Island Family Independence Program (FIP), all parents are
required to develop and participate in an employment plan within 40
days of applying for cash assistance.
Rhode Island also provides a cash supplement to low-wage-earning
families and stops the 5-year clock in any month in which the parent
works at least 30 hours. This provides much-needed stability for
vulnerable families and ensures that children live in families with
enough income to meet their basic needs.
What makes the Rhode Island Family Independence Program so effective
is that its employment preparedness activities are tailored to the
parents' needs and include a range of education and training services
to help parents become job-ready. The program recognizes that 25 to 40
percent of welfare recipients have learning disabilities by identifying
such individuals early and providing specialized assistance in
preparing for, finding and maintaining a job. In fact, the Rhode Island
Learning Disabilities Project, a collaboration between the Department
of Human Services and the Vocational Rehabilitation program, has
received national recognition for ensuring that parents receive the
services they need to become gainfully employed.
Since 1997, Rhode Island has seen a slow but steady decrease in its
caseload from 18,904 to 14,972. This progress is not due to harsh cuts
in benefits or forcing people to work without access to education and
job training, but to prudent State policies that examine the holistic
needs of the family and tailor assistance to help individuals gain the
skills to obtain and retain meaningful jobs.
Moreover, a recent report, ``Rhode Island's Family Independence Act:
Research Demonstrates Wisdom of Putting Families First,'' concluded
that the Rhode Island Family Independence Program is working. Among
other findings, the report found that parents who participated in
education and training had significantly higher levels of both
employment and earnings as compared to the period before welfare reform
was begun in Rhode Island.
If H.R. 4737 becomes law, the progress Rhode Island has made in
helping parents gain sustainable jobs and overcome significant barriers
to employment will come to a halt. Rhode Island would need to radically
change its program or risk significant fiscal penalty for failing to
meet the new participation rates. In addition, since Federal TANF and
childcare funds would not be increased, Rhode Island would need to find
additional State funds to meet the new requirements. These funds simply
do not exist.
If this bill is enacted, the Rhode Island Department of Human
Services estimates it would cost an additional $5.6 million in
childcare costs--31.2 percent of the current expenditures for
childcare--about $3 million more for employment-related and other
services designed to offer participation opportunities and get parents
into work, and about $1.1 million for additional social work and case
management staff. In addition, if Rhode Island does not follow the new
participation rates, it will lose $4.5 million per year in TANF funds.
The bill also does not include guaranteed minimum wage protections even
though 39 States could not fulfill the bill's work requirement without
violating the current minimum wage rate for a two-person family.
Further, the bill's requirement that parents spend at least 24 of
their 40 hours in ``direct work activities'' to count toward the
participation rate, would turn Rhode Island FIP on its head. It would
no longer be able to allow parents to engage in education or training
prior to going to work, even though this is the best way to prepare a
parent for sustainable employment.
Currently, there are 1,000 parents participating in vocational
education programs that would no longer count toward the participation
requirement.
Finally, the superwaiver policy in this bill is unnecessary and
irresponsible. Allowing the Executive branch to override decisions made
by Congress to target funds to specific populations or for specific
programs undermines the safety net of services the States have worked
so hard to build. Flexibility in Federal funding is precisely what was
needed in 1996 to change the system and empower individuals to move
from welfare dependence to self-sufficiency. That flexibility spurred
the success we see today in States like Rhode Island. Maintaining the
ability to waive certain program rules to improve service delivery and
coordination makes sense. Giving authority to one branch of government
to completely redesign and redirect resources does not.
The Republican so-called welfare reform bill is a sham. It ignores
the accomplishments States have already made in moving people from
welfare to work. It limits State flexibility and imposes work
requirements most States have rejected, while making it much harder for
welfare recipients to become economically independent by eliminating
education from the list of activities that count as a work-related
activity. Education opens the door to higher earnings and a better
quality of life. It is critical to effectively move people from welfare
to meaningful, long-term employment.
Mr. Speaker, I must encourage my colleagues to oppose this
legislation. It does nothing to strengthen our welfare system and
imposes costly burdens on our States at a time when they cannot afford
it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). All time for debate on the
bill has expired.

Amendment In the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Cardin

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in
the nature of a substitute.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:

Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.
Cardin:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Next Step in Reforming
Welfare Act''.

SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

The table of contents of this Act is as follows:

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

TITLE I--CONTINUATION OF CERTAIN GRANTS

Sec. 101. Family assistance grants.
Sec. 102. Bonus to reward high performance States.
Sec. 103. Extension of supplemental grants.
Sec. 104. Additional grants for States with low Federal funding per
poor child.
Sec. 105. Contingency Fund.
Sec. 106. Eligibility of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands,
and Guam for the supplemental grant for population
increases, the Contingency Fund, and mandatory child care
funding.
Sec. 107. Direct funding and administration by Indian tribes.

TITLE II--POVERTY REDUCTION

Sec. 201. Additional purpose of TANF program.
Sec. 202. Child poverty reduction grants.
Sec. 203. Review and conciliation process.
Sec. 204. Replacement of caseload reduction credit with employment
credit.
Sec. 205. States to receive partial credit toward work participation
rate for recipients engaged in part-time work.
Sec. 206. TANF recipients who qualify for supplemental security income
benefits removed from work participation rate calculation
for entire year.
Sec. 207. State option to include recipients of substantial child care
or transportation assistance in work participation rate.
Sec. 208. Effective date.

TITLE III--REQUIRING AND REWARDING WORK

Sec. 301. Effect of wage subsidies on 5-year limit.
Sec. 302. Child care.
Sec. 303. Competitive grants to improve access to various benefit
programs.
Sec. 304. Assessments for TANF recipients.
Sec. 305. Applicability of workplace laws.
Sec. 306. Work participation requirements.
Sec. 307. Hours of work-related activities.
Sec. 308. State option to require receipients to engage in work for 40
hours per week.
Sec. 309. Revision and simplification of the transitional medical
assistance program (tma).
Sec. 310. Ensuring TANF funds are not used to displace public
employees.

TITLE IV--HELPING WELFARE LEAVERS CLIMB THE EMPLOYMENT LADDER

Sec. 401. State plan requirement on employment advancement.
Sec. 402. Employment Advancement Fund.
Sec. 403. Elimination of limit on number of TANF recipients enrolled in
vocational education or high school who may be counted
towards the work participation requirement.
Sec. 404. Counting of up to 2 years of vocational or educational
training (including postsecondary education), work-study,
and related internships as work activities.
Sec. 405. Limited counting of certain activities leading to employment
as work activity.
Sec. 406. Clarification of authority of States to use TANF funds
carried over from prior years to provide TANF benefits
and services.
Sec. 407. Definition of assistance.

[[Page H2568]]

TITLE V--PROMOTING FAMILY FORMATION AND RESPONSIBLE PARENTING

Sec. 501. Family Formation Fund.
Sec. 502. Distribution of child support collected by States on behalf
of children receiving certain welfare benefits.
Sec. 503. Elimination of separate work participation rate for 2-parent
families.
Sec. 504. Ban on imposition of stricter eligibility criteria for 2-
parent families; State opt-out.
Sec. 505. Extension of abstinence education funding under maternal and
child health program.

TITLE VI--RESTORING FAIRNESS FOR IMMIGRANT FAMILIES

Sec. 601. Treatment of aliens under the TANF program.
Sec. 602. Optional coverage of legal immigrants under the medicaid
program and SCHIP.
Sec. 603. Eligibility of disabled children who are qualified aliens for
SSI.

TITLE VII--ENSURING STATE ACCOUNTABILITY

Sec. 701. Inflation adjustment of maintenance-of-effort requirement.
Sec. 702. Ban on using Federal TANF funds to replace State and local
spending that does not meet the definition of qualified
State expenditures.

TITLE VIII--IMPROVING INFORMATION ABOUT TANF RECIPIENTS AND PROGRAMS

Sec. 801. Extension of funding of studies and demonstrations.
Sec. 802. Longitudinal studies of employment and earnings of TANF
leavers.
Sec. 803. Inclusion of disability status in information States report
about TANF families.
Sec. 804. Annual report to the Congress to include greater detail about
State programs funded under TANF.
Sec. 805. Enhancement of understanding of the reasons individuals leave
State TANF programs.
Sec. 806. Standardized State plans.
Sec. 807. Study by the Census Bureau.
Sec. 808. Access to welfare; welfare outcomes.

TITLE IX--EFFECTIVE DATE

Sec. 901. Effective date.

SEC. 3. AMENDMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY ACT.

TITLE I--CONTINUATION OF CERTAIN GRANTS

SEC. 101. FAMILY ASSISTANCE GRANTS.

(a) In General.--Section 403(a)(1)(A) (42 U.S.C.
603(a)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``1996'' and all that
follows through ``2002'' and inserting ``2003 through 2007''.
(b) Inflation Adjustment.--Section 403(a)(1) (42 U.S.C.
603(a)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (B)--
(A) by striking ``means the greatest of--'' and inserting
``means, with respect to a fiscal year specified in
subparagraph (A) of this paragraph--
``(i) the greatest of--'';
(B) by redesignating each of clauses (i), (ii)(I),
(ii)(II), and (iii) as subclauses (I), (II)(aa), (II)(bb),
and (III), respectively;
(C) by indenting each of the provisions specified in
subparagraph (B) of this paragraph 2 additional ems to the
right;
(D) by striking the period and inserting ``; multiplied
by''; and
(E) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) 1.00, plus the inflation percentage (as defined in
subparagraph (F) of this paragraph) in effect for the fiscal
year specified in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(F) Inflation percentage.--For purposes of subparagraph
(B) of this paragraph, the inflation percentage applicable to
a fiscal year is the percentage (if any) by which--
``(i) the average of the Consumer Price Index (as defined
in section 1(f)(5) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) for
the 12-month period ending on September 30 of the immediately
preceding fiscal year; exceeds
``(ii) the average of the Consumer Price Index (as so
defined) for the 12-month period ending on September 30,
2001.''.

SEC. 102. BONUS TO REWARD HIGH PERFORMANCE STATES.

Section 403(a)(4) (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(4)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``$1,000,000,000'' and
inserting ``$1,800,000,000'';
(2) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``and 2003'' and
inserting ``2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007''; and
(3) in subparagraph (F), by striking ``2003
$1,000,000,000'' and inserting ``2002 $800,000,000, and for
fiscal years 2003 through 2007 $1,000,000,000,''.

SEC. 103. EXTENSION OF SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS.

Section 403(a)(3) (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(3)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (i);
(B) by striking the period at the end of clause (ii) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2007, a grant
in an amount equal to the amount required to be paid to the
State under this paragraph in fiscal year 2001.'';
(2) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``1998'' and all that
follows and inserting ``2003 through 2007 $1,597,250,000 for
grants under this paragraph.''; and
(3) by striking subparagraph (G).

SEC. 104. ADDITIONAL GRANTS FOR STATES WITH LOW FEDERAL
FUNDING PER POOR CHILD.

Section 403(a) (42 U.S.C. 603(a)) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(6) Additional grants for states with low federal funding
per poor child.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall make a grant
pursuant to this paragraph to a State--
``(i) for fiscal year 2003, if the State is an inadequately
poverty-funded State for fiscal year 2002; and
``(ii) for any of fiscal years 2004 through 2007, if the
State is an inadequately poverty-funded State for any prior
fiscal year after fiscal year 2002.
``(B) Inadequately poverty-funded state.--For purposes of
this paragraph, a State is an inadequately poverty-funded
State for a particular fiscal year if--
``(i) the total amount of the grants made to the State
under paragraph (1), paragraph (3), and this paragraph for
the particular fiscal year, divided by the number of children
in poverty in the State with respect to the particular fiscal
year is less than 75 percent of the total amount of grants
made to all eligible States under paragraph (1), paragraph
(3), and this paragraph for the particular fiscal year,
divided by the total number of children living in poverty in
all eligible States with respect to the particular fiscal
year; and
``(ii) the total of the amounts paid to the State under
this subsection for all prior fiscal years that have not been
expended by the State by the end of the preceding fiscal year
is less than 50 percent of State family assistance grant for
the particular fiscal year.
``(C) Amount of grant.--The amount of the grant to be made
under this paragraph to a State for a particular fiscal year
shall be--
``(i) if the particular fiscal year is fiscal year 2003, an
amount equal to--

``(I) the number of children in poverty in the State for
the then preceding fiscal year, divided by the total number
of children in poverty in all States that are inadequately
poverty-funded States for the then preceding fiscal year;
multiplied by
``(II) the amount appropriated pursuant to subparagraph (G)
for the particular fiscal year; or

``(ii) if the particular fiscal year is any of fiscal years
2004 through 2007, an amount equal to--

``(I) the amount required to be paid to the State under
this paragraph for the then preceding fiscal year; plus
``(II) if the State is an inadequately poverty-funded State
for the then preceding fiscal year--

``(aa) the number of children in poverty in the State for
the then preceding fiscal year, divided by the total number
of children in poverty in all States that are inadequately
poverty-funded States for the then preceding fiscal year;
multiplied by
``(bb) the amount appropriated pursuant to subparagraph (G)
for the particular fiscal year.
``(D) Use of grant.--A State to which a grant is made under
this paragraph shall use the grant for any purpose for which
a grant made under this part may be used.
``(E) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
``(i) Children in poverty.--The term `children in poverty'
means, with respect to a State and a fiscal year, the number
of children residing in the State who had not attained 18
years of age and whose family income was less than the
poverty line then applicable to the family, as of the end of
the fiscal year.
``(ii) Poverty line.--The term `poverty line' has the
meaning given the term in section 673(2) of the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, including any revision
required by such section.
``(F) Family income determinations.--For purposes of this
paragraph, family income includes cash income, except cash
benefits from means-tested public programs and child support
payments.
``(G) Appropriations.--
``(i) In general.--Out of any money in the Treasury of the
United States not otherwise appropriated, there are
appropriated for grants under this paragraph--

``(I) $65,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
``(II) $130,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
``(III) $195,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
``(IV) $260,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and
``(V) $325,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.

``(ii) Availability.--Amounts made available under clause
(i) shall remain available until expended.''.

SEC. 105. CONTINGENCY FUND.

(a) In General.--Section 403(b) (42 U.S.C. 603(b)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``1997'' and all that
follows and inserting ``2003 through 2007 such sums as are
necessary for payments under this subsection''; and
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking subparagraph (C) and
inserting the following:
``(C) Limitation on monthly payment to a state.--The total
amount paid to a single State under subparagraph (A) during a
fiscal year shall not exceed 20 percent of the State family
assistance grant.''.
(b) Application of Regular Maintenance of Effort
Requirement.--Section 409(a)(10)

[[Page H2569]]

(42 U.S.C. 609(a)(10)) is amended by striking ``100 percent
of historic State expenditures (as defined in paragraph
(7)(B)(iii) of this subsection)'' and inserting ``the
applicable percentage (as defined in paragraph (7)(B)(ii) of
this subsection) of inflation-adjusted historic State
expenditures (as defined in paragraph (7)(B)(vi) of this
subsection)''.
(c) Modification of Unemployment Test To Become Needy
State.--Section 403(b)(5)(A) (42 U.S.C. 603(b)(5)(A)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(A) the average rate of total unemployment in the State
(seasonally adjusted) for the period consisting of the most
recent 3 months for which data are available has increased by
the lesser of 1.5 percentage points or by 50 percent over the
corresponding 3-month period in the preceding fiscal year;
or''.
(d) Modification of Food Stamp Test To Become Needy
State.--Section 403(b)(5)(B) (42 U.S.C. 603(b)(5)(B)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(B) as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture, the
monthly average number of households (as of the last day of
each month) that participated in the food stamp program in
the State in the then most recently concluded 3-month period
for which data are available exceeds by at least 10 percent
the monthly average number of households (as of the last day
of each month) in the State that participated in the food
stamp program in the corresponding 3-month period in the
preceding fiscal year.''.
(e) Simplification of Reconciliation Formula.--Section
403(b)(6) (42 U.S.C. 603(b)(6)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(6) Annual reconciliation.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraph (3), if the
Secretary makes a payment to a State under this subsection in
a fiscal year, then the State shall remit to the Secretary,
within 1 year after the end of the first subsequent period of
3 consecutive months for which the State is not a needy
State, an amount equal to the amount (if any) by which--
``(i) the maintenance of effort level (as defined in
subparagraph (B)(i) of this paragraph) for the fiscal year,
plus the State contribution (as defined in subparagraph
(B)(ii) of this paragraph) in the fiscal year; exceeds
``(ii) the qualified State expenditures (as defined in
section 409(a)(7)(B)(i)) in the fiscal year.
``(B) Definitions.--In subparagraph (A):
``(i) Maintenance of effort level.--The term ``maintenance
of effort level'' means, with respect to a State and a fiscal
year, an amount equal to the applicable percentage of
historic State expenditures (as defined in section
409(a)(7)(B)) for the fiscal year.
``(ii) State contribution.--The term `State contribution'
means, with respect to a fiscal year--

``(I) the total amount paid to the State under this
subsection in the fiscal year; multiplied by
``(II) 1 minus the greater of 75 percent or the Federal
medical assistance percentage for the State (as defined in
section 1905(b)), divided by the greater of 75 percent or the
Federal medical assistance percentage for the State (as
defined in section 1905(b)).''.

(f) Increase in Number of Months for Which State May
Qualify for Payments.--Section 403(b)(4) (42 U.S.C.
603(b)(4)) is amended by striking ``2-month'' and inserting
``3-month''.

SEC. 106. ELIGIBILITY OF PUERTO RICO, THE UNITED STATES
VIRGIN ISLANDS, AND GUAM FOR THE SUPPLEMENTAL
GRANT FOR POPULATION INCREASES, THE CONTINGENCY
FUND, AND MANDATORY CHILD CARE FUNDING.

(a) Supplemental grant for population increases.--
(1) In general.--Section 403(a)(3)(D)(iii) (42 U.S.C.
603(a)(3)(D)(iii)) is amended by striking ``and the District
of Columbia.'' and inserting ``, the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, and Guam. For
fiscal years beginning after the effective date of this
sentence, this paragraph shall be applied and administered as
if the term `State' included the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
the United States Virgin Islands, and Guam for fiscal year
1998 and thereafter.''.
(2) Grant payment disregarded for purposes of section 1108
limitation.--Section 1108(a)(2) (42 U.S.C. 1308(a)(2)) is
amended by inserting ``, or any payment made to the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin
Islands, or Guam under section 403(a)(3)'' before the period.
(b) Contingency Fund.--
(1) In general.--Section 403(b)(7) (42 U.S.C. 603(b)(7)) is
amended by striking ``and the District of Columbia'' and
inserting ``, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, and Guam.''.
(2) Grant payment disregarded for purposes of section 1108
limitation.--Section 1108(a)(2) (42 U.S.C. 1308(a)(2)), as
amended by subsection (a)(2) of this section, is amended by
inserting ``or 403(b)'' after ``403(a)(3)'' before the
period.
(c) Child Care Entitlement Funds.--
(1) In general.--Section 418(d) (42 U.S.C. 618(d)) is
amended by striking ``and the District of Columbia'' and
inserting ``, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, and Guam''.
(2) Amount of payment.--
(A) General entitlement.--Section 418(a)(1) (42 U.S.C.
618(a)(1)) is amended by striking ``the greater of--'' and
all that follows and inserting the following:
``(A) in the case of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the
United States Virgin Islands, and Guam, 60 percent of the
amount required to be paid to the State for fiscal year 2001
under the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990;
or
``(B) in the case of any other State, the greater of--
``(i) the total amount required to be paid to the State
under section 403 for fiscal year 1994 or 1995 (whichever is
greater) with respect to expenditures for child care under
subsections (g) and (i) of section 402 (as in effect before
October 1, 1995); or
``(ii) the average of the total amounts required to be paid
to the State for fiscal years 1992 through 1994 under the
subsections referred to in clause (i).'';
(B) Allotment of remainder.--Section 418(a)(2)(B) (42
U.S.C. 618(a)(2)(B)) is amended to read as follows:
``(B) Allotments to states.--Of the total amount available
for payments to States under this paragraph, as determined
under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph--
``(i) an amount equal to 65 percent of the amount required
to be paid to each of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the
United States Virgin Islands, and Guam for fiscal year 2001
under the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990,
shall be allotted to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the
United States Virgin Islands, and Guam, respectively; and
``(ii) the remainder shall be allotted among the other
States based on the formula used for determining the amount
of Federal payments to each State under section 403(n) of
this Act (as in effect before October 1, 1995).''.
(3) Grant payment disregarded for purposes of section 1108
limitation.--Section 1108(a)(2) (42 U.S.C. 1308(a)(2)), as
amended by subsections (a)(2) and (b)(2) of this section, is
amended by striking ``or 403(b)'' and inserting ``, 403(b),
or 418''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 2002, and shall apply to
expenditures for fiscal years beginning with fiscal year
2003.

SEC. 107. DIRECT FUNDING AND ADMINISTRATION BY INDIAN TRIBES.

(a) Tribal Family Assistance Grant.--Section 412(a)(1) (42
U.S.C. 612(a)(1)) is amended by striking ``1997, 1998, 1999,
2000, and 2001'' and inserting ``2003 through 2007''.
(b) Grants for Indian Tribes That Received JOBS Funds.--
Section 412(a)(2) (42 U.S.C. 612(a)(2)) is amended by
striking ``1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001'' and inserting
``2003 through 2007''.

TITLE II--POVERTY REDUCTION

SEC. 201. ADDITIONAL PURPOSE OF TANF PROGRAM.

Section 401(a) (42 U.S.C. 601(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (3);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (4) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) reduce the extent and severity of poverty and promote
self-sufficiency among families with children.''.

SEC. 202. CHILD POVERTY REDUCTION GRANTS.

Section 403(a) (42 U.S.C. 603(a)) is further amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(7) Bonus to reward states that reduce child poverty.--
``(A) In general.--Beginning with fiscal year 2003, the
Secretary shall make a grant pursuant to this paragraph to
each State for each fiscal year for which the State is a
qualified child poverty reduction State.
``(B) Amount of grant.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to this subparagraph, the amount
of the grant to be made to a qualified child poverty
reduction State for a fiscal year shall be an amount equal
to--

``(I) the number of children who had not attained 18 years
of age by the end of the then most recently completed
calendar year and who resided in the State as of the end of
such calendar year, divided by the number of such children
who resided in the United States as of the end of such
calendar year; multiplied by
``(II) the amount appropriated pursuant to subparagraph (F)
for the fiscal year.

``(ii) Limitations.--

``(I) Minimum grant.--The amount of the grant to be made to
a qualified child poverty reduction State for a fiscal year
shall be not less than $1,000,000.
``(II) Maximum grant.--The amount of the grant to be made
to a qualified child poverty reduction State for a fiscal
year shall not exceed an amount equal to 5 percent of the
State family assistance grant for the fiscal year.

``(iii) Pro rata increase.--If the amount available for
grants under this paragraph for a fiscal year is greater than
the total amount of payments otherwise required to be made
under this paragraph for the fiscal year, then the amount
otherwise payable to any State for the fiscal year under this
paragraph shall, subject to clause (ii)(II), be increased by
such equal percentage as may be necessary to ensure that the
total of the amounts payable for the fiscal year under this
paragraph equals the amount available for the grants.

[[Page H2570]]

``(iv) Pro rata reduction.--If the amount available for
grants under this paragraph for a fiscal year is less than
the total amount of payments otherwise required to be made
under this paragraph for the fiscal year, then the amount
otherwise payable to any State for the fiscal year under this
paragraph shall, subject to clause (ii)(I), be reduced by
such equal percentage as may be necessary to ensure that the
total of the amounts payable for the fiscal year under this
paragraph equals the amount available for the grants.
``(C) Use of grant.--A State to which a grant is made under
this paragraph shall use the grant for any purpose for which
a grant made under this part may be used.
``(D) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
``(i) Qualified child poverty reduction state.--The term
`qualified child poverty reduction State' means, with respect
to a fiscal year, a State if--

``(I) the child poverty rate achieved by the State for the
then most recently completed calendar year for which such
information is available is less than the lowest child
poverty rate achieved by the State during the applicable
period; and
``(II) the average depth of child poverty in the State for
the then most recently completed calendar year for which such
information is available is not greater than the average
depth of child poverty in the State for the calendar year
that precedes such then most recently completed calendar
year.

``(ii) Applicable period.--In clause (i), the term
`applicable period' means, with respect to a State and the
calendar year referred to in clause (i)(I), the period that--

``(I) begins with the calendar year that, as of October 1,
2002, precedes the then most recently completed calendar year
for which such information is available; and
``(II) ends with the calendar year that precedes the
calendar year referred to clause (i)(I).

``(iii) Child poverty rate.--The term `child poverty rate'
means, with respect to a State and a calendar year, the
percentage of children residing in the State during the
calendar year whose family income for the calendar year is
less than the poverty line then applicable to the family.
``(iv) Average depth of child poverty.--The term `average
depth of child poverty' means with respect to a State and a
calendar year, the average dollar amount by which family
income is exceeded by the poverty line, among children in the
State whose family income for the calendar year is less than
the applicable poverty line.
``(v) Poverty line.--The term `poverty line' has the
meaning given the term in section 673(2) of the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, including any revision
required by such section applicable to a family of the size
involved.
``(E) Family income determinations.--For purposes of this
paragraph, family income includes cash income, child support
payments, government cash payments, and benefits under the
Food Stamp Act of 1977 that are received by any family
member, and family income shall be determined after payment
of all taxes and receipt of any tax refund or rebate by any
family member.
``(F) Appropriations.--
``(i) In general.--Out of any money in the Treasury of the
United States not otherwise appropriated, there are
appropriated for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2007
$150,000,000 for grants under this paragraph.
``(ii) Availability.--Amounts made available under clause
(i) shall remain available until expended.''.

SEC. 203. REVIEW AND CONCILIATION PROCESS.

(a) Requirement.--Section 408(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(12) Review and conciliation process requirements.--A
State to which a grant is made under section 403 shall not
impose a sanction against a person under the State program
funded under this part, unless the State--
``(A) has attempted at least twice (using at least 2
different methods) to notify the person of the impending
imposition of the sanction, the reason for the proposed
sanction, the amount of the sanction, the length of time
during which the proposed sanction would be in effect, and
the steps required to come into compliance or to show good
cause for noncompliance;
``(B) has afforded the person an opportunity--
``(i) to meet with the caseworker involved or another
individual who has authority to determine whether to impose
the sanction; and
``(ii) to explain why the person did not comply with the
requirement on the basis of which the sanction is to be
imposed;
``(C) has considered and taken any such explanation into
account in determining to impose the sanction;
``(D) has specifically considered whether certain
conditions exist, such as a physical or mental impairment,
domestic violence, or limited proficiency in English, that
contributed to the noncompliance of the person; and
``(E) in determining whether to impose the sanction, has
used screening tools developed in consultation with
individuals or groups with expertise in matters described in
subparagraph (D).''.
(b) Penalty.--Section 409(a) (42 U.S.C. 609(a)) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(15) Penalty for failure of state to use review and
conciliation process.--
``(A) In general.--If the Secretary determines that a State
to which a grant is made under section 403 for a fiscal year
has violated section 408(a)(12) during the fiscal year, the
Secretary shall reduce the grant payable to the State under
section 403(a)(1) for the immediately succeeding fiscal year
by an amount equal to 5 percent of the State family
assistance grant.
``(B) Penalty based on severity of failure.--The Secretary
shall impose reductions under subparagraph (A) with respect
to a fiscal year based on the degree of noncompliance.''.

SEC. 204. REPLACEMENT OF CASELOAD REDUCTION CREDIT WITH
EMPLOYMENT CREDIT.

(a) Employment Credit To Reward States in Which Families
Leave Welfare for Work; Additional Credit for Families With
Higher Earnings.--
(1) In general.--Section 407(a) (42 U.S.C. 607(a)), as
amended by section 503 of this Act, is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(2) Employment credit.--
``(A) In general.--The minimum participation rate otherwise
applicable to a State under this subsection for a fiscal year
shall be reduced by the number of percentage points in the
employment credit for the State for the fiscal year, as
determined by the Secretary--
``(i) using information in the National Directory of New
Hires, or
``(ii) with respect to a recipient of assistance under the
State program funded under this part who is placed with an
employer whose hiring information is not reported to the
National Directory of New Hires, using quarterly wage
information submitted by the State to the Secretary not later
than such date as the Secretary shall prescribe in
regulations.
``(B) Calculation of credit.--
``(i) In general.--The employment credit for a State for a
fiscal year is an amount equal to--

``(I) twice the average quarterly number of families that
ceased to receive cash payments under the State program
funded under this part during the most recent 4 quarters for
which data is available and that were employed during the
calendar quarter immediately succeeding the quarter in which
the payments ceased, plus, at State option, the number of
families that received a non-recurring short-term benefit
under the State program funded under this part during the
preceding fiscal year and that were employed in during the
calendar quarter immediately succeeding the quarter in which
the non-recurring short-term benefit was so received; divided
by
``(II) the average monthly number of families that include
an adult who received cash payments under the State program
funded under this part during the preceding fiscal year,
plus, if the State elected the option under subclause (I),
the number of families that received a non-recurring short-
term benefit under the State program funded under this part
during the preceding fiscal year.

``(ii) Special rule for former recipients with higher
earnings.--In calculating the employment credit for a State
for a fiscal year, a family that, during the preceding fiscal
year, earned at least 33 percent of the average wage in the
State (determined on the basis of State unemployment data)
shall be considered to be 1.5 families.
``(C) Publication of amount of credit.--Not later than
August 30 of each fiscal year, the Secretary shall cause to
be published in the Federal Register the amount of the
employment credit that will be used in determining the
minimum participation rate applicable to a State under this
subsection for the immediately succeeding fiscal year.''.
(2) Authority of secretary to use information in national
directory of new hires.--Section 453(i) (42 U.S.C. 653(i)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(5) Calculation of employment credit for purposes of
determining state work participation rates under tanf.--The
Secretary may use the information in the National Directory
of New Hires for purposes of calculating State employment
credits pursuant to section 407(a)(2).''.
(b) Elimination of Caseload Reduction Credit.--Section
407(b) (42 U.S.C. 607(b)) is amended by striking paragraph
(3) and redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs
(3) and (4), respectively.

SEC. 205. STATES TO RECEIVE PARTIAL CREDIT TOWARD WORK
PARTICIPATION RATE FOR RECIPIENTS ENGAGED IN
PART-TIME WORK.

Section 407(c)(1)(A) (42 U.S.C. 607(c)(1)(A)), as amended
by section 307 of this Act, is amended by adding at the end
the following flush sentence:

``For purposes of subsection (b)(1)(B)(i), a family that does
not include a recipient who is participating in work
activities for an average of 30 hours per week during a month
but includes a recipient who is participating in such
activities during the month for an average of at least 50
percent of the minimum average number of hours per week
specified for the month in the table set forth in this
subparagraph shall be counted as a percentage of a family
that includes an adult or minor child head of household who
is engaged in work for the month, which percentage shall be
the number of hours for which the recipient participated in
such activities during the month divided by the number of
hours of such participation required of the recipient under
this section for the month.''.

[[Page H2571]]

SEC. 206. TANF RECIPIENTS WHO QUALIFY FOR SUPPLEMENTAL
SECURITY INCOME BENEFITS REMOVED FROM WORK
PARTICIPATION RATE CALCULATION FOR ENTIRE YEAR.

Section 407(b)(1)(B)(ii) (42 U.S.C. 607(b)(1)(B)(ii)) is
amended--
(1) in subclause (I), by inserting ``who has not become
eligible for supplemental security income benefits under
title XVI during the fiscal year'' before the semicolon; and
(2) in subclause (II), by inserting ``, and that do not
include an adult or minor child head of household who has
become eligible for supplemental security income benefits
under title XVI during the fiscal year'' before the period.

SEC. 207. STATE OPTION TO INCLUDE RECIPIENTS OF SUBSTANTIAL
CHILD CARE OR TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE IN WORK
PARTICIPATION RATE.

(a) In General.--Section 407(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 607(a)), as
amended by sections 503 and 306 of this Act, is amended by
inserting ``(including, at the option of the State, a family
that includes an adult who is receiving substantial child
care or transportation benefits, as defined by the Secretary,
in consultation with directors of State programs funded under
this part, which definition shall specify for each type of
benefits a threshold which is a dollar value or a length of
time over which the benefits are received, and take account
of large one-time transition payments, except any family
taken into account under paragraph (2)(B)(i)(I))'' before the
colon.
(b) State Option.--Section 407(b)(1)(B)(i) (42 U.S.C.
607(b)(1)(B)(i)) is amended--
(1) in clause (i), by inserting ``plus, at the option of
the State, the number of families that include an adult who
is receiving substantial child care or transportation
benefits, as determined under section 407(a)(1)'' before the
semicolon.
(2) in subclause (ii)(I), by inserting ``including, if the
State has elected to include families with an adult who is
receiving substantial child care or transportation benefits
under clause (i), the number of such families'' before the
semicolon.
(c) Data Collection and Reporting.--Section 411(a)(1)(A) of
such Act (42 U.S.C. 611(a)(1)(A)) is amended in the matter
preceding clause (i) by inserting ``(including any family
with respect to whom the State has exercised its option under
section 407(a)(1))'' after ``assistance''.

SEC. 208. EFFECTIVE DATE.

(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the
amendments made by sections 204 through 207 shall take effect
on October 1, 2003.
(b) State Option To Phase-in Replacement of Caseload
Reduction Credit With Employment Credit and Delay
Applicability of Other Provisions.--A State may elect to have
the amendments made by sections 204(b) and 205 through 207 of
this Act not apply to the State program funded under part A
of title IV of the Social Security Act until October 1, 2004,
and if the State makes the election, then, in determining the
participation rate of the State for purposes of sections 407
and 409(a)(3) of the Social Security Act for fiscal year
2004, the State shall be credited with \1/2\ of the reduction
in the rate that would otherwise result from applying section
407(a)(2) of the Social Security Act (as added by section
204(a)(1) of this Act) to the State for fiscal year 2004 and
\1/2\ of the reduction in the rate that would otherwise
result from applying such section 407(b)(2) to the State for
fiscal year 2004.

TITLE III--REQUIRING AND REWARDING WORK

SEC. 301. EFFECT OF WAGE SUBSIDIES ON 5-YEAR LIMIT.

Section 408(a)(7) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)(7)) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(H) Limitation on meaning of `assistance' for families
with income from employment.--For purposes of this paragraph,
at the option of the State, a benefit or service provided to
a family during a month under the State program funded under
this part shall not be considered assistance under the
program if--
``(i) during the month, the family includes an adult or a
minor child head of household who has received at least such
amount of income from employment as the State may establish;
and
``(ii) the average weekly earned income of the family for
the month is at least $100.''.

SEC. 302. CHILD CARE.

(a) Increase in Entitlement Funding.--Section 418(a)(3) (42
U.S.C. 618(a)(3)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (E);
(2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (F)
and inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(G) $3,967,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
``(H) $4,467,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
``(I) $4,967,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
``(J) $5,467,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and
``(K) $5,967,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.''.
(b) Amendments to the Child Care and Development Block
Grant Act of 1990.--
(1) Authorization of appropriations.--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; AMOUNTS
AVAILABLE FOR INCENTIVE GRANTS TO IMPROVE
QUALITY OF CHILD CARE SERVICES.

``(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subchapter
$2,350,000,000 for fiscal year 2003 and such sums as may be
necessary for fiscal years 2004 through 2007.
``(b) Amounts Available for Incentive Grants To Improve
Quality of Child Care Services.--Of the amount made available
to carry out this subchapter, $500,000,000 shall be used for
each of the fiscal years 2003 through 2007 to make grants
under section 658H.''.
(2) State plan requirements.--Section 658E(c)(2) of the
Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
9858c(c)(2)) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) in clause (ii) by striking ``and'' at the end;
(ii) in clause (iii) by adding ``and'' at the end; and
(iii) by inserting after clause (iii) the following:
``(iv) in order to help ensure that parents have the
freedom to choose quality center-based child care services,
the State shall make significant effort to develop contracts
with accredited child care providers in low-income and rural
communities;'';
(B) by amending subparagraph (D) to read as follows:
``(D) Consumer education information.--Certify that the
State will collect and disseminate to parents of eligible
children and the general public, consumer education
information that will promote informed child care choices,
and describe how the State will inform parents receiving
assistance under a State program funded under part A of title
IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and
other low-income parents about eligibility for assistance
under this subchapter.'';
(C) by amending subparagraph (H) to read as follows:
``(H) Meeting the needs of certain populations.--
Demonstrate the manner in which the State will meet the
specific child care needs of families who are receiving
assistance under a State program under part A of title IV of
the Social Security Act, families who are attempting through
work activities to transition off of such assistance program,
families with children with disabilities and other special
needs, low-income families not receiving cash assistance
under a State program under part A of title IV of the Social
Security Act, and families that are at risk of becoming
dependent on such assistance.''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(I) Availability of staff.--Describe how the State will
ensure that staff from the lead agency described in section
658D will be available, at the offices of the State program
funded under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act,
to provide information about eligibility for assistance under
this subchapter and to assist individuals in applying for
such assistance.
``(J) Eligibility redetermination.--Demonstrate that each
child that receives assistance under this subchapter in the
State will receive such assistance for not less than 1 year
before the State redetermines the eligibility of the child
under this subchapter.
``(K) Supplement not supplant.--Provide assurances that the
amounts paid to a State under this subchapter shall be used
to supplement and not supplant other State or local funds
expended or otherwise available to support payments for child
care assistance and to increase the quality of available
child care for eligible families under this subchapter.''.
(3) Payment rates.--Section 658E(c)(4)(A) of the Child Care
and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
9858c(c)(4)(A)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``such access'' and inserting ``equal
access to comparable quality and types of services''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(i) Market rate surveys (that reflect variations in the
cost of child care services by locality) shall be conducted
by the State not less often than at 2-year intervals, and the
results of such surveys shall be used to implement payment
rates that ensure equal access to comparable services as
required by this subparagraph.
``(ii) Payment rates shall be adjusted at intervals between
such surveys to reflect increases in the cost of living, in
such manner as the Secretary may specify.
``(iii) Payment rates shall reflect variations in the cost
of providing child care services for children of different
ages and providing different types of care.''.
(4) Child care accountability improvements.--Section 658G
of the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42
U.S.C. 9858e) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 658G. CHILD CARE ACCOUNTABILITY IMPROVEMENTS.

``(a) Activities To Improve the Quality of Child Care.--A
State that receives funds to carry out this subchapter shall
reserve and use not less than 12 percent of the funds for
improvements in the quality of child care services provided
in the State and in political subdivisions of the State.
``(1) Not less than 35 percent of the funds reserved under
this subsection shall be used for activities that are
designed to increase the quality and supply of child care
services for children from birth through 3 years of age.
``(2) Funds reserved under this subsection shall be used
for 1 or more activities consisting of--
``(A) providing for the development, establishment,
expansion, operation, and coordination of, child care
resource and referral services;
``(B) making grants or providing loans to eligible child
care providers to assist the

[[Page H2572]]

providers in meeting applicable State and local child care
standards and recognized accreditation standards;
``(C) improving the ability of State or local government,
as applicable, to monitor compliance with, and to enforce,
State and local licensing and regulatory requirements
(including registration requirements) applicable to child
care providers;
``(D) providing training and technical assistance in areas
relating to the provision of child care services, such as
training relating to promotion of health and safety,
promotion of good nutrition, provision of first aid,
recognition of communicable diseases, child abuse detection
and prevention, and care of children with disabilities and
other special needs;
``(E) improving salaries and other compensation paid to
full-time and part-time staff who provide child care services
for which assistance is made available under this subchapter;
``(F) making grants or providing financial assistance to
eligible child care providers for training in child
development and early education;
``(G) making grants or providing financial assistance to
eligible child care providers to support delivery of early
education and child development activities;
``(H) making grants or providing financial assistance to
eligible child care providers to make minor renovations to
such providers' physical environments that enhance the
quality of the child care services they provide;
``(I) improving and expanding the supply of child care
services for children with disabilities and other special
needs;
``(J) increasing the supply of high quality inclusive child
care for children with and without disabilities and other
special needs;
``(K) supporting the system described in paragraph (2);
``(L) providing technical assistance to family child care
providers and center-based child care providers to enable
them to provide appropriate child care services for children
with disabilities; and
``(M) other activities that can be demonstrated to increase
the quality of child care services and parental choice.''.
``(b) Child Care Resource and Referral System.--The State
shall use a portion of the funds reserved under subsection
(a) to support a system of local child care resource and
referral organizations coordinated by a statewide, nonprofit,
community-based child care resource and referral
organization. The local child care resource and referral
system shall--
``(1) provide parents in the State with information and
support concerning child care options in their communities;
``(2) collect and analyze data on the supply of and demand
for child care in political subdivisions within the State;
``(3) develop links with the business community or other
organizations involved in providing child care services;
``(4) increase the supply and improve the quality of child
care in the State and in political subdivisions in the State;
``(5) provide (or facilitate the provision of) specialists
in health, mental health consultation, early literacy
services for children with disabilities and other special
needs, and infant and toddler care, to support or supplement
community child care providers;
``(6) provide training or facilitate connections for
training to community child care providers; or
``(7) hire disability specialists, and provide training and
technical assistance to child care providers, to effectively
meet the needs of children with disabilities.
(5) Incentive grants to states.--The Child Care and
Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858 et seq.)
is amended by inserting after section 658G the following:

``SEC. 658H. INCENTIVE GRANTS TO STATES.

``(a) Authority.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall use the amount made
available under section 658B(b) for a fiscal year to make
grants to eligible States in accordance with this section.
``(2) Annual payments.--The Secretary shall make an annual
payment for such a grant to each eligible State out of the
allotment for that State determined under subsection (c).
``(b) Eligible States.--
``(1) In general.--In this section, the term `eligible
State' means a State that--
``(A) has conducted a survey of the market rates for child
care services in the State within the 2 years preceding the
date of the submission of an application under paragraph (2);
and
``(B) submits an application in accordance with paragraph
(2).
``(2) Application.--
``(A) In general.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this section, a State shall submit an application to the
Secretary at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by
such information, in addition to the information required
under subparagraph (B), as the Secretary may require.
``(B) Information required.--Each application submitted for
a grant under this section shall--
``(i) detail the methodology and results of the State
market rates survey conducted pursuant to paragraph (1)(A);
``(ii) describe the State's plan to increase payment rates
from the initial baseline determined under clause (i);
``(iii) describe how the State will increase payment rates
in accordance with the market survey results, for all types
of child care providers who provide services for which
assistance is made available under this subchapter;
``(iv) describe how rates are set to reflect the variations
in the cost of providing care for children of different ages,
different types of care, and in different localities in the
State; and
``(v) describe how the State will prioritize increasing
payment rates for care of higher-than-average quality, such
as care by accredited providers, care that includes the
provision of comprehensive services, care provided at
nonstandard hours, care for children with disabilities and
other special needs, care in low-income and rural
communities, and care of a type that is in short supply.
``(3) Continuing eligibility requirement.--The Secretary
may make an annual payment under this section to an eligible
State only if--
``(A) the Secretary determines that the State has made
progress, through the activities assisted under this
subchapter, in maintaining increased payment rates; and
``(B) at least once every 2 years, the State conducts an
update of the survey described in paragraph (1)(A).
``(4) Requirement of matching funds.--
``(A) In general.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this section, the State shall agree to make available State
contributions from State sources toward the costs of the
activities to be carried out by a State pursuant to
subsection (d) in an amount that is not less than 20 percent
of such costs.
``(B) Determination of state contributions.--State
contributions shall be in cash. Amounts provided by the
Federal Government may not be included in determining the
amount of such State contributions.
``(c) Allotments to Eligible States.--The amount made
available under section 658B(b) for a fiscal year shall be
allotted among the eligible States in the same manner as
amounts are allotted under section 658O(b).
``(d) Use of Funds.--An eligible State that receives a
grant under this section shall use the funds received to
significantly increase the payment rate for the provision of
child care assistance in accordance with this subchapter up
to the 150th percentile of the market rate survey described
in subsection (b)(1)(A).
``(e) Evaluations and Reports.--
``(1) State evaluations.--Each eligible State shall submit
to the Secretary, at such time and in such form and manner as
the Secretary may require, information regarding the State's
efforts to increase payment rates and the impact increased
rates are having on the quality of, and accessibility to,
child care in the State.
``(2) Reports to congress.--The Secretary shall submit
biennial reports to Congress on the information described in
paragraph (1). Such reports shall include data from the
applications submitted under subsection (b)(2) as a baseline
for determining the progress of each eligible State in
maintaining increased payment rates.
``(f) Payment Rate.--In this section, the term `payment
rate' means the rate of reimbursement to providers for
subsidized child care.''.
(6) Administration, enforcement, and evaluation.--Section
658I of the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of
1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858g) is amended--
(A) in the heading by striking ``and enforcement'' and
inserting ``, enforcement, and evaluation'';
(B) in subsection (a)(3) by inserting before the period at
the end ``and including the establishment of a national
training and technical assistance center specializing in
infant and toddler care and their families''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Federal Administration and Evaluation Activities.--
The Secretary shall--
``(1) establish a national data system through grants,
contracts or cooperative agreements to develop statistics on
the supply of, demand for, and quality of child care, early
education, and non-school-hours programs, including use of
data collected through child care resource and referral
organizations at the national, State, and local levels; and
``(2) prepare and submit to Congress an annual report on
the supply of, demand for, and quality of child care, early
education, and non-school-hours programs, using data
collected through State and local child care resource and
referral organizations and other sources.''.
(7) Reports.--Section 658K(a) of the Child Care and
Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858i(a)) is
amended--
(A) in paragraph (1)(B)--
(i) in clause (ix) by striking ``and'' at the end;
(ii) in clause (x) by adding ``and'' at the end; and
(iii) by inserting after clause (x) the following:
``(xi) whether the child care provider is accredited by a
national or State accrediting body;''; and
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) by striking
``aggregate data concerning'';
(ii) in subparagraph (D) by striking ``and'' at the end;
(iii) in subparagraph (E) by adding ``and'' at the end; and
(iv) by indenting the left margin of subparagraphs (A)
through (E) 2 ems to the right and redesignating such
subparagraphs as clauses (i) through (v), respectively;

[[Page H2573]]

(v) by inserting after clause (v), as so redesignated, the
following:
``(vi) findings from market rate surveys, disaggregated by
the types of services provided and by the sub-State
localities, as appropriate;''; and
(vi) by inserting before clause (i), as so redesignated,
the following:
``(A) information on how all of the funds reserved under
section 658G were allocated and spent, and information on the
effect of those expenditures, to the maximum extent
practicable; and
``(B) aggregate date concerning--''.
(8) Definitions.--Section 658P(4)(C) of the Child Care and
Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858n(4)(C))
is amended--
(A) in clause (i) by striking ``or'' at the end;
(B) in clause (ii) by striking the period and inserting ``;
or''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) is a foster child.''.
(9) Conforming amendments.--The Child Care and Development
Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858 et seq.) is amended--
(A) in section 658E(c)(3)--
(i) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``through (5) of
section 658A(b)'' and inserting ``through (6) of section
658A(c)''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (D) by striking ``1997 through 2002''
and inserting ``2003 through 2007'';
(B) in section 658K(a)(2) by striking ``1997'' and
inserting ``2003''; and
(C) in section 658L--
(i) by striking ``July 31, 1998'' and inserting ``October
1, 2004'';
(ii) by striking ``Economic and Educational Opportunities''
and inserting ``Education and the Workforce''; and
(iii) by striking ``Labor and Human Resources'' and
inserting ``Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions''.
(c) Applicability of State or Local Health and Safety
Standards to Other TANF Child Care Spending.--Section 402(a)
(42 U.S.C. 602(a)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(8) Certification of procedures to ensure that child care
providers comply with applicable state or local health and
safety standards.--A certification by the chief executive
officer of the State that procedures are in effect to ensure
that any child care provider in the State that provides
services for which assistance is provided under the State
program funded under this part complies with all applicable
State or local health and safety requirements as described in
section 658E(c)(2)(F) of the Child Care and Development Block
Grant Act of 1990.''.
(d) Availability of Child Care for Parents Required to
Work.--Section 407(e)(2) (42 U.S.C. 607(e)(2)) is amended by
striking ``6'' and inserting ``13''.

SEC. 303. COMPETITIVE GRANTS TO IMPROVE ACCESS TO VARIOUS
BENEFIT PROGRAMS.

(a) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are to--
(1) inform low-income families with children about programs
available to families leaving welfare and other programs to
support low-income families with children;
(2) provide incentives to States and counties to improve
and coordinate application and renewal procedures for low-
income family with children support programs; and
(3) track the extent to which low-income families with
children receive the benefits and services for which they are
eligible.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Locality.--The term locality means a municipality that
does not administer a temporary assistance for needy families
program funded under part A of title IV of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) (in this section
referred to as ``TANF'').
(2) Low-income family with children support program.--The
term ``low-income family with children support program''
means a program designed to provide low-income families with
assistance or benefits to enable the family to become self-
sufficient and includes--
(A) TANF;
(B) the food stamp program established under the Food Stamp
Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) (in this section referred
to as ``food stamps'');
(C) the medicaid program funded under title XIX of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.);
(D) the State children's health insurance program (SCHIP)
funded under title XXI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1397aa et seq.);
(E) the child care program funded under the Child Care
Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858 et seq.);
(F) the child support program funded under part D of title
IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 651 et seq.);
(G) the earned income tax credit under section 32 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
(H) the low-income home energy assistance program (LIHEAP)
established under the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act
of 1981 (42 U.S.C 8621 et seq.);
(I) the special supplemental nutrition program for women,
infants, and children (WIC) established under section 17 of
the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786);
(J) programs under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29
U.S.C. 2801 et seq.); and
(K) any other Federal or State funded program designed to
provide family and work support to low-income families with
children.
(3) Nonprofit.--The term ``nonprofit'', as applied to a
school, agency, organization, or institution means a school,
agency, organization, or institution owned and operated by 1
or more nonprofit corporations or associations, no part of
the net earnings of which inures, or may lawfully inure, to
the benefit of any private shareholder or individual.
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Health and Human Services.
(5) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several
States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, and the
United States Virgin Islands.
(c) Authorization of Grants.--
(1) States and counties.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to award
grants to States and counties to pay the Federal share of the
costs involved in improving the administration of low-income
family with children support programs, including simplifying
application, recertification, reporting, and verification
rules, and promoting participation in such programs.
(B) Federal share.--The Federal share shall be 80 percent.
(2) Nonprofits and localities.--The Secretary is authorized
to award grants to nonprofits and localities to promote
participation in low-income family with children support
programs, and distribute information about and develop
service centers for low-income family with children support
programs.
(d) Grant Approval Criteria.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Secretary of Agriculture, shall establish criteria for
approval of an application for a grant under this section
that include consideration of--
(A) the extent to which the proposal, if funded, is likely
to result in improved service and higher participation rates
in low-income children's support programs;
(B) an applicant's ability to reach hard-to-serve
populations;
(C) the level of innovation in the applicant's grant
proposal; and
(D) any partnerships between the public and private sector
in the applicant's grant proposal.
(2) Separate criteria.--Separate criteria shall be
established for the grants authorized under paragraphs (1)
and (2) of subsection (c).
(e) Uses of Funds.--
(1) States and counties.--
(A) Improvements in programs.--Grants awarded to States and
counties under subsection (c)(1) shall be used to--
(i) simplify low-income family with children support
program application, recertification, reporting, and
verification rules;
(ii) create uniformity in eligibility criteria for low-
income family with children support programs;
(iii) develop options for families to apply for low-income
family with children support programs through the telephone,
mail, facsimile, Internet, or electronic mail, and submit any
recertifications or reports required for such families
through these options;
(iv) co-locate eligibility workers for various low-income
family with children support programs at strategically
located sites;
(v) develop or enhance one-stop service centers for low-
income family with children support programs, including
establishing evening and weekend hours at these centers; and
(vi) improve training of staff in low-income families with
children support programs to enhance their ability to enroll
eligible applicants in low-income family with children
support programs, provide case management, and refer eligible
applicants to other appropriate programs.
(B) Customer surveys.--
(i) In general.--A grant awarded to a State or county under
subsection (c)(1) shall be used to carry out a customer
survey.
(ii) Model surveys.--The customer survey under clause (i)
of this subparagraph shall be modeled after a form developed
by the Secretary under subsection (g).
(iii) Reports to secretary.--Not later than 1 year after a
State or county is awarded a grant under subsection (c)(1),
and annually thereafter, the State or county shall submit a
report to the Secretary detailing the results of the customer
survey carried out under clause (i) of this subparagraph.
(iv) Reports to public.--A State or county receiving a
grant under subsection (c)(1) and the Secretary shall make
the report required under clause (iii) of this subparagraph
available to the public.
(v) Public comment.--A State or county receiving a grant
under subsection (c)(1) shall accept public comments and hold
public hearings on the report made available under clause
(iv) of this subparagraph.
(C) Tracking systems.--
(i) In general.--A grant awarded to a State or county under
subsection (c)(1) shall be used to implement a tracking
system to determine the level of participation in low-income
family with children support programs of the eligible
population.
(ii) Reports.--Not later than 1 year after a State or
county is awarded a grant under subsection (c)(1), and
annually thereafter, the State or county shall submit a
report to the Secretary detailing the effectiveness of the
tracking system implemented under clause (i) of this
subparagraph.
(D) In-person interviews.--A State or county awarded a
grant under subsection (c)(1) may expend funds made available
under the grant to provide for reporting and

[[Page H2574]]

recertification procedures through the telephone, mail,
facsimile, Internet, or electronic mail.
(E) Jurisdiction-wide implementation.--
(i) In general.--A grant awarded to a State or county under
subsection (c)(1) shall be used for activities throughout the
jurisdiction.
(ii) Exception.--A State or county awarded a grant under
subsection (c)(1) may use grant funds to develop one-stop
service centers and telephone, mail, facsimile, Internet, or
electronic mail application and renewal procedures for low-
income family with children support programs without regard
to the requirements of clause (i) of this subparagraph.
(F) Supplement not supplant.--Funds provided to a State or
county under a grant awarded under subsection (c)(1) shall be
used to supplement and not supplant other State or county
public funds expended to provide support services for low-
income families.
(2) Nonprofits and localities.--A grant awarded to a
nonprofit or locality under subsection (c)(2) shall be used
to--
(A) develop one-stop service centers for low-income family
with children support programs in cooperation with States and
counties; or
(B) provide information about and referrals to low-income
family with children support programs through the
dissemination of materials at strategic locations, including
schools, clinics, and shopping locations.
(f) Application.--
(1) In general.--Each applicant desiring a grant under
paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (c) shall submit an
application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner,
and accompanied by such information as the Secretary may
reasonably require.
(2) States and counties.--
(A) Non-federal share.--Each State or county applicant
shall provide assurances that the applicant will pay the non-
Federal share of the activities for which a grant is sought.
(B) Partnerships.--Each State or county applicant shall
submit a memorandum of understanding demonstrating that the
applicant has entered into a partnership to coordinate its
efforts under the grant with the efforts of other State and
county agencies that have responsibility for providing low-
income families with assistance or benefits.
(g) Duties of the Secretary.--
(1) Survey form.--The Secretary, in cooperation with other
relevant agencies, shall develop a customer survey form to
determine whether low-income families--
(A) encounter any impediments in applying for or renewing
their participation in low-income family with children
support programs; and
(B) are unaware of low-income family with children support
programs for which they are eligible.
(2) Reports.--
(A) Annual reports.--Not later than 1 year after the date
of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the
Secretary shall submit a report to Congress describing the
uses of grant funds awarded under this section.
(B) Results of tracking systems and surveys.--The Secretary
shall submit a report to Congress detailing the results of
the tracking systems implemented and customer surveys carried
out by States and counties under subsection (e) as the
information becomes available.
(h) Miscellaneous.--
(1) Matching funds.--Matching funds required from a State
or county awarded a grant under subsection (c)(1) of this
section may--
(A) include in-kind services and expenditures by
municipalities and private entities; and
(B) be considered a qualified State expenditure for
purposes of determining whether the State has satisfied the
maintenance of effort requirements of the temporary
assistance for needy families program under section 409(a)(7)
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 609(a)(7)).
(2) Limitation on expenditures.--Subject to paragraph (3)
of this subsection, not more than 20 percent of a grant
awarded under subsection (c) shall be expended on customer
surveys or tracking systems.
(3) Reversion of funds.--Any funds not expended by a
grantee within 2 years after awarded a grant shall be
available for redistribution among other grantees in such
manner and amount as the Secretary may determine, unless the
Secretary extends by regulation the 2-year time period to
expend funds.
(4) Nonapportionment.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, a State, county, locality, or nonprofit awarded a
grant under subsection (c) is not required to apportion the
costs of providing information about low-income family with
children support programs among all low-income family with
children support programs.
(5) Administrative costs of the secretary.--Not more than 5
percent of the funds appropriated to carry out this section
shall be expended on administrative costs of the Secretary.
(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $500,000,000 for
the period of fiscal years 2003 through 2007.

SEC. 304. ASSESSMENTS FOR TANF RECIPIENTS.

Section 408(b) (42 U.S.C. 608(b)) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) Assessment.--The State agency responsible for
administering the State program funded under this part shall,
for each recipient of assistance under the program who is a
head of household, make an initial assessment of the skills,
prior work experience, and circumstances related to the
employability of the recipient, including physical or mental
impairments, proficiency in English, child care needs, and
whether the recipient is a victim of domestic violence.'';
(2) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``may develop'' and
inserting ``shall develop''; and
(3) by striking paragraph (4).

SEC. 305. APPLICABILITY OF WORKPLACE LAWS.

Section 408 (42 U.S.C. 608) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(h) No individual engaged in any activity funded in whole
or in part by the TANF program shall be subjected to
discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national
origin, age, or disability, nor shall such an individual be
denied the benefits or protections of any Federal, State or
local employment, civil rights, or health and safety law
because of such individual's status as a participant in the
TANF program.''.

SEC. 306. WORK PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS.

Section 407(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 607(a)), as amended by section
503 of this Act, is amended to read as follows:
``(1) In general.--A State to which a grant is made under
section 403 for a fiscal year shall achieve a minimum
participation rate equal to not less than--
``(A) 50 percent for fiscal year 2003;
``(B) 55 percent for fiscal year 2004;
``(C) 60 percent for fiscal year 2005;
``(D) 65 percent for fiscal year 2006; and
``(E) 70 percent for fiscal year 2007 and each succeeding
fiscal year.''.

SEC. 307. HOURS OF WORK-RELATED ACTIVITIES.

Section 407(c)(1)(A) (42 U.S.C. 607(c)(1)(A)) is amended by
striking ``20'' and inserting ``24''.

SEC. 308. STATE OPTION TO REQUIRE RECEIPIENTS TO ENGAGE IN
WORK FOR 40 HOURS PER WEEK.

Section 407(c)(1)(A) (42 U.S.C. 607(c)(1)(A)) is amended by
adding at the end the following flush sentence:

``At the option of a State, the State may require, a
recipient not referred to in paragraph (2)(B) to engage in
work for an average of 40 hours per week in each month in a
particular fiscal year.''.

SEC. 309. REVISION AND SIMPLIFICATION OF THE TRANSITIONAL
MEDICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (TMA).

(a) Option of Continuous Eligibility for 12 Months; Option
of Continuing Coverage for Up to an Additional Year.--
(1) Option of continuous eligibility for 12 months by
making reporting requirements optional.--Section 1925(b) (42
U.S.C. 1396r-6(b)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``, at the option of a
State,'' after ``and which'';
(B) in paragraph (2)(A), by inserting ``Subject to
subparagraph (C)--'' after ``(A) Notices.--'';
(C) in paragraph (2)(B), by inserting ``Subject to
subparagraph (C)--'' after ``(B) Reporting requirements.--'';
(D) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) State option to waive notice and reporting
requirements.--A State may waive some or all of the reporting
requirements under clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (B).
Insofar as it waives such a reporting requirement, the State
need not provide for a notice under subparagraph (A) relating
to such requirement.''; and
(E) in paragraph (3)(A)(iii), by inserting ``the State has
not waived under paragraph (2)(C) the reporting requirement
with respect to such month under paragraph (2)(B) and if''
after ``6-month period if''.
(2) State option to extend eligibility for low-income
individuals for up to 12 additional months.--Section 1925 (42
U.S.C. 1396r-6) is further amended--
(A) by redesignating subsections (c) through (f) as
subsections (d) through (g); and
(B) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new
subsection:
``(c) State Option of Up to 12 Months of Additional
Eligibility.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this title, each State plan approved under this title may
provide, at the option of the State, that the State shall
offer to each family which received assistance during the
entire 6-month period under subsection (b) and which meets
the applicable requirement of paragraph (2), in the last
month of the period the option of extending coverage under
this subsection for the succeeding period not to exceed 12
months.
``(2) Income restriction.--The option under paragraph (1)
shall not be made available to a family for a succeeding
period unless the State determines that the family's average
gross monthly earnings (less such costs for such child care
as is necessary for the employment of the caretaker relative)
as of the end of the 6-month period under subsection (b) does
not exceed 185 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.
``(3) Application of extension rules.--The provisions of
paragraphs (2), (3), (4), and

[[Page H2575]]

(5) of subsection (b) shall apply to the extension provided
under this subsection in the same manner as they apply to the
extension provided under subsection (b)(1), except that for
purposes of this subsection--
``(A) any reference to a 6-month period under subsection
(b)(1) is deemed a reference to the extension period provided
under paragraph (1) and any deadlines for any notices or
reporting and the premium payment periods shall be modified
to correspond to the appropriate calendar quarters of
coverage provided under this subsection; and
``(B) any reference to a provision of subsection (a) or (b)
is deemed a reference to the corresponding provision of
subsection (b) or of this subsection, respectively.''.
(b) State Option To Waive Receipt of Medicaid for 3 of
Previous 6 Months To Qualify for TMA.--Section 1925(a)(1) (42
U.S.C. 1396r-6(a)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``A State may, at its option, also apply the
previous sentence in the case of a family that was receiving
such aid for fewer than 3 months, or that had applied for and
was eligible for such aid for fewer than 3 months, during the
6 immediately preceding months described in such sentence.''.
(c) Elimination of Sunset for TMA.--
(1) Subsection (g) of section 1925 (42 U.S.C. 1396r-6), as
redesignated under subsection (a)(2), is repealed.
(2) Section 1902(e)(1) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(e)(1))
is amended by striking ``(A) Nothwithstanding'' and all that
follows through ``During such period, for'' in subparagraph
(B) and inserting ``For''.
(d) CMS Report on Enrollment and Participation Rates Under
TMA.--Section 1925, as amended by subsections (a)(2) and (c),
is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(g) Additional Provisions.--
``(1) Collection and reporting of participation
information.--Each State shall--
``(A) collect and submit to the Secretary, in a format
specified by the Secretary, information on average monthly
enrollment and average monthly participation rates for adults
and children under this section; and
``(B) make such information publicly available.

Such information shall be submitted under subparagraph (A) at
the same time and frequency in which other enrollment
information under this title is submitted to the Secretary.
Using such information, the Secretary shall submit to
Congress annual reports concerning such rates.''.
(e) Coordination of Work.--Section 1925(g), as added by
subsection (d), is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(2) Coordination with administration for children and
families.--The Administrator of the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services, in carrying out this section, shall work
with the Assistant Secretary for the Administration for
Children and Families to develop guidance or other technical
assistance for States regarding best practices in
guaranteeing access to transitional medical assistance under
this section.''.
(f) Elimination of TMA Requirement for States That Extend
Coverage to Children and Parents Through 185 Percent of
Poverty.--
(1) In general.--Section 1925 is further amended by adding
at the end the following new subsection:
``(h) Provisions Optional for States That Extend Coverage
to Children and Parents Through 185 Percent of Poverty.--A
State may (but is not required to) meet the requirements of
subsections (a) and (b) if it provides for medical assistance
under this title (whether under section 1931, through a
waiver under section 1115, or otherwise) to families
(including both children and caretaker relatives) the average
gross monthly earning of which (less such costs for such
child care as is necessary for the employment of a caretaker
relative) is at or below a level that is at least 185 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.''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--Such section is further
amended, in subsections (a)(1) and (b)(1), by inserting ``,
but subject to subsection (h),'' after ``Notwithstanding any
other provision of this title,'' each place it appears.
(g) Requirement of Notice for All Families Losing TANF.--
Subsection (a)(2) of such section is amended by adding after
and below subparagraph (B), the following:

``Each State shall provide, to families whose aid under part
A or E of title IV has terminated but whose eligibility for
medical assistance under this title continues, written notice
of their ongoing eligibility for such medical assistance. If
a State makes a determination that any member of a family
whose aid under part A or E of title IV is being terminated
is also no longer eligible for medical assistance under this
title, the notice of such determination shall be supplemented
by a one-page notification form describing the different ways
in which individuals and families may qualify for such
medical assistance and explaining that individuals and
families do not have to be receiving aid under part A or E of
title IV in order to qualify for such medical assistance.''.
(h) Extending Use of Outstationed Workers To Accept
Applications for Transitional Medical Assistance.--Section
1902(a)(55) (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(55)) is amended by inserting
``and under section 1931'' after ``(a)(10)(A)(ii)(IX)''.
(i) Effective Dates.--(1) Except as provided in this
subsection, the amendments made by this section shall apply
to calendar quarters beginning on or after October 1, 2001,
without regard to whether or not final regulations to carry
out such amendments have been promulgated by such date.
(2) The amendment made by subsection (g) shall take effect
6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(3) In the case of a State plan for medical assistance
under title XIX of the Social Security Act which the
Secretary of Health and Human Services determines requires
State legislation (other than legislation appropriating
funds) in order for the plan to meet the additional
requirements imposed by the amendments made by this section,
the State plan shall not be regarded as failing to comply
with the requirements of such title solely on the basis of
its failure to meet these additional requirements before the
first day of the first calendar quarter beginning after the
close of the first regular session of the State legislature
that begins after the date of the 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.

SEC. 310. ENSURING TANF FUNDS ARE NOT USED TO DISPLACE PUBLIC
EMPLOYEES.

(a) Welfare-to-Work Worker Protections.--Section
403(a)(5)(I) (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(5)(I)) is amended--
(1) by striking clauses (i) and (iv);
(2) by redesignating clauses (v) and (vi) as clauses (iv)
and (v), respectively; and
(3) by inserting before clause (ii) the following:
``(i) Nondisplacement.--A State shall establish and
maintain such procedures as are necessary to do the following
with respect to activities funded in whole or in part under
this part:

``(I) Prohibit the placement of an individual in a work
activity specified in section 407(d) from resulting in the
displacement of any employee or position (including partial
displacement, such as a reduction in the hours of nonovertime
work wages, or employment benefits, or fill any unfilled
vacancy, or performing work when any other individual is on
layoff from the same or any substantially equivalent job).
``(II) Prohibit the placement of an individual in a work
activity specified in section 407(d) which would impair any
contract for services, be inconsistent with any employment-
related State or local law or regulation, or collective
bargaining agreement, or infringe on the recall rights or
promotional opportunities of any worker.
``(III) Maintain an impartial grievance procedure to
resolve any complaints alleging violations of subclause (I)
or (II) within 60 days after receipt of the complaint, and if
a decision is adverse to the party who filed such a grievance
or no decision has been reached, provided for the completion
of an arbitration procedure within 75 days after receipt of
the complaint or the adverse decision or conclusion of the
60-day period, whichever is earlier. The procedures shall
include a right to a hearing. The procedures shall include
remedies for violations of the requirement that shall include
termination or suspension of payments, prohibition of the
participant, reinstatemt of an employee, and other
appropriate relief. The procedures shall specifiy that if a
direct work activity engaged in by a recipient of assistance
under the State program funded under this part involves a
placement in a State agency or local government agency
pursuant to this section and the agency experiences a net
reduction in its overall workforce in a given year, there is
a rebuttable presumption that the placement has resulted in
displacement of the employees of the agency in violation of
this subparagraph.''.

(b) State Plan Requirement.--Section 402(a) (42 U.S.C.
602(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(5) A plan that outlines the resources and procedures
that will be used to ensure that the State will establish and
maintain the procedures described in section
403(a)(5)(I)(i).''.

TITLE IV--HELPING WELFARE LEAVERS CLIMB THE EMPLOYMENT LADDER

SEC. 401. STATE PLAN REQUIREMENT ON EMPLOYMENT ADVANCEMENT.

(a) In General.--Section 402(a)(1)(A) (42 U.S.C.
602(a)(1)(A)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(vii) Establish goals and take action to improve initial
earnings, job advancement, and employment retention for
individuals in and individuals leaving the program.''.
(b) Inclusion in Annual Reports of Progress in Achieving
Employment Advancement Goals.--Section 411(b) (42 U.S.C.
611(b)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (3);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (4) and
inserting ``; and'' ; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) in each report submitted after fiscal year 2003, the
progress made by the State in achieving the goals referred to
in section 402(a)(1)(A)(vii) in the most recent State plan
submitted pursuant to section 402(a).''.

[[Page H2576]]

SEC. 402. EMPLOYMENT ADVANCEMENT FUND.

Section 403(a) (42 U.S.C. 603(a)) is further amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(8) Employment advancement fund.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall provide grants to
States and localities for research, evaluation, technical
assistance, and demonstration projects that focus on--
``(i) improving wages for low-income workers, regardless of
whether such workers are recipients of assistance under a
State program funded under this part, through training and
other services; and
``(ii) enhancing employment prospects for recipients of
such assistance with barriers to employment, such as a
physical or mental impairment, a substance abuse problem, or
limited proficiency in English.
``(B) Administration.--
``(i) Allocation of funds.--The Secretary shall allocate at
least 40 percent of the funds made available pursuant to this
paragraph for projects that focus on the matters described in
subparagraph (A)(i), and at least 40 percent of the funds for
projects that focus on the matters described in subparagraph
(A)(ii).
``(ii) Diversity of projects.--The Secretary shall attempt
to provide funds under this paragraph for diverse projects
from geographically different areas.
``(C) Aid under this paragraph not `assistance'.--A benefit
or service provided with funds made available under this
paragraph shall not, for any purpose, be considered
assistance under a State program funded under this part.
``(D) Appropriation.--Out of any money in the Treasury of
the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are
appropriated for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2007
$150,000,000 for grants under this paragraph.''.

SEC. 403. ELIMINATION OF LIMIT ON NUMBER OF TANF RECIPIENTS
ENROLLED IN VOCATIONAL EDUCATION OR HIGH SCHOOL
WHO MAY BE COUNTED TOWARDS THE WORK
PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENT.

Section 407(c)(2) (42 U.S.C. 607(c)(2)) is amended by
striking subparagraph (D).

SEC. 404. COUNTING OF UP TO 2 YEARS OF VOCATIONAL OR
EDUCATIONAL TRAINING (INCLUDING POSTSECONDARY
EDUCATION), WORK-STUDY, AND RELATED INTERNSHIPS
AS WORK ACTIVITIES.

Section 407(d)(8) (42 U.S.C. 607(d)(8)) is amended to read
as follows:
``(8) not more than 24 months of participation by an
individual in--
``(A) vocational or educational training (including
postsecondary education), at an eligible educational
institution (as defined in section 404(h)(5)(A)) leading to
attainment of a credential from the institution related to
employment or a job skill;
``(B) a State or Federal work-study program under part C of
title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 or an internship
related to vocational or postsecondary education, supervised
by an eligible educational institution (as defined in section
404(h)(5)(A)); or
``(C) a course of study leading to adult literacy, in which
English is taught as a second language, or leading to a
certificate of high school equivalency, if the State
considers the activities important to improving the ability
of the individual to find and maintain employment.''.

SEC. 405. LIMITED COUNTING OF CERTAIN ACTIVITIES LEADING TO
EMPLOYMENT AS WORK ACTIVITY.

(a) In General.--Section 407(d) (42 U.S.C. 607(d)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (11);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (12) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(13) Up to 6 months of participation (as determined by
the State) in services designed to improve future employment
opportunities, including substance abuse treatment services,
services to address sexual or domestic violence, and physical
rehabilitation and mental health services.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 407(c)(1) (42 U.S.C.
607(c)(1)) is amended by striking ``and (12)'' each place it
appears and inserting ``(12), and (13)''.

SEC. 406. CLARIFICATION OF AUTHORITY OF STATES TO USE TANF
FUNDS CARRIED OVER FROM PRIOR YEARS TO PROVIDE
TANF BENEFITS AND SERVICES.

Section 404(e) (42 U.S.C. 604(e)) is amended--
(1) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Assistance''
and inserting ``benefits or services''; and
(2) after the heading, by striking ``assistance'' and
inserting ``any benefit or service that may be provided''.

SEC. 407. DEFINITION OF ASSISTANCE.

(a) In General.--Section 419 (42 U.S.C. 619) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(6) Assistance.--
``(A) In general.--The term `assistance' means payment, by
cash, voucher, or other means, to or for an individual or
family for the purpose of meeting a subsistence need of the
individual or family (including food, clothing, shelter, and
related items, but not including costs of transportation or
child care).
``(B) Exception.--The term `assistance' does not include a
payment described in subparagraph (A) to or for an individual
or family on a short-term, nonrecurring basis (as defined by
the State).''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 404(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 604(a)(1)) is amended by
striking ``assistance'' and inserting ``aid''.
(2) Section 404(f) (42 U.S.C. 604(f)) is amended by
striking ``assistance'' and inserting ``benefits or
services''.
(3) Section 408(a)(5)(B)(i) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)(5)(B)(i)) is
amended in the heading by striking ``assistance'' and
inserting ``aid''.

TITLE V--PROMOTING FAMILY FORMATION AND RESPONSIBLE PARENTING

SEC. 501. FAMILY FORMATION FUND.

Section 403(a)(2) (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(2)) is amended to read
as follows:
``(2) Family formation fund.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall provide grants to
States and localities for research, technical assistance, and
demonstration projects to promote and fund best practices in
the following areas:
``(i) Promoting the formation of 2-parent families.
``(ii) Reducing teenage pregnancies.
``(iii) Increasing the ability of noncustodial parents to
financially support and be involved with their children.
``(B) Allocation of funds.--In making grants under this
paragraph, the Secretary shall ensure that not less than 30
percent of the funds made available pursuant to this
paragraph for a fiscal year are used in each of the areas
described in subparagraph (A).
``(C) Consideration of domestic violence impact.--In making
grants under this paragraph, the Secretary shall consider the
potential impact of a project on the incidence of domestic
violence.
``(D) Appropriation.--Out of any money in the Treasury of
the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are
appropriated for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2007
$100,000,000 for grants under this paragraph.''.

SEC. 502. DISTRIBUTION OF CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTED BY STATES
ON BEHALF OF CHILDREN RECEIVING CERTAIN WELFARE
BENEFITS.

(a) Modification of Rule Requiring Assignment of Support
Rights as a Condition of Receiving TANF.--Section 408(a)(3)
(42 U.S.C. 608(a)(3)) is amended to read as follows:
``(3) No assistance for families not assigning certain
support rights to the state.--A State to which a grant is
made under section 403 shall require, as a condition of
providing assistance to a family under the State program
funded under this part, that a member of the family assign to
the State any rights the family member may have (on behalf of
the family member or of any other person for whom the family
member has applied for or is receiving such assistance) to
support from any other person, not exceeding the total amount
of assistance paid to the family under the program, which
accrues during the period that the family receives assistance
under the program.''.
(b) Increasing Child Support Payments to Families and
Simplifying Child Support Distribution Rules.--
(1) Distribution rules.--
(A) In general.--Section 457(a) (42 U.S.C. 657(a)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(a) In General.--Subject to subsections (d) and (e), the
amounts collected on behalf of a family as support by a State
pursuant to a plan approved under this part shall be
distributed as follows:
``(1) Families receiving assistance.--In the case of a
family receiving assistance from the State, the State shall--
``(A) pay to the Federal Government the Federal share of
the amount collected, subject to paragraph (3)(A);
``(B) retain, or pay to the family, the State share of the
amount collected, subject to paragraph (3)(B); and
``(C) pay to the family any remaining amount.
``(2) Families that formerly received assistance.--In the
case of a family that formerly received assistance from the
State:
``(A) Current support.--To the extent that the amount
collected does not exceed the current support amount, the
State shall pay the amount to the family.
``(B) Arrearages.--To the extent that the amount collected
exceeds the current support amount, the State--
``(i) shall first pay to the family the excess amount, to
the extent necessary to satisfy support arrearages not
assigned pursuant to section 408(a)(3);
``(ii) if the amount collected exceeds the amount required
to be paid to the family under clause (i), shall--

``(I) pay to the Federal Government, the Federal share of
the excess amount described in this clause, subject to
paragraph (3)(A); and
``(II) retain, or pay to the family, the State share of the
excess amount described in this clause, subject to paragraph
(3)(B); and

``(iii) shall pay to the family any remaining amount.
``(3) Limitations.--
``(A) Federal reimbursements.--The total of the amounts
paid by the State to the Federal Government under paragraphs
(1) and (2) of this subsection with respect to a family shall
not exceed the Federal share of the amount assigned with
respect to the family pursuant to section 408(a)(3).
``(B) State reimbursements.--The total of the amounts
retained by the State under paragraphs (1) and (2) of this
subsection with respect to a family shall not exceed the
State share of the amount assigned with respect to the family
pursuant to section 408(a)(3).

[[Page H2577]]

``(4) Families that never received assistance.--In the case
of any other family, the State shall pay the amount collected
to the family.
``(5) Families under certain agreements.--Notwithstanding
paragraphs (1) through (4), in the case of an amount
collected for a family in accordance with a cooperative
agreement under section 454(33), the State shall distribute
the amount collected pursuant to the terms of the agreement.
``(6) State financing options.--To the extent that the
State share of the amount payable to a family for a month
pursuant to paragraph (2)(B) of this subsection exceeds the
amount that the State estimates (under procedures approved by
the Secretary) would have been payable to the family for the
month pursuant to former section 457(a)(2) (as in effect for
the State immediately before the date this subsection first
applies to the State) if such former section had remained in
effect, the State may elect to use the grant made to the
State under section 403(a) to pay the amount, or to have the
payment considered a qualified State expenditure for purposes
of section 409(a)(7), but not both.
``(7) State option to pass through additional support with
federal financial participation.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2),
a State shall not be required to pay to the Federal
Government the Federal share of an amount collected on behalf
of a family that is not a recipient of assistance under the
State program funded under part A, to the extent that the
State pays the amount to the family and disregards the
payment for purposes of paying benefits under the State
program funded under part A.
``(B) Recipients of tanf for less than 5 years.--
Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), a State shall not be
required to pay to the Federal Government the Federal share
of an amount collected on behalf of a family that is a
recipient of assistance under the State program funded under
part A and that has received the assistance for not more than
5 years after the date of the enactment of this paragraph, to
the extent that the State pays the amount to the family.''.
(B) Approval of estimation procedures.--Not later than
October 1, 2002, the Secretary of Health and Human Services,
in consultation with the States (as defined for purposes of
part D of title IV of the Social Security Act), shall
establish the procedures to be used to make the estimate
described in section 457(a)(6) of such Act.
(2) Current support amount defined.--Section 457(c) (42
U.S.C. 657(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(5) Current support amount.--The term `current support
amount' means, with respect to amounts collected as support
on behalf of a family, the amount designated as the monthly
support obligation of the noncustodial parent in the order
requiring the support.''.
(c) Ban on Recovery of Medicaid Costs for Certain Births.--
Section 454 (42 U.S.C. 654) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (32);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (33) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (33) the following:
``(34) provide that the State shall not use the State
program operated under this part to collect any amount owed
to the State by reason of costs incurred under the State plan
approved under title XIX for the birth of a child for whom
support rights have been assigned pursuant to section
408(a)(3), 471(a)(17), or 1912.''.
(d) State Option To Discontinue Certain Support
Assignments.--Section 457(b) (42 U.S.C. 657(b)) is amended by
striking ``shall'' and inserting ``may''.
(e) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 409(a)(7)(B)(i)(I)(aa) (42 U.S.C.
609(a)(7)(B)(i)(I)(aa)) is amended by striking
``457(a)(1)(B)'' and inserting ``457(a)(1)''.
(2) Section 404(a) (42 U.S.C. 604(a)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (1);
(B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and
inserting ``; or''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) to fund payment of an amount pursuant to clause (i)
or (ii) of section 457(a)(2)(B), but only to the extent that
the State properly elects under section 457(a)(6) to use the
grant to fund the payment.''.
(3) Section 409(a)(7)(B)(i) (42 U.S.C. 609(a)(7)(B)(i)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:

``(V) Portions of certain child support payments collected
on behalf of and distributed to families no longer receiving
assistance.--Any amount paid by a State pursuant to clause
(i) or (ii) of section 457(a)(2)(B), but only to the extent
that the State properly elects under section 457(a)(6) to
have the payment considered a qualified State expenditure.''.

(f) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2) of
this subsection and section 901(b) of this Act, the
amendments made by this section shall take effect on October
1, 2006, and shall apply to payments under parts A and D of
title IV of the Social Security Act for calendar quarters
beginning on or after such date, without regard to whether
regulations to implement the amendments are promulgated by
such date.
(2) State option to accelerate effective date.--A State may
elect to have the amendments made by this section apply to
the State and to amounts collected by the State, on and after
such date as the State may select that is after the date of
the enactment of this Act and before the effective date
provided in paragraph (1).

SEC. 503. ELIMINATION OF SEPARATE WORK PARTICIPATION RATE FOR
2-PARENT FAMILIES.

Section 407 (42 U.S.C. 607) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (2); and
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking paragraphs (2) and (3);
(B) in paragraph (4), by striking ``paragraphs (1)(B) and
(2)(B)'' and inserting ``paragraph (1)(B)'';
(C) in paragraph (5), by striking ``rates'' and inserting
``rate''; and
(D) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs
(2) and (3), respectively.

SEC. 504. BAN ON IMPOSITION OF STRICTER ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
FOR 2-PARENT FAMILIES; STATE OPT-OUT.

(a) Prohibition.--Section 408(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)) is
further amended by adding at the end the following:
``(13) Ban on imposition of stricter eligibility criteria
for 2-parent families.--
``(A) In general.--In determining the eligibility of a 2-
parent family for assistance under a State program funded
under this part, the State shall not impose a requirement
that does not apply in determining the eligibility of a 1-
parent family for such assistance.
``(B) State opt-out.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to a
State if the State legislature, by law, has elected to make
subparagraph (A) inapplicable to the State.''.
(b) Penalty.--Section 409(a) (42 U.S.C. 609(a)) is further
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(16) Penalty for imposition of stricter eligibility
criteria for 2-parent families.--
``(A) In general.--If the Secretary determines that a State
to which a grant is made under section 403 for a fiscal year
has violated section 408(a)(13) during the fiscal year, the
Secretary shall reduce the grant payable to the State under
section 403(a)(1) for the immediately succeeding fiscal year
by an amount equal to 5 percent of the State family
assistance grant.
``(B) Penalty based on severity of failure.--The Secretary
shall impose reductions under subparagraph (A) with respect
to a fiscal year based on the degree of noncompliance.''.

SEC. 505. EXTENSION OF ABSTINENCE EDUCATION FUNDING UNDER
MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--Section 510(d) (42 U.S.C. 710(d)) is
amended by striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2007''.
(b) Purpose of Allotments.--For each of the fiscal years
2003 through 2007, section 510(b)(1) of the Social Security
Act is deemed to read as follows: ``(1) The purpose of an
allotment under subsection (a) to a State is to enable the
State to provide abstinence education, and at the option of
the State--
``(A) programs that the State defines as an appropriate
approach to abstinence education that educates those who are
currently sexually active or at risk of sexual activity about
methods to reduce unintended pregnancy or other health risks;
and
``(B) where appropriate, mentoring, counseling, and adult
supervision to promote abstinence from sexual activity, with
a focus on those groups which are most likely to bear
children out-of-wedlock.''.
(c) Medically and Scientifically Accurate Information.--For
each of the fiscal years 2003 through 2007, there is deemed
to appear in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) of section
510(b)(2) of such Act the phrase ``a medically and
scientifically accurate educational'' in lieu of the phrase
``an educational'', and there is deemed to appear after and
below subparagraph (H) of such section the following:

``For purposes of this section, the term `medically
accurate', with respect to information, means information
that is supported by research, recognized as accurate and
objective by leading medical, psychological, psychiatric, and
public health organizations and agencies, and where relevant,
published in peer review journals.''.
(d) Effective Models for Programs.--For each of the fiscal
years 2003 through 2007, section 510 of such Act is deemed to
have at the end the following subsection:
``(e)(1) None of the funds appropriated in this section
shall be expended for a program unless the program is based
on a model that has been demonstrated to be effective in
reducing unwanted pregnancy, or in reducing the transmission
of a sexually transmitted disease or the human
immunodeficiency virus.
``(2) The requirement of paragraph (1) shall not apply to
programs that have been approved and funded under this
section on or before April 19, 2002.''.
(e) Comparative Evaluation of Abstinence Education
Programs.--
(1) Study.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
(referred to in this subsection as the ``Secretary'') shall,
in consultation with an advisory panel of researchers
identified by the Board on Children Youth and Families of the
National Academy of Sciences, conduct an experimental study
directly or through contract or interagency agreement which
assesses the relative efficacy of two approaches to
abstinence education for adolescents. The study

[[Page H2578]]

design should enable a comparison of the efficacy of an
abstinence program which precludes education about
contraception with a similar abstinence program which
includes education about contraception. Key outcomes that
should be measured in the study include rates of sexual
activity, pregnancy, birth, and sexually transmitted
diseases.
(2) Report.--Not later than 5 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a report to
Congress the available findings regarding the comparative
analysis.
(3) Funding.--For the purpose of carrying out this
subsection, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums
as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2003 through
2007.

TITLE VI--RESTORING FAIRNESS FOR IMMIGRANT FAMILIES

SEC. 601. TREATMENT OF ALIENS UNDER THE TANF PROGRAM.

(a) Exception to 5-Year Ban for Qualified Aliens.--Section
403(c)(2) of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1613(c)(2)) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(L) Benefits under the Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families program described in section 402(b)(3)(A).''.
(b) Benefits Not Subject to Reimbursement.--Section 423(d)
of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1138a note) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(12) Benefits under part A of title IV of the Social
Security Act except for cash assistance provided to a
sponsored alien who is subject to deeming pursuant to section
408(h) of the Social Security Act.''.
(c) Treatment of Aliens.--Section 408 (42 U.S.C. 608) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(h) Special Rules Relating to the Treatment of 213A
Aliens.--
``(1) In general.--In determining whether a 213A alien is
eligible for cash assistance under a State program funded
under this part, and in determining the amount or types of
such assistance to be provided to the alien, the State shall
apply the rules of paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (5), and (6) of
subsection (f) of this section by substituting `213A' for
`non-213A' each place it appears, subject to section 421(e)
of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconcilation Act of 1996, and subject to section 421(f) of
such Act (which shall be applied by substituting `section
408(h) of the Social Security Act' for `subsection (a)').
``(2) 213A alien defined.--An alien is a 213A alien for
purposes of this subsection if the affidavit of support or
similar agreement with respect to the alien that was executed
by the sponsor of the alien's entry into the United States
was executed pursuant to section 213A of the Immigration and
Nationality Act.''.
(d) Effective Date and Applicability.--
(1) Effective date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect October 1, 2002.
(2) Applicability.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to benefits provided on or after the effective
date of this section.

SEC. 602. OPTIONAL COVERAGE OF LEGAL IMMIGRANTS UNDER THE
MEDICAID PROGRAM AND SCHIP.

(a) Medicaid Program.--Section 1903(v) (42 U.S.C. 1396b(v))
is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and
inserting ``paragraphs (2) and (4)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4)(A) A State may elect (in a plan amendment under this
title) to provide medical assistance under this title,
notwithstanding sections 401(a), 402(b), 403, and 421 of the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act of 1996, for aliens who are lawfully residing in the
United States (including battered aliens described in section
431(c) of such Act) and who are otherwise eligible for such
assistance, within either or both of the following
eligibility categories:
``(i) Pregnant women.--Women during pregnancy (and during
the 60-day period beginning on the last day of the
pregnancy).
``(ii) Children.--Children (as defined under such plan),
including optional targeted low-income children described in
section 1905(u)(2)(B).
``(B) In the case of a State that has elected to provide
medical assistance to a category of aliens under subparagraph
(A), no debt shall accrue under an affidavit of support
against any sponsor of such an alien on the basis of
provision of assistance to such category and the cost of such
assistance shall not be considered as an unreimbursed
cost.''.
(b) SCHIP.--Section 2107(e)(1) (42 U.S.C. 1397gg(e)(1)) as
amended by section 803 of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP
Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000, as enacted
into law by section 1(a)(6) of Public Law 106-554, is amended
by redesignating subparagraphs (C) and (D) as subparagraph
(D) and (E), respectively, and by inserting after
subparagraph (B) the following new subparagraph:
``(C) Section 1903(v)(4) (relating to optional coverage of
categories of permanent resident alien children), but only if
the State has elected to apply such section to the category
of children under title XIX.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
take effect on October 1, 2002, and apply to medical
assistance and child health assistance furnished on or after
such date.

SEC. 603. ELIGIBILITY OF DISABLED CHILDREN WHO ARE QUALIFIED
ALIENS FOR SSI.

(a) In General.--Section 402(a)(2) of the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
1996 (8 U.S.C. 1612(a)(2)) is amended by inserting after
subparagraph (K) the following new subparagraph:
``(L) SSI exception for disabled children.--With respect to
eligibility for benefits for the specified Federal program
described in paragraph (3)(A), paragraph (1) shall not apply
to a child who is considered disabled for purposes of the
supplemental security income program under title XVI of the
Social Security Act.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 2002, and apply to benefits
furnished on or after such date.

TITLE VII--ENSURING STATE ACCOUNTABILITY

SEC. 701. INFLATION ADJUSTMENT OF MAINTENANCE-OF-EFFORT
REQUIREMENT.

Section 409(a)(7) (42 U.S.C. 609(a)(7)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``inflation-
adjusted'' before ``historic State expenditures''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by adding at the end the
following:
``(vi) Inflation-adjusted historic state expenditures.--The
term `inflation-adjusted historic State expenditures' means,
with respect to a fiscal year, historic State expenditures
with respect to the fiscal year, multiplied by the sum of
1.00 plus the inflation percentage (as defined in section
403(a)(2)(F)) in effect for the fiscal year.''.

SEC. 702. BAN ON USING FEDERAL TANF FUNDS TO REPLACE STATE
AND LOCAL SPENDING THAT DOES NOT MEET THE
DEFINITION OF QUALIFIED STATE EXPENDITURES.

(a) Prohibition.--Section 408(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)) is
further amended by adding at the end the following:
``(14) Ban on using federal tanf funds to replace state or
local spending that does not meet the definition of qualified
state expenditures.--A State to which a grant is made under
section 403 and a sub-State entity that receives funds from
such a grant shall not expend any part of the grant funds to
supplant State or local spending for benefits or services
which are not qualified State expenditures (within the
meaning of section 409(a)(7)(B)(i)).''.
(b) Penalty.--Section 409(a) (42 U.S.C. 609(a)) is further
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(17) Penalty for using federal tanf funds to replace
state or local spending that does not meet the definition of
qualified state expenditures.--
``(A) In general.--If the Secretary determines that a State
to which a grant is made under section 403 for a fiscal year
has violated section 408(a)(14) during the fiscal year, the
Secretary shall reduce the grant payable to the State under
section 403(a)(1) for the immediately succeeding fiscal year
by an amount equal to 5 percent of the State family
assistance grant.
``(B) Penalty based on severity of failure.--The Secretary
shall impose reductions under subparagraph (A) with respect
to a fiscal year based on the degree of noncompliance.''.

TITLE VIII--IMPROVING INFORMATION ABOUT TANF RECIPIENTS AND PROGRAMS

SEC. 801. EXTENSION OF FUNDING OF STUDIES AND DEMONSTRATIONS.

Section 413(h)(1) (42 U.S.C. 613(h)(1)) is amended by
striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2007''.

SEC. 802. LONGITUDINAL STUDIES OF EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS OF
TANF LEAVERS.

Section 413 (42 U.S.C. 613) is amended--
(1) in subsection (h)(1)--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (C);
(B) by striking the period and inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(E) the cost of conducting the studies described in
subsection (k).''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(k) Longitudinal Studies of Employment and Earnings of
TANF Leavers.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary, directly or through
grants, contracts, or interagency agreements shall conduct a
study in each eligible State of a statistically relevant
cohort of individuals who leave the State program funded
under this part during fiscal year 2003 and individuals who
leave the program during fiscal year 2005, which uses State
unemployment insurance data to track the employment and
earnings status of the individuals during the 3-year period
beginning at the time the individuals leave the program.
``(2) Reports.--The Secretary shall annually publish the
findings of the studies conducted pursuant to paragraph (1)
of this subsection, and shall annually publish the earnings
data used in making determinations under section 407(b).''.

SEC. 803. INCLUSION OF DISABILITY STATUS IN INFORMATION
STATES REPORT ABOUT TANF FAMILIES.

Section 411(a)(1)(A) (42 U.S.C. 611(a)(1)(A)) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(xviii) Whether the head of the family has a significant
physical or mental impairment.

[[Page H2579]]

SEC. 804. ANNUAL REPORT TO THE CONGRESS TO INCLUDE GREATER
DETAIL ABOUT STATE PROGRAMS FUNDED UNDER TANF.

Section 411(b)(3) (42 U.S.C. 611(b)(3)), as amended by
section 401(b)(1) of this Act, is amended to read as follows:
``(3) the characteristics of each State program funded
under this part, including, with respect to each program
funded with amounts provided under this part or with amounts
the expenditure of which is counted as a qualified State
expenditure for purposes of section 409(a)(7)--
``(A) the name of the program;
``(B) whether the program is authorized at a sub-State
level (such as at the county level);
``(C) the purpose of the program;
``(D) the main activities of the program;
``(E) the total amount received by the program from amounts
provided under this part;
``(F) the total of the amounts received by the program that
are amounts the expenditure of which are counted as qualified
State expenditures for purposes of section 409(a)(7);
``(G) the total funding level of the program;
``(H) the total number of individuals served by the
program, and the number of such individuals served
specifically with funds provided under this part or with
amounts the expenditure of which are counted as qualified
State expenditures for purposes of section 409(a)(7); and
``(I) the eligibility criteria for participation in the
program;''.

SEC. 805. ENHANCEMENT OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE REASONS
INDIVIDUALS LEAVE STATE TANF PROGRAMS.

(a) Development of Comprehensive List of Case Closure
Reasons.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall
develop, in consultation with States and policy experts, a
comprehensive list of reasons why individuals leave State
programs funded under this part. The list shall be aimed at
substantially reducing the number of case closures under the
programs for which a reason is not known.
(b) Inclusion in Quarterly State Reports.--Section
411(a)(1)(A)(xvi) (42 U.S.C. 611(a)(1)(A)(xvi)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subclause (IV);
(2) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
or''; or
(3) by adding at the end the following:

``(VI) a reason specified in the list developed under
section 805(a) of the Next Step in Reforming Welfare Act.''.

SEC. 806. STANDARDIZED STATE PLANS.

Within 6 months after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, after
consulting with the States, shall establish a standardized
format which States shall use to submit plans under section
402(a) of the Social Security Act for fiscal year 2004 and
thereafter.

SEC. 807. STUDY BY THE CENSUS BUREAU.

(a) In General.--Section 414(a) (42 U.S.C. 614(a)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(a) In General.--The Bureau of the Census shall implement
a new longitudinal survey of program dynamics, developed in
consultation with the Secretary and made available to
interested parties, to allow for the assessment of the
outcomes of continued welfare reform on the economic and
child well-being of low-income families with children,
including those who received assistance or services from a
State program funded under this part, and, to the extent
possible, shall provide State representative samples.''.
(b) Appropriation.--Section 414(b) (42 U.S.C. 614(b)) is
amended by striking ``1996,'' and all that follows through
``2002'' and inserting ``2003 through 2007''.

SEC. 808. ACCESS TO WELFARE; WELFARE OUTCOMES.

Section 411 (42 U.S.C. 611) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(c) Annual Reports on Welfare Access and Outcomes.--
``(1) State reports.--Not later than January 1 of each
fiscal year, each eligible State shall collect and report to
the Secretary, with respect to the preceding fiscal year, the
following information:
``(A) The number of applications for assistance from the
State program funded under this part, the percentage that are
approved versus those that are disapproved, and the reasons
for disapproval, broken down by race.
``(B) A copy of all rules and policies governing the State
program funded under this part that are not required by
Federal law, and a summary of the rules and policies,
including the amounts and types of assistance provided and
the types of sanctions imposed under the program.
``(C) The types of occupations of, types of job training
received by, and types and levels of educational attainment
of recipients of assistance from the State program funded
under this part, broken down by gender and race.
``(2) Use of sampling.--A State may comply with this
subsection by using a scientifically acceptable sampling
method approved by the Secretary.
``(3) Report to the congress.--Not later than June 1 of
each fiscal year, the Secretary shall prepare and submit to
the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate,
publish in the Federal Register, and make available to the
public a compilation of the reports submitted pursuant to
paragraph (1) for the preceding fiscal year.''.

TITLE IX--EFFECTIVE DATE

SEC. 901. EFFECTIVE DATE.

(a) In General.--Except as provided in sections 208 and
502(f) and in subsection (b) of this section, the amendments
made by this Act shall take effect on October 1, 2002, and
shall apply to payments under parts A and D of title IV of
the Social Security Act for calendar quarters beginning on or
after such date, without regard to whether regulations to
implement the amendments are promulgated by such date.
(b) Delay Permitted if State Legislation Required.--In the
case of a State plan under section 402(a) or 454 of the
Social Security Act which the Secretary of Health and Human
Services determines requires State legislation (other than
legislation appropriating funds) in order for the plan to
meet the additional requirements imposed by the amendments
made by this Act, the State plan shall not be regarded as
failing to comply with the requirements of such section
402(a) or 454 solely on the basis of the failure of the plan
to meet such additional requirements before the 1st day of
the 1st calendar quarter beginning after the close of the 1st
regular session of the State legislature that begins after
the date of the 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.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 422, the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and a Member opposed each will
control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest during the debate, and
there is a better way. The substitute that I am submitting is submitted
on behalf of myself, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Tanner), the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka), the gentleman from California (Mr.
Thompson), and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. Speaker, it provides for a real-work requirement, a requirement
for real jobs. We reward the States for finding real employment for the
people that are on welfare. We have put in the substitute an employment
credit against the work requirement that was suggested by the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind)
that rewards the States for finding employment for the people on
welfare.
Unlike the Republican bill, the Democratic substitute provides
flexibility to our States, particularly as it relates to education. We
increase, not eliminate, the opportunity of States to provide
educational opportunities for the people on welfare. We increase the
amount of education from 1 year to a maximum of 2 years, no caps on the
number of people who can participate, specifically provide for English
as a second language and GED.
Mr. Speaker, by opening this up, there are no requirements on the
States. The States can then determine what is in the best interest of
the people in their own State. We should not mandate how the States
respond to the educational needs of their own citizens. It is their
decision, not ours under the substitute.
Mr. Speaker, that is flexibility. That is what the States want. The
Republican bill moves in the opposite direction and takes away
flexibility. The Democratic substitute provides more resources. We do
that. We provide $11 billion of new resources in mandatory spending for
child care, unlike the Republican bill which is $1 billion in mandatory
spending.
The Congressional Budget Office has indicated that is necessary,
otherwise we are imposing additional mandates on the States without
providing the resources. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Stark) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for
bringing forward the child care issue. I regret their amendments were
not made in order.
The substitute also provides for an inflationary increase of $6
billion over the next 5 years for the basic grants to our States. If we
do not do that, we will have level funding for 10 years, and we would
actually have had a decline of a significant amount of dollars
available in real purchasing power.
I have heard the Republicans comment the caseload is down. That is
not true. Cash assistance is down, but the

[[Page H2580]]

people being served by TANF funds is actually increasing because we are
now providing employment services and day care to Americans who are
working.
We also provide additional incentives to States to get people out of
poverty. The Democratic substitute moves forward in removing the
discrimination against legal immigrants. We allow the States at their
discretion to cover legal immigrants with their TANF funds, and we make
progress in both SSI and Medicaid in covering children and Medicaid for
pregnant women.
Mr. Speaker, the Democratic substitute moves us forward to the next
plateau, to the next level of expectation on our States. We provide the
flexibility and the resources, but we hold our States accountable to
not only get people out of cash assistance off of the welfare rolls,
but so American families can also move out of poverty.
Mr. Speaker, let me close this part of the debate by citing two of
the groups that are in support of the substitute, and there are many
others. First, the Children's Defense Fund when they say: ``Children
deserve the chance to grow up out of poverty. The Democratic substitute
bill represents genuine progress for families with children to escape
from poverty. I urge you to take the opportunity to help these working
families to ensure that we truly Leave No Child Behind.''
From Catholic Charities U.S.A.: ``We believe your substitute will
help families escape both welfare and poverty, and we offer our strong
support.''
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas)
is recognized for 30 minutes.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I guess one of the things we could do is run an auction on bills like
this in which each provision goes to the highest bidder. If that is the
case, our friends on the other side of the aisle would win every time,
that is, as long as we were using Monopoly money. But if we were using
real money in terms of having to pay for what it is that we say we are
offering to the American people, then the proposal that came out of our
committees that we have just finished discussing fits within the budget
that this House passed.
The program that was partially outlined by the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cardin) adds up to about $70 billion over 10 years. There
is no money provided for it. The gentleman got up after virtually every
speaker and talked about an unfunded mandate. What the gentleman will
not talk about is the fact that they have over a billion dollars
imposed upon States in their proposal requiring States to meet an
inflation number in the States. That produces a mandate on the States
of more than a billion dollars. So what we really want to do as we
discuss this is not who is able to stack up the most Monopoly money in
front of someone as to show how much they care about this issue, how
much of this is real, how much does it have a chance to become law, and
how much does it fit within the other spending patterns that we have
already committed ourselves to.
Mr. Speaker, that is the real question, and there this substitute is
fatally flawed.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the chairman of the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.

{time} 1330

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time.
I simply want to rise in opposition to this alternative offered by the
Democrats for one of the many reasons that I hope we oppose it, but for
an important one. The Democrats will argue that they want to put
flexibility into the title V funding for abstinence-only education
programs. What that means is they want to give the States the right to
mix messages, to combine their contraceptive-focused programs with the
programs that help young people understand that there is another choice
called abstinence.
We included the definition of abstinence education in the statute to
protect the abstinence-only message from being diluted with the message
of promoting condom or contraceptive use. We literally have to oppose
an effort that will give the States the flexibility to mix those
messages back up again. There are 25 different Federal programs funding
contraceptive-focused education. There are only three income streams in
the law that fund abstinence-only education programs and they are not
mandatory on the States. The States have the flexibility, if they want,
to opt out of the abstinence-only programs.
As a matter of fact, 49 States choose to opt in. They like the
programs. They put up $3 for every $4 that the Federal Government puts
up. And if a State does not really like this program and does not want
to be a part of it as the one State, California, does not want to be,
they can abstain from the program. The other States like it, choose it,
accept it, and the result is that abstinence education is reducing teen
pregnancy, reducing the incidence of transmitted diseases from sex and
teaching young people that there is a better way, there is a better way
to prepare themselves for a life in which they will not be afflicted
with awful sexually transmitted diseases or the prospect of having a
child in their teen years that they are not prepared to rear and a
child that will grow up likely in poverty in our country.
I urge my colleagues not to mix these messages, to continue the great
progress of the 1996 act, to allow abstinence-only education programs
to work in our country, and to give our States what they already have,
the flexibility to opt into these programs or to opt out but never to
allow them to confuse the messages. Our kids need positive messages,
not confused ones.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the Democratic substitute.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me just point out to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thomas), my chairman, that this bill spends less than
half of what the farm bill spent and will not even keep up the share of
the Federal spending on these programs with the increase.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Woolsey), one of the coauthors of the substitute.
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Cardin) for his leadership and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind)
for his partnership in putting together this substitute. Our substitute
offers Members a clear alternative to H.R. 4737. The Democratic
substitute builds on what we have learned in welfare reform over the
past 6 years. The most important thing that we learned is that it is
not hard to get people off the welfare rolls, particularly in a good
economy. But it is especially easy if we do not care where they end up.
But if we want people to go from welfare to self-sufficiency, then we
have to work a little harder.
The guiding principle of the 1996 welfare reform was that welfare was
the enemy. Welfare mothers were demonized. But the enemy is not
welfare, Mr. Speaker. The enemy was then, and is now, poverty. This
substitute will enable States to give welfare recipients the supports
and services they need to get real jobs and lift themselves and their
families out of poverty.
First of all, our substitute will allow education and training to
count as work for up to 24 months, up to and including an AA
employment-related degree. The most recent census report shows that the
median income of women who have an associate's degree is just under
$24,000 a year. This is more than twice what a woman who works full-
time at a minimum wage job earns. We know that education pays, and that
is why the Democratic substitute makes education count.
The vast majority of welfare recipients are single mothers. They
cannot go to school or work if their children do not have child care.
That is why the Democratic substitute adds an additional $11 billion in
mandatory funding for child care over 5 years. As many of my colleagues
know, 25 years ago, when my children's father left me and my three
young children, ages 1, 3 and 5, I had to turn to welfare, even though
I was working, in order to pay for child care and other basic
necessities.

[[Page H2581]]

The first year it was bad enough that I went to work. I had never
intended to leave my children and go to work. It was bad enough that
their father abandoned us. But the very worst part of the whole thing
was trying to find child care. That first year I had 13 different child
care arrangements. Can you imagine what that is like? Finding new child
care, watching your children make that adjustment, losing that care and
starting over again. Thirteen times in 12 months. It is an absolute
miracle that my children are the wonderful young adults they are today.
It was only after I was confident that my children were well cared
for that I was able to concentrate on my work, and within a year I was
promoted to a management position.
Mr. Speaker, this substitute does that for all the other women who
need it.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I
do want to correct the record, because I indicated that the substitute
bill requires a mandatory payment by the States of $1 billion. My
understanding is that that is only in the fifth year. My correction is
that actually the Congressional Budget Office says that that is an
inflation mandate of $3.6 billion over 5 years.
We have fallen into the lexicon of the Federal Government and the
State. The State pays, the Federal Government pays. Obviously it is the
taxpayer who pays, whether it is at the State or the Federal level. So
as we are discussing the costs of these bills, let us remember,
somebody has to put up the taxes to pay for them.
In regard to the direction and the thrust, I find it interesting that
6 years ago when we first offered this proposal on the floor, the
substitute that was offered, in fact, saved $50 billion over 6 years
because they thought the enticement of saving money in this system
would convince enough people to vote with them rather than the reform
of requiring people to work. Six years later, when they know that
requiring people to work works, their substitute now spends $20 billion
over 5 years. And so if you cannot beat them, join them, and throw a
few more dollars at the problem seems to be the direction that the
substitute is going.
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), a member of the Committee on
Ways and Means.
(Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words and heartfelt conviction of my
friend from California. I do not doubt her intentions. The important
thing in terms of public policy is to step back and see what can bring
the greatest good. I appreciate that my friend from California is a
living embodiment of an exception in a previous policy that just was
not working. What we have done over the last decade, or the last half
of a decade, is to change this program, to incentivize and require
work.
That is why I rise in opposition, not to score political points but
to take a look at what we have been able to do in the last 6 years. If
we enact the substitute offered by my friends on the other side, we
will weaken work requirements. This would provide partial credit toward
work rates for adults who work as few as 10 hours a week while
collecting full welfare benefits. Their substitute would add a new
employed leaver credit. According to estimates from the Health and
Human Services, it would effectively eliminate the work requirements in
the year 2003, reducing from 50 percent to 2 percent the share of the
welfare caseload expected to work.
What I think is important here is that we not reduce work
requirements, because, after all, it is incentive to work that brings
about true reform, and in the final analysis the best social program is
a job.
With all due respect, the substitute offered by my friends, though it
is not the intent of the other side, in essence it would promote
welfare dependence. It would allow recipients working 2 days a week to
stay on welfare forever.
And my chairman mentioned the bottom line, the cost of this
substitute. Not only $70 billion over the next 10 years but my friends
who on so many different projects say ``Let's watch deficit spending,''
for this program they offer no budgetary offsets. Sound public policy
requires under our budget rules offsets to bring this forward. It is
not there.
For those reasons, I have to rise in opposition to the Democratic
substitute.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me remind my friend that just a week
ago, we approved over twice as much for the farm bill, without offsets.
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), one of the coauthors of the substitute.
(Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I am one of the cosponsors of the Democratic
substitute and I also rise in opposition to the Republican base bill.
Mr. Speaker, we have a tale of two different visions here between
these two bills: Our vision that believes in maintaining the importance
of State flexibility and State innovation in implementing the next
round of welfare reform, that believes in empowering the individuals on
welfare reforms through access to education and a job training programs
and that believes that we need to be careful in regards to what we do
with the children of these families. We provide the resources to help
with quality child care services because we know that those on welfare
are not going to enter the workforce if they know the kids are not
properly being taken care of in a quality environment. That is in
contrast to the Republican version, which is very long on conservatism
and very short on compassion.
If everyone truly believes that welfare reform should be about
welfare to work, then why do we not create an incentive rewarding
States that help welfare recipients get decent, meaningful jobs? That
is exactly what we accomplish with the Democratic substitute with an
employment credit rather than a caseload reduction credit that they
want to continue under current law. Their approach is to reward States
for merely kicking people off the welfare rolls yet we do not know what
happens to them because there is a paucity of data in regards to where
the families are, what they are doing and what happens to the kids.
The other important link with this is making sure that there is a
greater responsibility for the noncustodial parent. Our bill provides
an incentive for States to make sure that noncustodial parents, fathers
of these kids, to get a job and contribute with child support payments
rather than the entire burden falling on single mothers. Their approach
is a $300 million experimental marriage counseling program that we have
no information on whether it even works given again the paucity of
research in this area.
Finally, we must recognize there are those on welfare that are there
for a reason, either because of domestic abuse, sexual assaults,
cognitive and physical disabilities. Our legislation recognizes the
most vulnerable in our society and gives States the flexibility they
need in order to deal with those unique cases. I encourage support for
the substitute and reject the Republican alternative.
The Republican bill is a step in the wrong direction; it replaces
state flexibility with unfunded mandates, it promotes make-work at the
expense of wage-paying employment, and does nothing to help families
escape poverty when they leave welfare for work. I worked closely,
however, with Representatives Cardin, Woolsey, Tanner, and Thompson in
crafting a Democratic substitute that better assists the states in
moving families from welfare to work and I empower individuals so they
can become self-sufficient.
During consideration of welfare reform in the Education and Workforce
Committee I offered three amendments that would have improved the base
bill. The first amendment was an employment credit; the second
amendment would have given states incentives to put fathers to work so
they could pay child support; and the third amendment would have
allowed states to consider domestic abuse or sexual violence in the
development of families' self-sufficiency plan. Unfortunately, I
withdrew the fatherhood amendment under the agreement that Leadership
would continue to work on the amendment between committee consideration
and the floor. They did not, however, stand by their commitment and
excluded this amendment

[[Page H2582]]

from HR 4735. Furthermore, Leadership adopted the domestic violence and
sexual abuse amendment by voice vote in committee but did not include
it in the final bill.
Yesterday, in the Rules Committee I offered the employment credit
amendment with Congressman Levin and I offered the fatherhood amendment
with Congressman Roemer. Yet, once again, the House Leadership voted
against my amendments and prohibited them from consideration on the
House floor.

the democratic substitute

The Rules Committee did, however, accept the Democratic substitute as
part of the Rule for debate on the House floor. As one of the new Co-
chairs of the New Democrat Coalition, I am pleased that the substitute
incorporated many of the New Democrats' suggestions. In 1996, one of
the signature New Democrat initiatives was the successful welfare
reform legislation. Centered on the principle of ``work first'', this
approach, coupled with efforts to make work pay, has succeeded where
previous attempts to reform welfare failed.
Our Democratic substitutes strengthen the current work requirements.
It increases the work participation rate to 70% and increased the
number of direct work activities hours from 20 to 24 hours. These
increased work requirements are consistent with the president's
proposal. In addition, the caseload reduction credit is replaced with
the employment credit, which I offered in committee. Our substitute
also provides states with an additional $11 billion for mandatory
childcare funding over five years; it increases the set aside for child
care quality from 4% to 12%; and it provides an inflationary increase
for the TANF block grant. Conversely, the Leadership's bill would
impose nearly $11 billion over the next five years in unfunded mandate
on the states, without the additional resources we include in our
substitute. In Wisconsin, my home state, the unfunded mandates would
add another $134 million over five years to the state's current $1.1
billion budget deficit.
Our substitute also provides the states with the flexibility and
freedom to innovate. Specifically, it allows states to count education
and training towards its participation rate for up to 24 months. This
is significant because the most promising state programs that help
welfare recipients obtain and advance in a job combine a ``work first''
approach with supplemental training and education. The Republican
proposal eliminates vocation educational training from the list of work
related activities that count towards the State's participation rate
and limits other education and training to a mere four months.
Further, our substitute allows states to assist legal immigrant
families with federal TANF funds while the Republican bill would
maintain the ban on providing legal immigrants with Federal assistance.

Employment Credit Amendment

Current law rewards states for removing people from the rolls.
Because the credit does not take into account whether welfare leavers
are working, states can win reductions in their participation
requirements without actually helping leavers find jobs. Further,
because caseloads are at historic low, states will have a difficult
time benefiting from the revised caseload reduction credit included in
HR 4735. Even the president eliminated the caseload reduction credit in
his proposal and replaced it with his own employment credit.
We need to shift the focus and reward states for not only moving
families off the rolls but also for moving them into jobs, with a bonus
for moving them into higher-paying jobs. The amendment I offered during
mark-up in committee would have done just that by replacing the
caseload reduction credit with an employment credit. Under the
employment credit, for every one percent of welfare recipients that
leave the rolls for work, the state's work participation requirement
would be reduced by one percent. In addition, it would have increased
state flexibility and measured the state's performance along the entire
continuum from welfare to work.

Noncustodial Parent Amendment

The first round of welfare reform required low-income mothers to work
rather than make welfare a way of life. Reauthorization, however,
should challenge the fathers of TANF children to also be responsible
for raising their children. Thus, I offered an amendment with
Congressman Roemer during committee mark-up that would have rewarded
states with a credit towards its worker participation rate if they
worked with fathers to increase their employment and pay child support.
The additional piece to this amendment would have rewarded states even
further, with a bonus to states that achieve or exceed employment
performance targets. This bonus was authorized at $100 million, and the
money would have come from the funding for the Family Formation and
Healthy Marriage program. While very little research exists about
marriage and its direct benefit to children, substantial research shows
working fathers most effectively improves children's emotional and
financial well-being.

domestic and Sexual Violence Amendment

Violence is a fact of life for too many poor women; as many as 60% of
women receiving welfare have been victims of domestic violence as
adults. The incidence and severity of violence in their lives can keep
them from escaping poverty. Therefore, the amendment I offered in
committee would have required states to screen women on welfare to
determine if they have been subjected to domestic or sexual violence
and then states may refer them to necessary services. It is unfortunate
that this assessment will not be included in the development of
families' self-sufficiency plan. It is critical that these women
receive the necessary assistance to help them heal and escape poverty.

Conclusion

While it is unfortunate that my amendments were not included in the
base bill, I am pleased to be a lead sponsor of the Democratic
substitute and to have the opportunity to offer it on the floor today.
My colleagues and I worked hard to reach a compromise that we think
will best serve our nation's various populations and their needs. Most
importantly, our alternative will allow states to focus on placing
welfare recipients into real jobs and helping them escape poverty. That
should be our number one priority, which sadly, the Leadership's bill
does not accomplish.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I would indicate that the gentleman from
Wisconsin in his substitute is willing to impose $58.5 million of
mandated increases to the taxpayers of Wisconsin.
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee
on Education and the Workforce.
Mr. BOEHNER. I thank my colleague from California for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, the first thing I notice about the Democratic substitute
is that, at least on the surface, it has no quarrel with strong work
requirements. This really tells me they have come a long way since
1996, when many of my friends on the other side of the aisle made so
many doom-and-gloom predictions about how welfare reform would bring
about the end of civilization as we know it. Former Senator Pat
Moynihan famously said that those who supported the 1996 reforms would
``take this disgrace to their graves.'' Mr. Speaker, I am one who voted
for the bill and proud that I did.
This is why I am supporting the underlying bill today. By
strengthening the work requirements and expanding flexibility, it
builds on what is really best about the 1996 act. And while the
Democrat substitute is a sign that my friends on the other side of the
aisle are reconciled to welfare reform, it is also a sign they are
unwilling to move beyond the status quo.

{time} 1345

While caseloads have declined dramatically since 1996, there is room
for improvement. Fifty-eight percent of TANF recipients still are not
engaged in any work-related activities. Now, there is one place where
the substitute offers radical change, and that is in the area of child
care. It proposes spending $11 billion more on child care over the next
5 years.
Mr. Speaker, to say this is generous would be an understatement.
After not having even offered a budget here on the floor, our Democrat
friends are asking for huge spending increases without even attempting
to pay for them. Where would all this additional child care money come
from? We have no idea. In contrast to this fiscal irresponsibility, the
underlying bill supports a $2 billion increase in child care and
development, and we pay for our proposed increases.
The backers of the substitute are making the claim that the
underlying bill does not do enough for education. Mr. Speaker, the
claim is dead wrong. Under our bill, the welfare recipients can attend
school full-time for 4 months in any 2-year period, and can spend up to
16 hours each week getting education and training to help further their
ability to obtain gainful employment.
As chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, let me
remind my colleagues of the $66 billion Federal education budget
already available to low income individuals, including Pell Grants,
student loans and Perkins loans. While these programs are taken into
account, it is clear that the welfare recipients will have time and the
financial help they need to seek an education.

[[Page H2583]]

Mr. Speaker, we need to build on the success of the 1996 welfare
reform law. I do not think the substitute we have before us does
adequately strengthen the work requirements. It includes wildly
unrealistic spending increases, and I urge my colleagues to defeat the
substitute and vote ``yes'' on the underlying bill.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), my
chairman, wants the record to be accurate, so let me just clarify the
point he made about the States' maintenance of effort requirements,
which is current law. Wisconsin would receive well over $58 million in
additional Federal support over and above the substitute, plus under
the Republican bill they would truly have an unfunded mandate of $89
million. So I thank my friend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind)
for looking after the citizens of Wisconsin.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Thompson), a coauthor of the substitute.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
his good work on this substitute.
Mr. Speaker, I come down this afternoon to the floor to speak in
favor of meaningful welfare reform, to speak in support of the
substitute measure. The first goal of welfare reform should be poverty
reduction, and this bill does reduce poverty by equipping people with
the tools they need to find meaningful employment and then be able to
keep that job once they get it. Many States have already found what
works in their State, what is successful welfare reform, and that is
because they have the flexibility to provide specific needs to the
people in their State.
My State of California is a prime example of that. We have figured
out how to make welfare reform work. We have crafted a plan that puts
people to work and works for the people in our State. Under our welfare
reform, because of that flexibility, California has tripled the number
of welfare recipients who have moved into employment, and their average
monthly earnings has significantly increased. We have reduced our
caseloads by over 40 percent in California. Unlike the underlying bill,
the substitute continues to allow that flexibility to work.
With 45 States experiencing budget problems right now, the unfunded
State mandates in the majority's bill are unaffordable to all States. I
ask Members to support the substitute bill.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic that the gentleman from California is
supporting a substitute which, if they want to receive the carrot in
the bill, they are required to deal with the stick, which is a mandated
inflationary payment by the State of almost $1 billion over 5 years,
$944 million, in a State which has just discovered under the Democratic
Governor we have a $24 billion tub of red ink to begin with, and that
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are more than happy to
dump additional red ink into that cesspool in California.
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Health.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, in my brief time, I want to direct myself to the
requirements in this bill. First of all, the real work requirement is
almost unchanged from current law. Under current law a person must work
20 hours a week. Under this bill they must work 24 hours a week. That
is three 8-hour days.
What is really changed in this bill is the opportunity requirement.
And let us not miss this. In this bill you are required to plan how you
are going to use the other 16 hours of the normal 40-hour workweek to
create your own future. If you have substance abuse problems, part of
that plan can be to deal with substance abuse. If you have mental
health problems, part of that plan can be to deal with your mental
health problems. If you have educational deficits, part of that plan
can be to deal with your educational deficit.
You have the whole 3 months, even a semester, to start out on your
educational issues without any work requirement, even the 3 days a
week, and, after that, you have Tuesdays and Thursdays, 2 days a week,
to continue to pursue your degree.
You do not have that under current law, and most low income working
parents do not have that today. Only women coming off of welfare will
have the opportunity, and that is why I call it the opportunity
requirement, to plan for the additional 16 hours, working with the
State, in such a way that they create for themselves the educational
base from which they can develop their careers.
I would point out that in this bill there are employment achievement
bonuses. Those will go to States that create career paths for their
people; that help people coming off welfare get into minimum wage jobs,
but then help them move up through education and through performance
and through good recommendations to higher paid jobs.
So the vision in this bill for women is about hope and opportunity,
planning one's own individual course of action, so that at the end of
your time you not only will be in the workforce, but you will be
earning a good living to support your child.
Make no mistake about it: The other bill has no vision for women on
welfare now and no vision for our future. The waiver provision in this
bill is the only hope of us breaking out of both a committee structure
and a series of funding streams that were set 50 years ago. Fifty years
ago. How many times have we had hearings that said that? And what did
the workforce investment bill do? It block granted job training money
so people could benefit more.
We need for States to integrate their systems so we treat people
holistically. You have a problem; yes, you need a job, your children
may need special assistance, you may need a special kind of food stamp
help. We need to move States toward a more holistic approach, a more
creative and visionary approach of how to help people in need in
America.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, if you believe in vocational education, you do not
restrict the States, you give them more authority, and that is what the
substitute does.
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to my friend, the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, our conservative friends must have checked their
compassion at the door when they put this bill together.
Make no mistake, government assistance is not a free meal. If you
receive assistance, in my opinion, you have the responsibility to work,
if you can. Work builds self-esteem, increases independence and
strengthens our families, our communities and our society. That is why,
Mr. Speaker, I strongly supported bipartisan welfare reform in 1996.
But this Republican bill is a step backwards. It sets up unrealistic
requirements, it fails to provide necessary funding and it imposes an
$11 billion unfunded mandate on the States.
This bill would double the number of required worker hours for
mothers with children under 6. However, it would flat-fund assistance
for child care even though 15 million eligible children today go
uncovered. It is nice to talk about opportunity, but if you do not have
the necessary child care, you will not be able to avail yourself of
those opportunities.
This bill, in my opinion, discriminates as well against legal
immigrants, prohibiting States from using Federal funds to assist them,
not giving them the choice, the option, in Federalism.
It even would eliminate education from the list of activities that
count toward work requirements, and it would flat fund temporary
assistance to needy families. I ask my Republican friends, where is the
compassion in that? You voted a few months ago to give Enron $250
million in corporate welfare and a handful of major corporations
billions of dollars more, and now, now you want to crack down on a
single mom who is trying her best to work and still take care of her
kids.
That is not common sense. It is not compassionate. It is not even
conservative. It is, however, shortsighted and punitive, and,
therefore, may well be consistent.

[[Page H2584]]

I urge my colleagues to vote for the substitute and against the
underlying bill.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would note that the gentleman from Maryland at the
same time he urges that is telling the hard-working taxpayers of
Maryland that he wants to create a $61 million stick for them to
receive any of the proposals that he is talking about.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I want to make it
absolutely clear that the opportunity bill is the underlying bill, and
I strongly oppose this proposed substitute because it will truncate
opportunity for women in our country and undercut the accomplishments
in reducing poverty among children and helping women realize their
potential that the current program has initiated.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Human Resources.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Democrat
substitute. This substitute weakens work requirements, is fiscally
irresponsible and ties the hands of States.
We have found from the successes of the 1996 welfare reform
legislation that work is the best path from poverty to self-
sufficiency. This substitute resurrects the failed AFDC program, which
was weak on work and trapped recipients into a cycle of dependency.
This substitute would increase welfare dependency by allowing a
recipient to work as little as 2 days a week and stay on welfare
forever. Without work, recipients have no hope to leave poverty and
support themselves.
Furthermore, the substitute is fiscally irresponsible. It would cost
the working taxpayers about $20 billion over the next 5 years. Unlike
the Republican plan, this amendment contains no offsets to pay for the
additional spending.
My friends from the other side of the aisle speak of fiscal
responsibility, but show none in this substitute. In addition to being
fiscally irresponsible and weak on work, the substitute places more
burdens on the States and actually limits their flexibility. Over the
next 5 years, States would be forced to spend more of their own money
on welfare, despite the fact that rolls are going down. States must
establish complicated new regulations restricting their ability to
place recipients in work experiment and community service programs.
Also under the substitute, the States are restricted in enforcing the
expectation that recipients work.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this substitute, which
represents a step back in welfare reform.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I understand the Republican sensitivity on the dollars
because the people of Maryland over the next 5 years will get
significantly more Federal help for their $61 million investment. But
under the Republican bill they have to lay out $144 million and they
get nothing in return. I can understand the sensitivity that you might
have on the other side of the aisle on our States.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)

{time} 1400

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, today the Republican leadership, the party
that wants to be known as the education party and that has gone to
great lengths to win Hispanic votes, has proposed a welfare reform bill
that proves their rhetoric does not match their reality.
Instead of providing and expanding educational opportunities for all,
the Republicans deny poor people the opportunity to get an education,
to get a better job, and to get their family out of poverty
permanently. Instead of providing an equal opportunity for permanent
residents who are here legally and who have worked hard, paid taxes,
served in the Armed Forces of the United States in many cases, are
veterans of our country, and who have fueled the economic boom of the
last decade, Republicans refuse to give them the helping hand they need
to get back on their feet. The current recession has not bypassed
Hispanics, but the Republican welfare plan does.
It is ironic to me that less than a week before Republicans planned
to pour millions of dollars into new Spanish-language infomercials to
woo Hispanic voters, they refused to invest any money in helping poor
Hispanic families get the education and training they need to lift
themselves out of poverty. What family value refuses to invest the
money needed to provide child care to those families who are making
every effort to work, but still cannot afford the cost of child care?
Today we see the true meaning of ``compassionate conservatism,'' and
there is nothing really compassionate about it. The Republicans' new
marketing strategy should really be called ``la mentira grande'' or
``the big lie'' instead of forging new paths, because today's bill
shows that Republicans really have no intention of helping people forge
new paths. Their rhetoric simply throws up roadblocks on the highway of
opportunity.
I will tell the gentleman before he gets up that Republicans have
already left New Jersey with a $6 billion deficit.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I
was prepared to yield the gentleman from New Jersey a little more time
so that he could cover up his tracks, because 6 years ago he voted to
keep people on the program, he was opposed to the program. Now, of
course, what they want to do is outbid people with Monopoly money to
show how compassionate they are and how people work. They were wrong
then and they are wrong now.
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Portman), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this
time. I was not planning to get into the issue of legal immigrants, but
I would think that some people might take from the last comments that
somehow the underlying legislation takes benefits away from legal
immigrants. No es verdad.
The truth is that there is no change with regard to illegal
immigrants in this legislation. If anything, we have improved the
benefits for legal immigrants because in the farm bill which was just
passed we are now providing food stamps for legal immigrants. So I hope
the gentleman is not trying to leave the wrong impression.
Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill I think is a great improvement to a
great law. Since 1996, there are nearly 3 million children who have
been lifted out of poverty. This has been a huge success. What the
legislation does before us today, the underlying bill, is it builds on
what works.
I had the opportunity last week to go visit one of our great
organizations back in my hometown of Cincinnati that is taking the
flexibility we gave them in 1996 and helping people move from welfare
dependency to the kind of dignity and self-respect they get from work.
They fix someone's car if it is broken, they help people with child
care, they help people with medical bills. They provide that bridge,
and they are flexible about it. They like this new flexibility built
into the legislation. They are using this already, and they want more
of it.
What has worked is requiring work. What has worked is strengthening
families, and the underlying bill does that better, I would say, than
the Democrat substitute. What works is protecting children, improving
child care, and there is more money in child care in the underlying
bill. In the Democratic substitute, there is more money, but it is not
paid for. Creating additional opportunities, yes, for education and
training, that is important and that is in the underlying bill and,
finally, giving the States the tools to encourage self-sufficiency, and
that is the flexibility.
I have heard some of my colleagues on this side say gee, to quote the
gentleman from Maryland, not the gentleman from Maryland who is here,
but the one who left, it fails to provide adequate funding, the
underlying bill. Well, I do not know how they can say

[[Page H2585]]

that. We have had a more than 50 percent reduction in the welfare
rolls; and yet we are continuing the Federal commitment. So we are
going to be providing over $16 billion a year. We are not cutting the
TANF funding, plus we are adding another at least $2 billion on child
care. In 1996 we were paying $7,000 per family on average. In the year
2003, we are going to be paying $16,000 per family on average. How is
that a cut? How is that not adequate funding?
Then I hear the debate over the unfunded mandate, and I was the
author of the Unfunded Mandate Relief Act, and I have to tell my
colleagues, I have the letter here from the Congressional Budget
Office. This is not an unfunded mandate. The underlying bill is not an
unfunded mandate. Why? Because as we all set out, and I know the
gentleman from Maryland and my other colleagues voted for the unfunded
mandate bill, we said that if you give States the flexibility to be
able to move money, transferred monies from agency to agency and give
adequate flexibility, then it is not an unfunded mandate, and that is
what CBO says.
So with regard to this unfunded mandate, let us just be clear. We
have a process here in Congress where the Congressional Budget Office,
a nonpartisan part of our congressional organization here, decides
whether something is an unfunded mandate or not, and they have told us
there is adequate flexibility and adequate funding in here, and it is
not an unfunded mandate.
So with all due respect to my colleagues on this side who I know have
the best intentions to try to pull more people out of poverty and into
work, I think the underlying bill is a better approach to it. I hope
that my colleagues today will reject the substitute and stick with what
we know works, and that is encouraging work and encouraging sufficiency
and doing so, yes, with a compassionate edge and providing more funding
per family than has ever been provided by the Federal Government.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PORTMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I just
wanted to correct the gentleman in that the caseload has actually gone
up significantly. More people are now receiving noncash assistance than
cash assistance, and that is good; and therefore the amount of money
being spent is being spent on purposes such as job training and child
care, which I believe your party supports.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is why there is
more funding being provided for each welfare family, because as we
provide those additional services, there is additional funding needed;
and the underlying bill provides that. Yet it sticks to the basic
formula that we know works, which is, again, helping people to help
themselves and believing in people and trusting people, and
understanding that every person has the ability to get on their own
feet and to be able to provide for themselves and their families, and
that is what they want to do.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, normally the gentleman from Ohio's math is a
little better than it was today.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic whip, formerly
from Maryland.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for
yielding me this time and for his leadership on this important
Democratic substitute that is on the floor today.
Unfortunately, our Republican colleagues refuse to allow the
Democrats to bring an amendment to the floor which would talk about
child care, which is one of the most serious deficiencies in their
bill. It is loaded with deficiencies; but if I could talk about one, it
would be child care.
The Democratic substitute gives women and their families the tools to
leave poverty behind. It gives women access to job training, education,
and the chance to make better lives for themselves and their families.
It gives the States flexibility to implement the best approach. It
focuses on real work and helps families escape poverty and achieve
permanent employment.
The Republican bill that is on the floor not only short-changes the
important component of child care, which is essential to women lifting
themselves out of poverty, it also foists on the States additional
funding requirements to implement the requirements of H.R. 4737. In my
own State of California alone, a $2.5 billion addition in costs to
California, costs we can ill afford in a time of deficit, and that is
required by this bill.
But I want to talk again about child care. The complete missing link
in lifting people out of poverty and putting people to work is the
answer to the question, Who is going to take care of the children? We
all talk about family values here; and we are all committed, both
Democrats and Republicans alike. But why is that not reflected in the
Republican bill? The Democratic substitute puts five times more
resources to really enable women to get educated, to work, to lift
their families out of poverty. I urge a ``yes'' on the substitute and a
``no'' on the Republican bill.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Once again, as a Member from California, California currently, under
the Democratic Governor, is $24 billion in the red and this would add
another $1 billion over 5 years of an induced stick, if they want to
receive the illusory benefits under the bill. Once again, as my
colleagues can see in the well, I find it ironic that just 6 years ago,
the gentlewoman from California said, ``I hope children throughout this
country never have to feel the pain of this legislation. I hope it does
not pass.'' Indeed, there was offered a substitute which would have
saved money in an attempt to not have the legislation go forward. Of
course, now that we know the process works, as the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) said it works, they are now offering a
substitute which throws money at the problem.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct, I did not support
it, because I thought the bill was harsh to newcomers to our country,
and some of those provisions have been corrected over time due to the
leadership on this side of the aisle. The gentleman's colleague, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), earlier referenced that in the farm
bill there would be food stamps for immigrants, yes; again, an
initiative from this side of the aisle. So there has been some of the
harshness removed from the provisions of the earlier welfare reform
bill and, I may say, during the Clinton administration, a thriving and
dynamic economy that indeed lifted up our economy and lifted many
people out of poverty.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentlewoman well
knows that the proficiency she just referred to in the farm bill for
immigrants was signed by President Bush and moved out of this House.
However, in an attempt to make sure that they do not agree with the
fundamental thrust of this proposition, they have a substitute that
spends $70 billion of money that is not covered in any budget to show
that they rate higher on the compassion level, because they will never
accept the proposition that Republicans care, Republicans are
concerned, and Republicans have programs that work. They prefer
illusory solutions to the real thing. Republicans offered the real
thing in 1996, and they offer it today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Brady), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the facts show that the economy, as
good as it has been, did not bring about the progress in reform and
welfare that occurred. In fact, during the 1980s and even through the
first 2 years of President Clinton's administration, we created some 18
million new jobs. That is great. But welfare rolls continued to
skyrocket. It was not until 1996 when we put these reforms in place
that we really started to have able-bodied people, able-minded people,
those capable of working getting back to work, because we set such high
standards.
I served in the Texas legislature when we did welfare reform just 2
years before Congress took it up. I am convinced this is one of the
most successful reforms in history between governments and States
working together. We

[[Page H2586]]

have come such a long way from the days where someone who is capable of
working could not work for 15 years or more and still receive welfare
benefits. That was giving up on them, and we no longer do that. It is
important that as we debate this substitute we not go back to those
failed experiments.
My concern is that we take in this substitute an AFDC program that
was good in intent and just horribly unimpressive, to say the least,
that exempted various recipients; it gave up on too many people. Let us
not go back to this. This substitute provides partial credits toward
work rates for adults who work very few hours during the week. Again,
we are not insisting, not encouraging, not moving them to self-
sufficiency. None of us work 10-hour workweeks, and we ought not expect
that of those we are trying to help.
Education is so important, but we cannot reward people who will not
get a job or cannot get a job by paying them to go to school. It
actually ought to be the opposite. Those who make that extra effort to
get a job, to learn that skill, and to go to school, we provide help
and standards for both of those; and I think long term, that is the
route to go.
Finally, I think when we look at the substitute, it is well
intentioned; but it actually, I think, increases welfare dependency and
poverty and seriously undermines the time limits that have been such a
key part to, again, not giving up on any person capable of being self-
sufficient and having a job.
My point is that our job is not finished. We have a lot more people
that we can help get out of poverty and off of welfare, helping them
get an education, helping them develop their skills, and insisting that
they move toward what all of us hope to do, to work full time in a job
that one can raise one's family and live on and move from welfare to
work. The Republican bill does exactly that. It continues what works,
invests in success; and that is what we should stick with.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me just point out that in the motion to
instruct on the agricultural bill concerning food stamps, all of the
Members and the Republican leadership voted against it to cover legal
immigrants.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
(Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the
Cardin substitute and against the leave-the-millions-of-children-behind
act that is currently before the House of Representatives.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the substitute legislation. We
have done a good job with welfare reform in Rhode Island. Our program,
one I would have supported implementing nationally, has promoted a
steady decrease in our welfare caseload. Today, while other states'
caseloads are growing, Rhode Island's continues to drop.
Our steady progress can be attributed to the policy decisions we made
to invest in families to help them gain the skills to obtain and retain
jobs. It also provides the resources for child care which enables
people to work. But the biggest problem with this bill is that while
increasing work requirements for recipients, it only provides a modest
increase for child care, barely enough to keep up with inflation. Let's
examine the logic here. Increase work requirements for mothers with
children under six years old, yet not provide enough money to pay for
care for their children while they're out working.
Since 1996, there have been tremendous advances in how we understand
early childhood development. We know that the preschool years are
critical to children's long term success, because that's where they
learn the cognitive and social skills needed to succeed in life. Not
only does this bill not improve accessibility to quality early
childhood programs, it's going to add to the millions of children
already on waiting lists who, as a result, are falling behind before
kindergarten even starts.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this misguided legislation and support
the substitute.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the delegate from Guam
(Mr. Underwood).
(Mr. UNDERWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)

{time} 1415

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Cardin) for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I am here to express my opposition to the base bill and
to speak on behalf of inclusion, to speak on behalf of child care, to
speak on behalf of true compassion, to speak on behalf of the
Democratic substitute to H.R. 4737.
There is no compassion in requiring States and Territories to
increase workforce requirements when 39 States and all of the
Territories are struggling currently to meet work requirements.
In an atmosphere of recession, unprecedented unemployment rates and
lack of available jobs, the base bill would create the scenario where
precious resources are spent on fines and the safety net becomes full
of holes. There is no compassion in continuing to restrict access to
programs that are supposed to help all American families get help for
work. The base bill denies the insular areas of Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands, and my home of Guam, which have been required to meet all
federally imposed TANF obligations, from accessing all the same TANF
program resources available to State. The insular areas are not
eligible for TANF supplemental grants for population increases, for
many other programs, and the Democratic substitute does so.
I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic substitute.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Watson).
Ms. WATSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I am personally offended by
the reference by the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) to ``that
California cesspool.'' Many of us in a bipartisan fashion worked for
many, many months to come up with the California experiment. That was
very, very successful.
Why do I support the Democratic substitute to welfare reform? Because
the substitute provides the necessary funding to carry out needed
revisions in welfare reform. The Republican bill imposes massive and
costly new mandates on States that they cannot afford. The billions of
new costs that States are being asked to burden will force many States
to raise taxes and cut necessary services. Cutting services will
include a reduction in welfare programs such as child care,
transportation, and skills training to make recipients job ready.
Is this reform? No, it is not. Implementing the Republican proposals
in California will cost the State an additional $2.8 billion over the
next 5 years. I am expecting that apology.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Since the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson) wants me to
explain the reference about cesspools referred to by me, I referred to
it as a cesspool of red ink. And if anybody does not believe $24
billion of State government mismanagement is not a red ink cesspool,
then I do not know what you would call it.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, all I can point out to the gentleman is that
in California they will be better off without an extra $2.5 billion
mandate. They would be better off without that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut
(Ms. DeLauro), the assistant to our leader.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
substitute. We hear much talk of compassion, but the underlying
legislation does not address the needs or the aspirations of those who
are trying in earnest to make the transition from welfare to work.
Compassion is not eliminating education as an activity that counts
toward work requirement. Compassion is not replacing the successful
food stamp program with a program that puts the nutritional needs of 19
million people at risk. Compassion is not abandoning the 15 million
children who are now eligible for child care assistance, but who are
not covered because of inadequate funding.
This legislation shortchanges working mothers who need help affording
child care. Democrats offered an amendment. It would have increased
child care, enhanced child care quality, expanded the services to
nearly 1 million additional working families. The Republicans barely
increased funding for child care, and the leadership did not even allow
us an amendment to consider this critical issue.
This legislation is anything but compassionate. It is disinterested,
wrong-headed, and it puts at risk all of the

[[Page H2587]]

gains that we have made in moving people from welfare to work in the
past 6 years. Vote yes on the substitute.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New
York (Ms. Velazquez).
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the
Republican bill. I am deeply troubled by the terrible duplicity on
display today. How can a Congress that speaks so eloquently on family
values pass legislation that clearly threatens our neediest families?
By increasing work requirements, this bill forces parents to be away
from their children for longer hours without providing adequate funding
for the day care. The authors of this bill claim it fosters respect and
responsibility, then coerces women into abusive marriages based in fear
and distrust.
Furthermore, the President has been touting the important role
immigrants play in both our economy and our culture. Yet this bill
neither extends SSI eligibility for legal permanent residents nor
ensures that adequate translation services will be provided for limited
English proficient residents to advise them of what services they are
eligible for.
It is time that this Congress live up to its compassionate
conservatism and provide not just the promise of responsibility, work
and family, but the tools to achieve it.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, I serve as a co-chair of the Rural Caucus, so you should
expect me to talk about rural America. But I want to say first I
strongly support the substitute and believe it is more reflective to
making people whole in not only rural America but all America.
This substitute nor the bill or the bills before really went to rural
America. Let me tell you that rural America is not the same as urban
and our suburban America. Not to say that urban does not have problems
but, indeed, we are different.
Consider these facts: In the year 2000 the nonmetropolitan poverty
rate exceeded the national rate by 20 percent. Two hundred and thirty-
seven of the 250 counties that are the most poor in the Nation are in
rural America. One-half of rural American children in female households
live in poverty. Therefore, indeed we need different attention.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
respond to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, we have engaged in this conversation
before, but we wanted to make sure that as we address all issues we
paid special attention to rural America. Each of a State's governors
have to submit a plan to the Secretary stating how they are going to
respond to poverty, how they will respond to economic opportunity and
employment. I simply want inserted language that said that we would
address the issue of rural America as well.
Mr. THOMAS. Reclaiming my time, in response to the gentlewoman I
agree with her. Although we often talk about it, there is no reference
in the legislation. Notwithstanding the fact the substitute will not
pass, the underlying bill, I will pledge to the gentlewoman when we go
to conference, representing one of the poorest rural counties in
California.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Are there any poor counties in California?
Mr. THOMAS. There are, I can assure you, and I represent the poorest.
And agricultural counties by nature of the cyclical work tend to be the
poorest and have the highest unemployment and low literacy. Child care
needs are very high. That is why we put the provisions in the bill. But
we will emphasize that the States should respond with a rural program
as well as an urban one. Rather than assuming that they will do that,
that language will be in the bill.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, what time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Cardin) has 8 minutes remaining. The gentleman from California
(Mr. Thomas) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Brown).
(Ms. BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is truly an outrage that we are
here today debating how much money that we are going to spend on the
weakest when the President and the Republican leadership want to make
permanent tax cuts in this country to their country club friends to the
tune of over $500 billion. And it is really worse for the poor people
of Florida because we have a Governor, Jeb Bush, our own reverse Robin
Hooder, deciding to spend the $6 billion on corporate welfare instead
of making sure that the State can afford and look after all of its
children.
Perhaps I should remind the Governor and the President of Ril-ya
Wilson, the poor little girl from Florida. I have a picture here. Ril-
ya Wilson, the poor little girl from Florida that has been missing for
15 months.
It is so sad that the Republicans can come up with all of these
little slogans, Leave No Child Behind, well, my question is where is
the beef? Where are the resources to make sure that this does not
happen to other children in this country?
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and
Means.
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, first let me thank the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and his team for an attempt to put together a
bill that would wipe out partisanship as we deal with this very
sensitive issue.
It is tragic that when we talk about aid to needy families or
children that need some assistance from their government, albeit State
government, that it gets so political that we start talking about
raising the standards, forcing people to work, increasing the hours of
work, but we do not concentrate on putting the resources there to see
that we can reach these laudable goals that we would want.
It is one thing to say that illegal immigrants and the kids are not
entitled to assistance for shelter or for food or for medicine, but
great States and great people like those in Florida and California and
New York and Texas, somehow we cannot turn our eyes away from children
who are in need, and that is why my mayor and my Governor would appeal,
notwithstanding their Republican credentials, that more sensitivity
would be involved.
They want people to work 40 hours a week, but they do not like the
mandatory sense in working when the jobs are not there, when you do not
provide the education and the training that the workers are not going
to be productive. When you finally think about what we are trying to do
is to create a better life for our children, who can do that better
than a mother? And if you are saying that the mother with young
children should go to work, well, politically we will say yes, but what
about the child? Should we not have some concern about what happens to
this kid as we feel good and we go to our townhall meetings and tell
the voters we were hard on welfare mothers today, but would anyone ask,
what about the children? Did you provide money for day care for the
kids? Can anyone really work a productive day not knowing whether their
child is being taken care of?
If we said that we wanted to let the State work their will, how do we
tell them what they cannot do when they are begging as my mayor and as
my Governor for the flexibility to do it? Except when it comes to the
money questions and you want the governors to be able to play chess
with the money, when you want them to be able to do the things that
normally the Committee on Appropriations should be doing, then you can
go in the basement in the Republican rooms in the middle of the night
and work out how you will do this while we do not legislate.
You know how to cook the books when you want to make certain it works
for you politically, but it seems

[[Page H2588]]

to me if we are talking about a better America, more productive
families, communities, that can have self-esteem, then when you talk
about jobs you are not talking about just makeshift jobs, you are
talking about making people feel good about themselves because they
learned something, they have had training and they can be productive.
Please vote for the Democratic substitute and reject the Republican
political plan and stick with something that you can go back home and
be proud of. Not that you beat up on the mothers, that is easy to do in
an election year, but you did something for the kids. You did something
for the kids.

{time} 1430

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would note that the gentleman from New York voted ``no'' in 1996;
and as a matter of fact, quoted in the People's Weekly World, he said
that if Clinton signs the bill, he would be, quote, ``throwing 1
million children into poverty.''
I have here the most recent edition of the Governor of New York's
statement on welfare in New York. It says on page 33: ``Teen pregnancy
rates and teen births have declined. Child support has increased and
fewer children are living in poverty today than in 1994.''
What we did was right in 1996, and what we are doing is right today,
notwithstanding the gentleman from New York's (Mr. Rangel) vote against
us apparently both times.
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, what seems to be happening here is a
political sock hop; but instead of listening to old Elvis records, we
are listening to old Democrat rhetoric. We are hearing it over and over
again, over and over again.
The ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, 1996: ``The
only losers we have are the kids.'' The gentleman from New York (Mr.
Nadler), 1996: ``I am saddened for today it seems clear that this House
will abdicate its moral duty.'' The president of NOW, who I do not
quote very often, again denounced the plan in 1996.
It is the same group over and over again saying not this bill, not
this time. But look what happened. Much to their, I guess, chagrin,
they are spending on TANF and child care up to $15,888 compared to 1996
where it was $6,900. The number of cases has dropped from 4 million to
2 million, cut in half; and the number of welfare caseloads has fallen
from 14 million to 5 million.
Welfare reform works. Just ask Tanya who was on public assistance and
now is buying her new home. I wish that we could get some good
bipartisan support instead of the old Democratic rhetoric.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Cardin) has 4 minutes remaining. The gentleman from California
(Mr. Thomas) has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/4\ minutes to
the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), who is one of the co-
authors of the substitute.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
It seems that too often the 435 Members of this body forget about the
real world. We, fortunately, are paid well. We are cared for by our
government, and we all try to do the same for our constituents; but
somehow this particular bill that is before us forgets about that,
because somehow it talks about helping a woman who for the most part is
short on education or short on training and expects her to go out to
work and earn a wage that will compensate her so she can feed her
family because she has got kids, because otherwise she would not be on
welfare, and let her survive the daily grind of living well at $16,000,
let me tell my colleagues, which is probably what most of these women
will be making, $16,000, $20,000, who are going to be putting about a
third of that money into day care and a third of that into housing and
the rest in food.
They do not have money for health care, they do not have money for
any expectancies of life, and what is going to happen is these women
will be right back in welfare because this Republican welfare bill does
nothing to deal with reality.
My colleagues need to have flexibility. If we had 50 votes here from
the Governors of our Nation, they would vote against this bill. My
colleagues need to pay for unfunded mandates, and they need to deal
with the realities that children must be cared for. No mother is going
to let her kid go out there and not be cared for. This bill should not
pass. Vote for the substitute.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), one of the co-authors of the
substitute.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.
I am from one of the States that was involved with welfare reform 5
years before the Federal action, and we made real progress. We made
real progress, not with unfunded mandates from the Federal Government,
which the bill would be, not with goofy work requirements that are
rejected by virtually all the Governors, Republicans and Democrats
alike, and not by underfunding child care. That is why there is no
enthusiasm for the Republican alternative from our Nation's Governors,
whether they are Republican or Democrat.
I strongly urge support for the Democratic substitute which speaks to
continuing the strong parts, strengthening the opportunities for child
care, rejects the notion of more unfunded Federal mandates, and does
not play fiscal roulette with the program at a time when States are
slipping into fiscal disarray across the country.
That is not a prudent step. I strongly urge support for the
Democratic alternative.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 15 seconds to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), and I regret we do not have more
time.
(Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, empowerment is a word that has become a
cliche, but that is what this is about. The bill before us today does
not empower people to become self-sufficient. This bill will result in
more, not fewer, people ending up in poverty.
I support strongly the substitute amendment, and I urge my colleagues
to oppose the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, the percentage of Americans on public assistance today--
about 2.1 percent--is at its lowest since 1964. The percentage of
working recipients is also at its highest ever--at about 33 percent--
and according to the best figures available two-thirds of those who've
left welfare since 1996 are holding down jobs. Despite those
statistics, in many ways welfare reform is still an experiment in
progress. We still do not know what happens to people who leave the
welfare rolls. Are they working? Are they unemployed? Are they simply
off the rolls? No one knows for sure. Another question is what are the
factors that contribute to the ability of people to comply with the
TANF work requirement?
There are good indications that the 1996 welfare reforms are helping
disadvantaged individuals and society at large. We have an opportunity
to build on the success of the 1996 welfare reform law, and to make it
better; to do the things Congress should have done before. Congress
should resist attempts to relax TANF's time limits and work
requirements. That means continuing ambitious work and job retention
goals while also increasing financial incentives and rewards for those
who succeed. We must keep in mind that the goal of welfare is to create
productive self-sufficient citizens. There are a number of things we
must do to see that people on welfare can and do meet these stronger
requirements.
As we go through this reauthorization process it is vitally important
that we improve the research and data reporting in TANF. In order to
make informed decisions on the direction that TANF and CCDBG should
take we need more information on the issue. I offered an amendment in
the Rules Committee to begin this process. However, they refused to
make it in order.
While maintaining pressure on the states to move people from welfare
to work, the renewed TANF should also help families move up the job and
income ladders. We should consider a number of amendments to help do
this. We should eliminate the caseload reduction credit and phase in an
employment credit. For each 1 percent of the caseload that obtains
employment, the work participation rate would be reduced by 1 percent.
In addition, there would be extra credit for recipients who obtain
higher paying jobs. That is a good step.

[[Page H2589]]

Another way of assisting families in moving up the income ladder is
giving individuals the tools to get a good job. This should be a job
with the potential for advancement not a dead-end make-work job. This
is the best way to ensure that families will not return to the welfare
roles. In order for them to obtain quality jobs we need to provide the
training for individuals to qualify for them.
We must also provide the resources for parents to achieve these work
requirements. First and foremost this means providing funding for
quality childcare. A parent will not make a reliable employee if she is
concerned about the quality of her child's care, or cannot get
childcare at all. This cannot be over-emphasized. For a positive change
in our society welfare recipients must have real jobs that uplift their
self-sufficiency and if children are going to have the care and
attention they need to grow positively, we must have programs of
adequate childcare. The bill before us today does not have adequate
programs.
Finally Mr. Speaker, I hope that we will provide the states with the
kind of resources and flexibility that has allowed welfare caseloads to
fall by 57 percent since 1996. It is not achieved by simply allowing
states to do what they want or by eliminating a national safety net for
people who need help. Our action on the floor today is not the end of
the process aimed at having all Americans support themselves and
contribute to our common economy.
I urge my colleagues to support the substitute of Mr. Cardin, and if
that should fail, I urge them to oppose the bill before us today. This
bill likely will result in more not fewer people trapped in poverty.
And I must express outrage at how this has been handled. This
afternoon the House will go into recess for an awards ceremony. Nearly
everyone here has supported and does support that award, but no member
should have the nerve to tell us or the public that there just wasn't
time to debate and vote on amendments to his major bill on welfare
reform, to improve education, childcare, or to gather data.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Schiff).
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in urging support for
the Democratic substitute in opposition to the base bill for one simple
reason, and that is, we cannot ask of a single parent on welfare that
they leave their children without adequate child care. Yes, we need to
move them to work; and yes, we need to increase the level of that work,
but we cannot leave their children out in the street.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, if I might, I am going to first urge my colleagues to
support the substitute. If my colleagues believe in flexibility on
education, if they believe States should have the resources and they
think we should have fairness to our immigrants, our only opportunity
will be this vote.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin), one of the co-authors of the substitute.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to say a word about a difference in
terms of the employment credit. What the Republican bill does is
essentially ignore the important goal of welfare reform, and that is
giving incentives to the States to help people move off of welfare into
productive work. Instead, their focus is on keeping people on welfare,
working even in makeshift jobs. That is a stark difference.
I want to close by saying a word about the very partisan nature of
this discussion. My colleagues have forfeited the opportunity to work
together to fashion a bipartisan bill, forfeited it. The employment
credit is in the Senate bill on a bipartisan basis. They have thumbed
their nose at every bipartisan effort. They have thumbed their nose at
the efforts of the Clinton administration. They have twisted that
legacy. My colleagues also twisted the efforts of Democrats 5 and 6
years ago to move ahead welfare reform in the right direction.
Fortunately, there is a Senate to correct the hopelessly partisan
effort of this majority.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield the remainder of
the time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), a member of
the Committee on Agriculture, who with their contributions in terms of
the food stamp component of this bill have made a significant
contribution to make sure that Americans in need have those needs met.
(Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California
(Mr. Thomas) for his good work.
I rise in strong opposition to this substitute and in strong support
of the bill.
In 1995, this is what the current Democratic whip said about welfare
reform: ``I hope children throughout this country never have to feel
the pain of this legislation. I hope it does not pass.'' It did pass.
It was signed into law by President Clinton. Here is what happened.
Children in hunger went down from 4.5 million to 2.5 million since
that time. Black children in poverty went from 42 percent. Of all black
children in 1970, rose, rose to nearly 50 percent, and then when this
bill was put into effect in 1995, dropped to about one-third of all
children, black children.
Welfare caseloads dropped precipitously from 12 million to about 6
million. Welfare reform works: 4.2 fewer million Americans today live
in poverty than in 1996; 2.3 million fewer children live in poverty
today than in 1996, including 1.1 million African American children.
Build on that success by passing this bill which promotes work,
improves a child's well-being and promotes healthy marriages and all
families. This is a good bill. Support it.
This welfare reform bill includes provisions for additional state
flexibility so that Governors may coordinate welfare programs. The food
stamp program is one of the qualified programs under this state
flexibility provision, which will allow the Secretary of Agriculture to
waive portions of the Food Stamp Act as long as she maintains that all
benefits are used for food, as in the current food stamp program. To
ensure the integrity of the program states must also complete quality
control reviews and cannot expand the food stamp program eligibility
standards.
Additionally, the Secretary of Agriculture will be allowed to approve
5-year block grant demonstration projects for up to 5 states. The block
grant will promote a competition for excellence among states. Eligible
state plans must include a description of the eligibility rules to
which a State would adhere when providing assistance. The competition
among states would boil down to the selection of states with innovative
management plans, quality of program proposals and maximizing benefits
to people in need. As in the food stamp state flexibility portion of
this bill, states must retain the current law that mandates that all
benefits must be used for food.
The temporary assistance for needy families (TANF) program has shown
that block grants work. Critics' assumed that the states cared less
than people in Washington. States have proven the critics wrong with
regard to their successful implementation of this program. The American
Public Human Service Association has testified that the continued state
success is contingent upon ``maintaining and enhancing the flexibility
of the TANF block grant.'' The time has come for us to take the first
steps in allowing the same successes to be made with the food stamp
program.
This is a small stamp for the food stamp program because only 5
states will be allowed to operate a food stamp block grant. It is up to
the Secretary of Agriculture to approve those states asking for a block
grant. I expect that the Secretary will seize this opportunity to
challenge states to design food stamp programs that will be effective,
efficient and ease the burdens of families applying for food benefits
and the people who administer the program.
States have proven over the past 5 years, even to the most hardened
skeptics, that they can operate good public assistance programs that
meet the test of providing what needy families need most--the ability
to get and keep a job and provide for their families. We are asking
that these same people in the states, at least 5 of them, are able to
provide this same proof to skeptics of food stamp block grants.
In addition to these food stamp provisions, I support the bill's
flexibility for states. This Bill offers our states more flexibility
and allows them to make these welfare programs more efficient by
allowing states and localities to combine certain program requirements
so they would have to submit only one application. I urge my colleagues
to support this bill as it continues welfare as a temporary alternative
and not a permanent crutch for folks who are on hard times.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition of H.R. 4737, the
``Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act,'' the
Republican attempt at reforming the current welfare system. Since we
enacted welfare reform in 1996, a number of issues have been brought to
the forefront of the welfare reform debate including, job training,
work requirements, funding, legal immigrant assistance,

[[Page H2590]]

and poverty reduction, all of which H.R. 4737 fails to adequately
address. I believe the true measure of the success of welfare reform is
in our ability to reduce poverty and to move recipients off of welfare
and into long-term employment. The Cardin Substitute, which I strongly
support, builds on the success of the 1996 welfare law by requiring
welfare recipients to move toward employment, while providing the
resources necessary to escape poverty, to move up the economic ladder.
H.R. 4737 places a huge unfunded mandate burden on the states, while
at the same time significantly limiting the flexibility of states to
develop their own approaches to moving people off welfare. If enacted
over 80 percent of the states will have to implement fundamental
changes to their current welfare program The provisions in this bill
will cost states an estimated $8.3-11 billion dollars by 2007, almost
four times what the Republican bill provides, at the same time states
are facing large budget cuts and enormous budget deficits. Under H.R.
4737, the State of Texas alone, would have to provide over $688 million
to support such mandates, ultimately forcing the state to either raise
taxes or cut benefits.
Mr. Speaker, I also oppose H.R. 4737 because it jeopardizes our
ability to protect America's children, by merely providing an
additional $2 billion dollars for mandatory child care. H.R. 4737 also
imposes major new work requirements on recipients, but made no progress
toward reducing the severe child care shortage. The so-called
``increase'' that its proponents are touting provides only enough money
to cover inflation, costing the states an additional $3.8 billion in
child care cost. This bill also unfairly continues the existing ban on
providing assistance to legal immigrants.
Since the enactment of the 1996 welfare law's, millions of previously
dependent families joined the labor force in unprecedented numbers as
caseloads fell by more than half and the percentage of working
recipients rose to historic heights. However, as one who supported the
1996 reforms, I believe there is a point where we need to accept that
those remaining on welfare are likely to be the hardest to place in
jobs due to a lack of education, training, or available child care. Mr.
Speaker, there is a better way. My colleague from Maryland, Mr. Cardin
has put forth an alternative that focuses on providing opportunity,
demanding responsibility and reflect the approach that work itself is
the fastest and most effective means of preparing recipients for self-
sufficiency. Yet the H.R. 4737 fails to recognize this reality. The
Cardin Substitute, provides states with the flexibility and freedom to
develop programs which allow recipients to count education and
training, including post-secondary training toward participation rates
for up to 24 months. this bill raises the bar on the work requirement
and provides the states with the resources to meet these challenges by
providing an additional $11 billion for mandatory child care funding
over five years to meet the work requirement. By requiring those who
can work to do so, we recognize the dignity of all labor and the moral
imperative of self-reliance. We should insist on work for it's
instructional value--it is the only certain route out of dependence and
poverty. Additionally, this bill removes the ban on states serving
legal immigrants with Federal TANF funds, eliminates the ban on
providing Medicaid to pregnant women and children, and it restores
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits for disabled legal
immigrant children.
The Cardin substitute rewards self-sufficiency and gives families the
help they need to successfully move from welfare to work. It is the
responsibility of Congress to build on the successes of the 1996
welfare law's and to ensure that low-income families are given a
legitimate opportunity to move out of poverty. For this reason, I urge
my colleagues to support the Cardin Substitute.
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to
the Republican bill.
My home state of Massachusetts has operated a successful welfare
program, utilizing a waiver in order to focus mandatory work activities
on families without major barriers to work. Through this, we have
succeeded in moving most of these families into employment. The current
caseload is barely half of what it was before state welfare reform
began.
Despite this success, three-quarters of those remaining are families
with serious barriers to employment, including a disability or the need
to care for a disabled child.
Massachusetts and other states need the ability to decide what is the
approximate mix of services and activities in order to move welfare
families from poverty to self-sufficiency. Unfortunately, this bill
reduces state discretion.
Further, I believe this bill falls short in helping teen mothers
break the cycle of welfare and poverty. While only 6 percent of the
caseload in my home state of Massachusetts consists of teen parents,
historically about 50 percent of welfare mothers started parenting as
teenagers. While the 1996 law set strong goals for teen parents, this
bill fails to make some modest improvements which would help these
families break out of welfare dependency.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill and support the Democratic
alternative.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4737
and in support of the Democratic substitute. It is imperative that we
provide families with the necessary ingredients to produce self-
sufficiency and job stability. The Democratic substitute accomplishes
this important goal.
I supported welfare reform under the Clinton Administration and these
reforms have been effective in cutting our welfare rolls in half. In my
home state of Illinois, the number of welfare recipients has been
reduced by 74 percent over the past five years. However, H.R. 4737 will
undo the successful strategies states now employ to move Temporary
Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) recipients to jobs. While H.R. 4737
is well intended, I am concerned that we will undermine the law's
stated goal of ending dependence on government assistance if we do not
have adequate resources available for safe and affordable childcare,
transportation, and healthcare. The legislation provides no help to
states in implementing the new work requirements, which I support, and
does nothing to extend childcare to the estimated 15 million children
who are currently eligible for such assistance, but lack coverage
because states do not have the necessary resources.
The Democratic substitute maintains state flexibility, focuses on
real work, and helps families escape poverty and achieve permanent
employment. It increases childcare funding by $11 billion over 5 years
so that the tough work requirements can be met without harming the
children of those receiving benefits. This substitute does not impose
massive new mandates on states and work requirements on impoverished
mothers without the assistance necessary to make welfare reform work.
Mr. Speaker, although I support responsible welfare reform, the
Republican proposal is not sufficient. I do not want to see the federal
government take a step backward in our effort to reduce the welfare
rolls. For these reasons, I oppose H.R. 4737 and support the Democratic
substitute.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate on the substitute
offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) has expired.
Pursuant to the order of the House of yesterday, further proceedings
on H.R. 4737 will be postponed until later this afternoon.

____________________