[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.

       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.

                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.

                          ____________________