[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 27 (Thursday, February 13, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H465-H546]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, WORK, AND FAMILY PROMOTION ACT OF 2003
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 69 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 69
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 4) 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. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed two
[[Page H466]]
hours, with 50 minutes equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways
and Means, 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce, and 30 minutes equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Energy and Commerce. After general debate
the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-
minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. No
amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed
in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and opponent, and
shall not be subject to amendment. All points of order
against such amendments are waived except that the adoption
of an amendment in the nature of a substitute shall
constitute the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 69 is an appropriate and fair rule
providing for the consideration of H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility,
Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2003.
This rule provides for a total of 2 hours of general debate in the
House with 50 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman
and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means, 40
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking
member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and finally, 30
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking
minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
After general debate, the rule makes in order two substitute
amendments: the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Kucinich), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lantos); and the substitute amendment offered by the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Kind), and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), both of which
are printed in the report of the Committee on Rules and debatable for
40 minutes each, equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an
opponent.
The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the
bill, as well as against the amendments printed in the report. Finally,
the rule permits the minority to offer a motion to recommit, with or
without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, 7 years ago many of us stood in this very Chamber
surrounded by skeptical glares and wary eyes as we began debate on the
historic welfare reform package. The day was August 1, 1996. It was
also payday for many Americans. And on that day, 14 million welfare
recipients cashed a paycheck for which they had not worked.
Mr. Speaker, 14 million people received money from the American
taxpayers in exchange for no work, no questions asked, no strings, no
requirements, no obligation to produce or demonstrate the slightest bit
of productivity to our communities and to our society. Such was the
nature of our welfare system 7 years ago.
Now, this may have seemed unfair to the taxpayers; but it was doubly
unfair to the welfare recipients trapped in generational cycles of
poverty and hopelessness. But on that day in 1996, Congress passed one
of the most historic reform bills ever, one that truly made the
American dream a reality for millions of Americans previously without
hope. But these reforms were not passed without a fight.
There were claims that the landmark plan would drive poor families
into the streets. And there were shouts that children would be left
starving, and cries that single mothers would be forced to neglect
their families. But now, 7 years later, we see a very different picture
of what welfare reform has done. The predictions of doom and gloom have
not been realized. Quite to the contrary, welfare caseloads have fallen
from 14 million to 5 million. Over 3 million children have been lifted
out of poverty.
Black child poverty rates have hit a record low, and the poverty rate
among Hispanics has seen its largest decrease in history. In addition
to these tremendous statistics, perhaps the biggest achievement of
welfare reform is the way in which these reforms have promoted self-
sufficiency and empowered so many men and women.
Welfare reform has given Americans a chance to work and the means to
do it by placing a high value on the contributions of each and every
person in society. It assumes that every person has some talent, some
knowledge, some skill, some individual uniqueness to contribute. It
assumes that each man and woman who is physically and mentally capable
can and should be, even in the slightest discernible way, a productive
part of our communities.
The benefits are twofold. Not only are our communities strengthened
by the additional contributions, but these men and women, who were
formerly trapped in a cycle of dependency, have now established a real
sense of accomplishment and independence. Today we have a tremendous
opportunity to build on these successes.
As I proceed to describe this legislation, I expect it will sound
very familiar. That is because less than a year ago in this very
Chamber this Congress approved the same plan, updated simply for time.
While I have the honor and distinction of introducing this
legislation on behalf of the House, it is really the gentleman from
California (Chairman Thomas), the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman
Tauzin), the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner), the gentleman from
California (Mr. McKeon), the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger),
and many others who have worked long hours to craft a bill that
empowers individuals, protects children, and strengthens families.
Their committees have vetted this language over and over in dozens of
hearings and markups. After already exhausting the committee process
last year, we have brought this plan straight to the floor at the
commencement of the new Congress, as the first major piece of
legislation out of the hopper. That is how strongly we believe in this
plan. The reforms of 1996 have expired. They expired September last
year. We cannot afford to wait.
First of all, this package provides $16.6 billion for the Temporary
Assistance of Needy Families, commonly known as TANF, as a block grant,
which was created in the 1996 reform. Funding this block grant goes
directly to State-designed programs to help move more welfare
recipients into productive jobs. Yet 58 percent of welfare recipients
are not participating in work activities yet, and that is not
acceptable.
It continues to cost taxpayers money, but worse still, it stifles the
recipients' ability to achieve true self-sufficiency. Therefore, this
package calls for increasing the work-related activity requirements
from the current 50 percent to 70 percent by fiscal year 2008.
Next, this plan offers parents and families the tools and resources
they need to secure a job, achieve independence and strengthen
families. By providing access to reliable, high-quality child care,
recipients will have peace of mind knowing that their child is safe as
they train for, find, and keep a stable job.
Children are our future, and we cannot settle for second-rate care.
So in addition to the $4.8 billion funding already in place, this
package provides an extra $2 billion. With these dollars comes greater
flexibility for States, which will now be able to transfer 50 percent
of their share of TANF to child care instead of the current 30 percent.
{time} 1015
We all know that training and education are the backbone of advancing
[[Page H467]]
one's professional opportunities. So while 24 of the 40 hours must be
spent in actual work, the remaining 16 hours may be defined by States
and can include training and education. And up to 4 months during a 24-
month period can be counted towards State work requirements if the
individual is engaged in education or training that will lead to work.
Finally, the plan gives unprecedented flexibility to States by
establishing broad, new State flex authority that is enthusiastically
supported by our Nation's governors, and it will really give them the
tools they need.
Mr. Speaker, welfare recipients do not want a handout. They do not
want a life-style of dependence. They do not want a system that offers
only a one-way ticket to poverty. American families want to live the
American dream. They want the chance to build strong and prosperous
lives and they want to offer brighter futures to their loved ones.
Therefore, it is my hope that we can silence the grumbles that echoed
through this Chamber back in 1996 and build on the successes we have
had thus far.
Fostering independence through work, empowering families and lifting
more Americans out of poverty are at the core of this reform package,
just as they were in 1996. The empirical evidence of the past 7 years
quite adequately demonstrates the success so far.
So let us tune out the protests. The shouts, cries and pleas of the
naysayers in 1996 were myths then and they are myths now.
To my colleagues who may hesitate to support this rule for partisan
reasons, I invite you to take a good look at where we were 7 years ago
and where we have come today. You will find hundreds of children and
families in each of your districts that are better off now than they
were 7 years ago. They are working. They are proud. They are teaching
their children about the dignity of having a job and the honor of
providing for a family.
Mr. Speaker, a check in the mail every month will not teach
responsibility, it will not build confidence, and it will not break the
cycle of dependency and poverty. But it will if they have a job. It
will provide a sense of accomplishment, a sense of accomplishment for a
job well done. And it will provide the means to achieve the American
dream. A check in the mail for a hard month's work will open up the
doors of opportunity and offer all Americans an endless supply of pride
and self-worth for generations to come.
I urge this body to adopt this rule and approve H.R. 4.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, in 1996 a sweeping welfare reform
initiative was enacted and authorized for 5 years. Temporary assistance
to needy families replaced guaranteed welfare checks with a new work
requirement, placed a lifetime limit on the benefits recipients could
receive, and removed most legal immigrants from eligibility for
welfare.
The program was up for reauthorization last year. The reauthorization
legislation passed the House with a rule that allowed only one
substitute amendment. The bill was reported out of the Senate Finance
Committee, but was never considered by the full Senate.
We are here today to consider the rule for the Personal
Responsibility, Work and Family Protection Act of 2003. Mr. Speaker,
the underlying bill impacts millions of vulnerable Americans, yet the
process for consideration of the bill has muzzled meaningful debate and
barred serious consideration of alternatives and amendments.
In the 108th Congress, not a single committee with jurisdiction over
this legislation has considered H.R. 4. Five committees had
jurisdiction over the legislation: Ways and Means, Education and the
Workforce, Energy and Commerce, Agriculture and Financial Services.
There are over 50 new Members of Congress, not here in the 107th
Congress when we began the process, and none of them have had the
opportunity to consider and vote on the legislation in committee.
The Republican leadership rushed welfare reauthorization to the House
floor. Instead of allowing the Congress and these committees to
examine, debate and discuss this important piece of legislation, the
majority has opted to bar the full House from considering 22 amendments
and to allow us to consider only two substitute amendments.
Because the committee process was skipped, my Democratic colleagues
and I asked for an open rule so that, at the very least, the full House
could consider the many issues brought up in the dozens of amendments
filed with the Committee on Rules. There are too many issues that
deserve full discussion and debate. The two substitute amendments that
are in order under the rule cannot fully address these issues.
The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) offered a very important
amendment. It called for a temporary suspension of time limits on TANF
benefits to individuals that reside in a metropolitan statistical area
where the unemployment rate exceeds 7 percent. But the Committee on
Rules, along partisan lines, ruled it out of order.
And the rule voted out of committee on party lines allows for only 2
hours to debate this reform bill. No committees have looked at the
bill, and the full House only has 2 hours to debate it. The rule does
not give Members the opportunity to address fully the inadequacies of
this legislation, the grave changes to the program and the growing
needs of Americans living in poverty. The rule bars any meaningful
debate and prohibits consideration of important amendments affecting
the elderly, parents and children.
Mr. Speaker, too many people are drowning in a sea of poverty.
Welfare-to-Work should not merely toss the poorest Americans a life
preserver to help them float along, with their heads barely above the
poverty level.
The Catholic Family Center in Rochester, New York, provides an
example of how the 1996 welfare reforms are failing. The center is
doing a great job getting the women in their program off welfare and
into work, but the average starting salary of the women is $6.82 an
hour, far less than the $17.66 that a Rochester-area single parent with
two preschoolers must earn to provide the basic necessities.
H.R. 4 does nothing to close the gap and does not give these hard-
working parents who are trying hard to work and care for their families
the chance to succeed. We need to do more for our most vulnerable
friends and neighbors.
I can tell you that in my district the need for assistance is
growing. In Monroe County, New York, applications for welfare
assistance were up 17 percent in the year 2001. Requests for emergency
housing placements rose by 25 percent from 2000 to 2001. And a program
helping the homeless reported that 20,000 more homeless men, women and
children were served in the fall of 2001 than during the same period of
the year 2000.
The underlying bill fails to meet this growing need and fails to
address the most fundamental goal of welfare reform, moving recipients
into real jobs and out of poverty. While caseloads have fallen over 50
percent nationally since 1996, a good thing, the poverty rate has
decreased only 13 percent over the same period.
If scores of those who have moved off the welfare rolls during a
period of economic expansion remain dependent on food stamps, WIC and
other public assistance, what are they going to do now that the economy
is in recession and the States are in financial crisis? Are recipients
going to be forced to try to work and raise their children without the
education, training or child care that is necessary to move to real
independence? In fact, in the State of New York, almost half the
families that move off welfare are still living in poverty. This is not
success. Governors, mayors, State legislators, welfare directors and
poverty experts all say the same thing, that the bill is a step in the
wrong direction.
We all know that education is key to moving out of poverty, yet this
legislation eliminates vocational education from the list of activities
that count as a work-related activity. What message does this send to
Americans who seek a career in the building trades?
[[Page H468]]
The bill even hurts poor children. Access to quality child care is an
essential part of helping families to get off welfare and improving the
odds that children arrive at kindergarten ready to learn. The
Congressional Budget Office has reported that the new work requirement,
increasing by 33 percent the amount of time that recipients participate
in work activities, will require $8 billion to $11 billion in new child
care funding over 5 years. However, the bill only provides $2 billion.
What are the financially strapped States supposed to do about a $9
billion gap in child care funding? Where are these children going to go
while their parents work 33 percent more hours?
This welfare reauthorization bill also demands more from States
without providing any increased funding. It is estimated that unfunded
mandates in this bill will cost my State more than $1 billion over 5
years. Nationwide, the estimated cost of unfunded mandates is $11
billion. You can see my State is impacted tremendously.
How can we shift this huge financial burden onto New York and the
other States, especially now that the economy is in recession and
States across the country are facing huge budget shortfalls? How do
these unfunded mandates lift people out of poverty and help them get a
job and give them hope?
Mr. Speaker, there is a better way, one that maintains State
flexibility, one that focuses on real work and one that seeks to help
families escape poverty. My Democratic colleagues and I support strong
work requirements that will move people into real jobs. We believe that
States should have the flexibility to determine the best mix of
services and activities to move them towards self-sufficiency.
We want to provide welfare recipients with access to vocational
training so they can find some good jobs. And we support providing the
necessary resources particularly for quality child care to help
families leave welfare for work. This measure utterly fails to do that.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to share some wisdom with you from the
people of the 28th District of New York. In an editorial, published
last fall in the Buffalo News, wrote the following about welfare
reauthorization:
The goal of welfare reform should not simply be to trim the
welfare rolls. It should be to break the cycle of poverty
that puts people on welfare in the first place. Reduced
government expenses are a nice benefit, but reducing poverty
is the key to long-term success for the program and for the
people who have relied upon it. Education and training offer
far better chances not only to land jobs but to keep them.
Increased child care assistance is a necessary adjunct in
breaking the multigenerational cycle of welfare entitlement,
as well as a humanitarian move that should come naturally to
a rich nation that nonetheless is home to impoverished
children.
That was from the Buffalo News, September 15, 2002. I urge my
colleagues to voted against this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield such time
as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the
very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule.
Before I begin, I cannot help but think of one of Thomas Jefferson's
great lines, the author of our Declaration of Independence. I have got
to sort of extrapolate from that when Thomas Jefferson said two
thinking men, and in this case it is two women, but he said, ``Two
thinking men can be given the exact same set of facts and draw
different conclusions.''
Mr. Speaker, I sat and listened to the very eloquent remarks by my
good friend from Ohio, the author of this legislation who chairs our
Republican Conference, and I listened to the equally eloquent remarks
from my friend from the 28th District of New York who just entered that
editorial in the Record, and I said that just to let her know I was
listening very, very carefully.
It is to me very difficult to believe that we are talking about the
same piece of legislation and the same kind of program. We obviously in
this country are faced with serious economic challenges. There are
people who are hurting out there. We know that. But as I listened to
the reports of the failure of welfare reform, I am reminded that it was
a bipartisan piece of legislation. I say it was bipartisan because
clearly at the end of the day, after two tries, on the third, President
Clinton proudly signed and embraced welfare reform in 1996.
We enjoyed strong economic growth through the 1990s. Many people
tried to make the claim that the only reason we saw the success of
welfare reform is that we were dealing with a strong, vibrant, growing
economy; when in fact I looked at and talked with the gentleman from
California (Mr. Herger), the chairman of the subcommittee on Ways and
Means that deals with this, and he pointed out that during the 1980s,
when we saw an equally strong economy, we witnessed a 25 percent
increase in the numbers on the welfare rolls.
We saw strong, bold economic growth during the Reagan years, as we
know, yet the numbers of people getting into what my friend from Ohio
appropriately described as that generational cycle of dependence
continued to grow more and more. And then during the 1990s we again saw
strong economic growth, but at the same time we saw implementation of
the welfare reform legislation and we have seen tremendous improvement.
We all know that an economic downturn began in the third and fourth
quarters of the year 2000. We also know that we suffered tremendously
from the tragedy of September 11, 2001. What we found, Mr. Speaker, was
that during that period of time, we obviously witnessed a recession. We
saw two quarters of negative economic growth. That was last year.
{time} 1030
But then the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) reported to us
that even during that period of time, we saw a 10 percent reduction in
the numbers on welfare, meaning that we have been able to very boldly
encourage and move people out of that generational cycle of dependence.
If we look at this measure and the steps that are being taken to
ensure that those who are truly in need are not going to be suffering,
it is very, very impressive. We obviously provide a caveat which allows
those parents with children who are in need an opportunity to have
consideration for that. We allow in this measure an opportunity for
those who are suffering from drug addiction to have an opportunity to
deal with that need. We clearly are providing States with flexibility.
That is something they said they needed. In my State of California, we
have extraordinary extremes from one end to the other. So to provide
that opportunity for flexibility is very important.
As we look at the structure of the rule for consideration of this, I
am somewhat struck with the arguments that were made by my friend from
New York. She said that they advocated an open rule, and it is true
that an open rule was moved up in the Committee on Rules last night
when we pursued this bill; and if an open rule had been made in order,
these very thoughtful substitutes, one of which has come forward from
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), my very good friend, and I am
happy he is offering it in the name of our late former colleague, Patsy
Mink, from Hawaii, and the other substitute which was made in order
under this rule is being offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Cardin), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. I said when I
announced that we would be considering this measure that we lean
towards making substitutes in order, and we have provided waivers and
protections so that those substitutes are, in fact, in order. So that
is why we clearly should have, I believe, strong bipartisan support for
this rule.
Mr. Speaker, we have had story after story told of the families who
may not be making as much money today while they are working as they
were when they were receiving welfare, and yet they have a level of
dignity and pride in what it is that they are doing that makes them
happier and more fulfilled. We obviously want to ensure that they have
an opportunity to make many times, many times what they were making
when they were on welfare and we believe that if we can put into place
President Bush's program for economic
[[Page H469]]
growth, we can get this economy going so that we can take this number
that we have today which was at one point 12 million and because of the
success of welfare reform has dropped down to 5 million; and we can, I
believe, bring that number even lower.
People talk about compassionate government and the fact that we need,
as we look at legislation like this, to demonstrate compassion. And I
would remind my colleagues of something that is oft said and that is
the level of compassion of the government should not be based on the
number of people who are on welfare, but instead on the number of
people who do not need to be on welfare. And that is really what we are
trying to do with this legislation; and I hope very much that we can
move ahead, pass this rule, make sure that we consider these
substitutes, which I believe are very well intentioned but need to be
defeated, and then pass this very important legislation that the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) has offered to us.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, this Congress is starting off on the wrong foot. Welfare
reauthorization reform is an important issue. It affects the lives of
millions of people, and it deserves thoughtful and careful
deliberation. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the majority does not agree.
The course of those millions of lives will now be determined by a
handful of Republican leaders and their staffers, nobody else. That is
just wrong and it is not how a democratic body is supposed to function.
Welfare reauthorization is important, but the legislative process is
important too. And it should not be simply tossed away like yesterday's
newspaper.
In addition to trying to finish last year's work today halfway
through February, this body is now abandoning the committee system that
has served this House for over 200 years. Sure the majority has allowed
for two substitutes, and I suppose we should be very grateful; but let
me remind my colleagues that this bill was referred to five committees.
How many of those committees held a hearing on this bill in the 108th
Congress? Zero. How many of those committees marked up this bill? Zero.
Over 50 new Members of this body, Republican and Democrat, were denied
the opportunity to shape this debate. Do their views not matter? Do we
not want their input and their expertise? Could we not have scheduled
hearings and markups during these last few weeks when our own schedule
here in this Congress has been virtually nonexistent? And I should also
add, Mr. Speaker, that the omnibus appropriations bill that we are
going to deal with later today includes language that will extend the
current welfare program until September of this year. I believe that
that gives us ample time to do this right, to let the committees work
their will.
Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce testified on this bill yesterday before the Committee on
Rules, and in the process he said that he is a fan of the committee
system. It is too bad his leadership does not agree with him. Mr.
Speaker, I want to say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
that the committee work matters, that Members who serve in this House
matter, that the people of this country matter, and this is not the way
for us to do the people's business.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Hastings).
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from
Rochester for yielding me time.
I looked into the Congressional Record, and we have now made it a
part of the democratic views, the Congressional Record in March of
1993, and the following remarks appeared there, Mr. Speaker:
Every time we deny an open amendment process on an
important piece of legislation, we are disenfranchising the
people and their representatives from the legislative
process. The people and their representatives are not even
being treated as second class citizens. They might as well
not be citizens at all given how little impact they have on
shaping legislation in the House. If that is not
undemocratic, I would like to know what is. In other words,
Mr. Speaker, the further you and your leadership stray from
the regular order around here, the more you are insulting a
new order which is not democracy by any definition. The
people are sick and tired of this political gamesmanship.
They want back their own House, and they want it to be open
and democratic, not closed and dictatorial.
Those were the words of the former chairman of the Committee on
Rules, a good friend of mine that I traveled the world with, Gerald
Solomon; and they were true in 1993, and they are true today as we
consider H.R. 4. This bill is opposed by Children's Defense Fund, the
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, and the National Council of
Churches. And for good reason. It does very little to address the two
primary purposes of welfare, to help those who need help and to provide
opportunities to move out of poverty.
Although a number of items in this bill concern me, there are two key
aspects that demonstrate its fundamental failure. First, the narrow
definition of work activities. H.R. 4 does not include educational
programs and training activities. This bill restricts the States from
providing education and training opportunities to welfare recipients
and does not allow them to count vocational education as a work
activity. I believe that any educational opportunities, vocational
training, internships, ESL, GED, and even basic literacy courses are
the keys to success. The only way to get out of poverty and achieve
permanent self-sufficiency is through education and training. When we
place people in deadend jobs and fail to give them any opportunities
for advancement, we have simply placed them in a dead end.
The second aspect of this bill that concerns me is one that severely
impacts my State of Florida as well as California, Texas, and New York.
These are the four States with the highest populations of both legal
and illegal immigrants. H.R. 4 discriminates against legal immigrants
by denying them Federal assistance even if they have been living in
this country for a number of years. Both the National Governors
Association and the National Conference of State Legislators have
recommended that States be given the option to use Federal funds to
serve legal immigrants; but under H.R. 4, 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 the United States and
are, in fact, United States citizens.
We have always been very quick as a Nation to judge other cultures as
advanced or civilized, and now the time has come to judge ourselves.
The measure of how advanced and civilized we are is not in the number
of Blackberrys, CDs and DVDs, SUVs, and laptops we possess per capita.
The true measure of how advanced and civilized we are is the manner in
which we care for the most vulnerable members of our society.
I urge our colleagues to vote against this measure and vote for
Cardin and Kucinich.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to, though this is the debate on the
rule, emphasize the difference here. It is too bad no effort was made
in subcommittee or full committee this time around to try to forge a
bridge over these differences.
What are the differences? It is not the value of work. It is not the
linkage of welfare to work. No. The difference is whether the emphasis
in the Republican bill will be as, to people who are remaining on
welfare, they work, or getting people off of welfare into work. And the
difference is whether people working should remain in poverty or
whether it should be an emphasis on people working out of poverty. And
this is a major difference; and it is seen, for example, in the way the
Republicans give credit to the States against the required
participation rate because of caseload reduction instead of people
moving into employment.
It also is shown in terms of the reduction in flexibility for the
States to use vocational ed and other techniques,
[[Page H470]]
other approaches, so that people move out of poverty into true
independence. And here is the reason the challenge matters so much. We
do not have the exact data, but a huge proportion of people who have
moved off of welfare into work remain in poverty. The average for
people who have moved off of welfare into work is $2,500 a quarter or
$10,000 a year. It is also shown in the lack of child care money in the
Republican bill, also in the lack of adequate health care. So these are
important differences.
So this is not a battle of 1995 and 1996. We worked, a number of us,
very hard to craft a welfare bill that paid adequate attention to
health care and to day care, though it had other problems remaining in
it. No. This is a question of where we go from here and whether we are
going to tailor a system that gives the States the flexibility, the
inducement, and the mothers the opportunity to move from welfare to
work, out of poverty into true independence. That is the difference.
So I am proud to be supporting the Cardin bill, and I hope that all
the Democrats will vote for it; and I regret that the Republicans made
no effort at all to see if we could put this together in this year.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
{time} 1045
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule, not because it allows
us two amendments on the Democratic side or two substitutes, but
because it supports a bill which fundamentally perverts the
congressional processes.
There have been no hearings on this bill. New Members who came in
this session did not get an opportunity to hear testimony, raise
questions or make amendments. That is not the way the congressional
process, the democratic process, is supposed to work. For that reason
alone, we should reject this bill.
But let me go further. Just yesterday, a janitor in this building
stopped me and asked me if I could help him find a job for his 40-year-
old girlfriend. She worked as a pharmacist's assistant and cashier, and
jobs are scarce. I am not sure if my colleagues on the Republican side
understand that.
The question used to be ``Where is the beef?'' I think the question
today ought to be ``Where is the compassion?''
This bill will result in putting people out of work, putting people
on the street who used to be on welfare. This bill will put burdens on
States, $8 to $11 billion more mandated to the States, without a single
dollar of help from the Federal Government. Where is the compassion?
Critically, on the subject of compassion, this bill ignores the
problem of child care. People want to go to work. That lady wanted to
go to work. But is there child care funding? No. Right now there are 15
million eligible children for which the States cannot pay child care.
That is one of the fundamental flaws of this bill. Add to that the fact
we are asking mothers to work more hours, and you see why this is a
major problem.
If one looks further, one will find that the bill limits education
and vocational training. People want to go to work, they want to get
good jobs, but they need training. My colleagues, unfortunately, do not
see that as compassion. It seems to me we ought to have a bill that
maximizes rather than minimizes training opportunities.
Finally, we have legal immigrants, immigrants who pay taxes. They are
not allowed to benefit under this bill.
This is a misbegotten bill. It ought to be returned to committee. We
ought to reject this rule and reject, more importantly, the underlying
bill.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume just to respond briefly, because child care is very important
to me too. I think it is probably one of the most important pieces of
this legislation.
This bill gives the governors in every State the ability to shift
more of the TANF funding into child care. We not only put an additional
$2 billion more into child care, we allow the governors to take the
TANF funds and spend from 30 percent, which is the maximum allowed now,
to now 50 percent of the TANF funds can shift into child care.
So it is very important that this body understands the funds are
there, and it is within the purview of the governors to allow it to be
spent for child care. I think that that extra flexibility is very
important, and we are happy to have provided that.
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, the point I was making is that our welfare
rolls are increasing because people are out of work, which means the
States will have more people to fund; and the bill does not provide
substantial increases in funding to the States. You are asking them to
basically take out of their existing TANF money to provide for more
people. That does not seem to make sense.
I reiterate, 15 million eligible children are not being funded.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the governors
will be allowed to use the funds that the Federal Government is giving
them to provide for child care, and that is a good thing.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I think this legislation is, which is the reason why I
rise to oppose the rule, ``my way or the highway.''
Consultation is the way of this Congress. In determining my position
on welfare reform, I went to the constituents of my district who are
facing drastic conditions, high unemployment and great need.
I listened to my distinguished friend explain the Republican bill,
and simply my response to that is, it gives the governors the right to
borrow from Peter to pay Paul. When they borrow to get child care
money, what it will do is undermine the needs of your people elsewhere
and those in dire poverty.
Let me share with you my concern as to whether any Texan can vote for
the Republican bill, because Texas is number one in the percentage of
uninsured children, we are number 50 as it relates to children who are
fully immunized, and we are number nine in States with a population
under 18 living in poverty. So this bill does not respond to the needs,
if you will, of those living in poverty in the State of Texas.
The Republican bill provides less money for training, no focus on
helping families move up the economic ladder, and frankly, there is not
enough money for child care. If you talk to single parents, or parents
in general, living in poverty or unemployed or trying to get training
or work, they tell you that there is no money for child care.
As we look to homeland security, which is very important, we should
not abandon home security. It certainly is an outrage that we would
send young men and women off to fight our battles for justice and
humanity and democracy who are legal immigrants, but yet their families
back home are living in poverty because we insist that they be in this
country for 5 years. Why is it not important that they are legal
immigrants and that they require the same dignity as anyone else?
I would simply say then that we have a crisis. People are starving,
are unemployed, children are going hungry as they go to school, and
young mothers who are teenage mothers are living without parenting
skills and without training skills. An amendment that I offered did not
get in place to be able to help train them.
I would simply say that we have a crisis, and for those who are
scoring this, I am going to be voting for the Democratic substitute and
the Kucinich amendment, because I am going to stand with the poor
people of America as opposed to worrying about the scorers, who do not
care anything about the human needs of people living in this Nation and
around the world.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to talk about the bill. I am going to
talk about
[[Page H471]]
the process, because that is what is really wrong with what happened
here.
When we organized the Committee on Ways and Means, I asked the
chairman in open committee whether we would have hearings on this bill.
The chairman said that is what he wanted. But it is pretty clear that
this House is being run by a politburo run by the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. DeLay).
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) obviously told the chairman of
the Committee on Ways and Means, which is supposed to be the most
powerful committee in Congress, you cannot have hearings on this; we
are dealing with this on the floor without any discussion, no debates.
Now, if this were a good rule and you made it an open rule and let us
put any amendments forward we wanted to, if we could have the debate
out here in public, that would be okay. But you closed that off, as
well as having any kind of public discussion in the committee system.
Now, this Congress, I am sure, is going to do more and more of that,
because it is clear what you are trying to do is run stuff through here
so quickly that we will be out of town when some war begins, and there
will not be any Members of Congress around here. You will have done all
the business, you will not have any hearings anyplace, and you will
simply pass the legislation over to the Senate and go home. That is a
travesty on the process that has been in place in this country for 200
years.
This is not a minor little bill. This is not ``shall we name the post
office in Oologah, Oklahoma, after Will Rogers?'' This is about what we
do with the poor people of this country. And for Members elected not to
have an opportunity to debate amendments and discuss the issue, I know
what they are going to say when we get out here with the regular bill;
they are going to say we did it last year.
Listen, things have continued down the drain. We have got higher and
higher unemployment, and more and more of us are facing problems in
State legislatures that cannot respond to this.
The President has made no proposal to deal with the problems of the
States in dealing with people who are on welfare, who are in trouble,
kids. The President says, ``Leave no child behind.'' Well, I guess he
means they can go to school on an empty stomach. That is okay with him.
Okay, that is good. But why not have a kid with a stomach with some
food in it so he can pay attention to the books?
But if we had this debate and we had all these amendments put out
here and we argued about whether you could actually get 30 hours of
work, or should you count training or whatever, all those issues would
then make it very clear what you are doing to poor people. You do not
care whether they have a livable wage; just shove them off the rolls
and leave them out there. And when we start to get the kids, we are
going to get the kids from the programs in every State that deal with
child abuse. People are going to say, these parents are not taking care
of these children. We have to take those children away from them.
It will be created by a bill that never had a hearing. Shame on the
Republican leadership.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, in response, the fact that this bill did not go through
the committee process is totally unfounded. This bill was vetted and
there were hearings held and there were committee markups, both in the
House and the Senate. There were task forces. There was so much work
done on this bill, and it took so long; we passed it with bipartisan,
very wide bipartisan support, and we sent it to the other body. There
was no action at that time.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford to waste that amount of time again. We
have to get this done. It has already expired. We need to reauthorize
the welfare reform provisions and improve upon them. So much success
has happened, we need to continue the momentum and allow the families,
the children, the men and women, to rise out of poverty, give them the
tools that they need; and that is exactly what this bill does.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, in response to my good friend from Ohio, the author of
this bill, I cannot imagine any legislature in the country saying we
are not going to put this through the committee system this year
because we talked about it last year.
Times have changed tremendously since last year. Unemployment rolls
have risen, people are being thrown out of work on a daily basis. In my
district, I am told that even temporary jobs are almost impossible to
find. But that is only one portion of it. Many, many parts of this bill
needed to be debated again this year in light of the new realities.
I agree with my colleagues who spoke before me: It is a shame and it
is a blot on this Congress that we would bring a bill of this
magnitude, affecting the lives of so many Americans, without going
through a single one of the five committees that had jurisdiction over
it.
I hope this is not a symbol of things to come. If it is, then the
legislature has declared itself to be unnecessary. I cannot imagine
much that will come up here this year that we probably did not discuss
in years past.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I ask my colleagues just to look back at the
welfare reforms of 1996 and to remind them how far we have come, how
far the poverty-stricken people in this Nation have come.
Today, we will find children and families in every one of our
districts better off now than they were 7 years ago. We have reduced
the welfare rolls. They continue to drop even in these tough times. Our
welfare rolls are continuing to drop, even as unemployment may rise.
H.R. 4 builds on these efforts to further protect our children, to
strengthen our families, to increase States' flexibility, and to
continue the decline in poverty.
Mr. Speaker, it has often been said that the best social program is a
job. This legislation provides the needed tools for them to move from
welfare to work. There is no reason to stall any longer. This bill has
expired. We cannot let it go any longer. We need to pass this rule
today, we need to pass this bill today. Stall tactics are over.
Today is the day. We have a very important thing to do for this
country, and we should get on with it. I urge my colleagues to support
this rule and the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the
balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Pryce of Ohio). Pursuant to House
Resolution 69 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the
consideration of the bill, H.R. 4.
{time} 1059
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 4) 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, with Mr. Simpson in the
chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) each will control 25 minutes; the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from California
(Mr. George Miller) each will control 20 minutes; and the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown)
each will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
[[Page H472]]
{time} 1100
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, before 1996, welfare recipients were trapped, trapped
in a welfare system for an average of 13 years. The welfare program
actually discouraged work, amazingly enough, and caseloads climbed,
peaking at 14 million individuals in 5 million families.
In 1996, reform law turned the welfare program in the right
direction, in the work direction. Recipients now are benefiting from
increased work, education, training, larger incomes, reduced child
poverty, and greater self-reliance, which probably is the most
important benefit from the new program. Welfare caseloads are down more
than 50 percent since that historic 1996, and the caseloads continue to
decline even in a recession structure.
Some of my colleagues might remember the dire predictions of reform
opponents in 1996 who predicted that the law, in their words, would
cast 1 million more children into poverty. I am glad to report they
were wrong. Nearly 3 million children have been lifted from poverty
since 1996 in key groups, such as children raised in single-mother
households and African American children, who are seeing poverty fall
to record-low levels.
Now, obviously, we need to continue on these successes, and that is
why H.R. 4 is before us today. Our priority is to help more people
successfully transition to work in order to know the dignity of
collecting a paycheck instead of a welfare check. Now, more than ever,
work is the only permanent path out of poverty.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the real issue before us is where we go from here. We
can analyze where we were in 1995 and 1996. Many of us worked hard to
bring about a welfare reform that linked welfare-to-work and provided
child care and also provided health care. After those ingredients were
placed into the bill, and it was a struggle, many of us voted for the
welfare reform bill, despite serious inadequacies, especially as to
legal immigrants and as to food stamps.
Where do we go from here? It is said a paycheck is dignity. Yes, a
paycheck that provides people with a living wage and that moves them
out of poverty is the true ticket of dignity. The problem with the bill
that has been brought before us, and there are many procedural issues
that have been raised, such as the failure to go through the committee
process in this session; but the problem is that the emphasis in the
Republican bill is not moving people off of welfare into productive
work, but two problems: emphasizing those who are on welfare working,
rather than moving people from welfare to work and people moving from
welfare to work, though they remain in poverty. Those are the two
flaws.
We can do much better. Our challenge now is whether people can move
from welfare to work out of poverty and into true independence, and
that is what the Cardin substitute does. That is what the Thomas bill
or whatever it is called fails to do, and there has been no effort at
all at any point before this session or during this session to try to
bridge these differences.
The reason it is so important is because large numbers, we are not
sure exactly the number, but this is clear: huge numbers of people who
move from welfare to work remain in poverty. The majority earn $2,500 a
quarter, $10,000 a year.
So the Republican bill fails in terms of accomplishing that goal of
moving people out of poverty. So they tailor the bill so that the
incentive to the States is not to get people into productive work, but
to reduce caseloads no matter how it is done.
There are other problems with it. The flexibility of the States to
help move people out of welfare into work and out of poverty has been
reduced and their ability to use training education. There is
inadequate day care money, and I want to emphasize this very briefly.
There is an increase in the Republican bill, but it is discretionary
money; and CBO has said it is $7.5 billion less than necessary to meet
the new requirements in this bill.
We can do much, much better with State flexibility, with the right
emphasis on not only welfare to work, but welfare to work that moves
people out of poverty.
These differences are important distinctions. They are important
differences that will lead to different results for mothers, for their
children, and for our Nation; and this House is now forfeiting the
chance if it passes the Republican bill to accomplish these results.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, we are going to hear a number of claims;
and I would like to present one that I believe is incontrovertible, and
that is if people remain on welfare, they will remain in poverty.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Herger), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Human
Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means; and I ask unanimous
consent that he control the remainder of the time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) will control
the time of the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This important legislation before us today, H.R. 4, the Personal
Responsibility Work and Family Promotion Act of 2003, builds on the
many successes of the historic 1996 welfare reform law. H.R. 4 will
help even more people transition from welfare to work and know the
dignity of collecting a paycheck instead of a welfare check.
As my colleagues may recall, before 1996 the Nation's welfare program
actually encouraged dependence with recipients staying on the rolls for
an average of 13 years. The program discouraged work, and caseloads
reached record levels with some 5 million families and 14 million
recipients dependent on benefits by 1994.
Since the 1996 changes, work has increased, incomes are higher, child
poverty has been reduced, and families are more self-reliant. Welfare
caseloads are down more than 50 percent and have continued to decline
even over the past 2 years as unemployment rates have risen. Nearly 3
million children have been lifted from poverty, and poverty rates for
African American children and families headed by single mothers have
reached all-time lows.
We must continue to build on this record of success. We can do that
by passing H.R. 4. This legislation fulfills the President's call to
further improve the welfare system by encouraging even more welfare
recipients to work. It would protect children and strengthen families
by promoting healthy marriages, and it would allow States increased
flexibility in operating their welfare programs.
The welfare program needs our immediate attention since it has been
on life support since October 1 of 2002. Permanent reauthorization of
this program is vitally important to States and the families and
individuals this program serves.
I urge all Members to vote in support of H.R. 4.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control the time
on this side.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Maryland?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) will control
the time of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, my remarks should not be taken as any
kind of a statement about the Committee on Ways and Means, because we
had nothing to do with this. But I remember the verse in the Bible
where they were asking Christ how you would know if you were really a
good Christian, and he said, well, it is how you take care of the least
of these, meaning the poor people and the sick and all of the rest.
This bill is an absolute travesty. Nobody wants to talk about it.
Now, let me tell my colleagues what Republicans say. Mark Schweiker,
the
[[Page H473]]
former Republican Governor of Pennsylvania said, ``Meeting the work
requirements in the House bill would require us to dismantle much of
our time-tested and effective welfare program and replace it with
costly programs with little utility. These changes, including
significant new child care costs, would cost the taxpayers of
Pennsylvania more than $300 million.'' That is a Republican Governor
talking.
Or we could take the Republican Senate chairman in Iowa. Her name is
Mary Cramer. She said, ``We are concerned that the proposals such as
the legislation passed by the House will restrict Iowa's successful
efforts to provide training to welfare recipients and meet the needs of
local businesses. We urge you not to take a step backwards and further
restrict education and training options.''
I could go on like this. Anybody outside the Beltway, outside of the
office of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), knows that this bill is
not going to make it better; it is going to make it worse.
Now, I have a whole long list of things. The GOP will say today that
welfare reform has been a great success. If that is, why have 41 out of
the 47 States said, the Republican plan would force fundamental change
in their current welfare program? Why are we changing it if it is not
broken? What is the point? The point is to squeeze poor people.
We heard earlier that child poverty has fallen dramatically because
of welfare reform. No, that is not what everyone else who is an
economist says. It is a good economy, and it has been the earned income
tax credit, and we still are forcing families, with a family of three
living on $2,500 a quarter. Now, that is 70 percent of the Federal
poverty line. We call that success? That is what we are being led to
believe out here, that we have a success and we ought to squeeze them
more. They got too much. That family of three with $10,000 for a year
ought to be squeezed some more.
We will also hear, and we did hear, that this bill gives more
flexibility because we allow States to define 16 of the 40 required
work hours in the bill. This bill increases the current law direct-work
requirement from 20 to 24 hours and eliminates job search. Looking for
a job does not count anymore; you only get credit for working. So if
you have a job making $6 an hour and you spend a little bit of time out
looking for a job, you do not get any credit whatsoever for that.
The CBO estimates that the paperwork involved in this is going to be
a cost of $6.2 billion over the next 5 years. So we will pay for $6.2
billion worth of paperwork; but we will not think about the people,
because we need to pass the committee, we need to get it right out here
and get it passed because TANF expired on March 31. What they did not
say when they came out on the floor was, the Senate Republicans
included a 6-month extension of the current law through September 30 in
the Omnibus Appropriation Act we are about to take on.
Now, that extension is supported by the National Governors
Conference, so Republican legislators are going out and sticking their
thumb in the eye of Republican Governors.
{time} 1115
Now, if the House negotiators would withdraw their objections to that
extension, we would have plenty of time for thoughtful consideration of
their program. We would have the next 6 months to think about it. The
thing I really like best is, we had plenty of debate last year so we do
not need to debate it this year, as though, if you discussed it in
1941, it is good enough; we do not need to discuss it again, right?
Well, do things change? Did we have a new Congress elected in
November? We have got new people here. Some of these people have never,
ever considered these issues, a lot of them. There has been no public
debate whatsoever, and we passed last year's bill on a party line vote,
and no attempt was made to work it out with the minority then. This is
more of the same. This is just rubber-stamping George Bush's proposals,
and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) leads the politburo, and he
keeps sending things up here.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, just to respond, it is important that we move now. We
had more than 20 hearings on this legislation last year. The
legislation actually expired September 30 of 2002. We are now 6 months
on life support.
The gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) mentioned that the
reason the welfare rolls have dropped is because of prosperity. I would
remind the gentleman that we are in a recession now. And even though we
are in a recession, the welfare rolls, even since 2000, have dropped
some 7 percent.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Stark), one of the distinguished members of the
Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this so-
called Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act. It is
sort of an anti-Christian, egalitarian, rich-folks welfare bill. They
are going to pay for the tax cut by impacting the least powerful people
in our community.
In 1964, Lyndon Johnson declared a war against poverty. Well, today
my Republican colleagues and the President have declared a war against
the poor and against all successful social programs in this country. My
Republican colleagues in the House, led by President Bush, want to gut
the poverty programs. The Republicans propose to privatize Medicaid,
destroy Head Start, eliminate housing subsidies for the poor and make
it impossible for low-income families to get the earned income tax
credit.
But the real hotshots in the Republican Party have dreamed this one
up. Not only will they make it difficult for adults. You know, Ronald
Reagan created their welfare cheat years ago in his mind, when it was
still working, and he had an African American woman in a white ermine
cape in an El Dorado Cadillac. And my friend from California has heard
this story time and time again. Now the Republicans have come up with a
new welfare cheat. It is a little kid in second grade. I have one. Let
me show you a picture. Here is one. It is my son. He is in second
grade.
Now, he does not get subsidized lunches at school, Mr. Chairman, but
you know what the Republicans will do, they will wait until these kids
get in the cafeteria line for their subsidized lunch, and they will
say, Sonny, go home and get a tax return from your parents, because we
are kicking you out of the school lunch program.
That is how they will save money to do away with the inheritance tax.
They will beat up on little children and call them welfare cheats.
It is that kind of arrogant, obscene statement in programs that will
impact the poor and the helpless in our country. And this TANF
legislation is the first legislation in the program to reduce the
impoverished in our country to begging.
For example, there is no job training after the first 24 hours out of
40 hours of work. There is a requirement that traps poor people in
welfare or in poverty. In Alabama, Oregon, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Wyoming and Texas, anyone who works 24 hours a week at minimum wage
would be ineligible for any welfare programs at all.
Right now, three out of four families in our country are eligible for
child care under State rules, but they cannot get it. That is why both
of our Democratic alternatives provide substantial increase in child
care funding over the next 5 years.
Finally, and here is perhaps the most arrogant of all, the
Republicans, who consider themselves experts in family law and
marriage, waste $300 million to promote a marriage program inspired by
their blind allegiance to the Holy Rollers of the Christian right.
These arrogant Republicans are suggesting we take this money and train
people to get married. Now with 60 percent of the women on welfare
having at one point been victims of domestic violence, the Republican
agenda that coerced poor people into marriage virtually guarantees
tragic consequences across our country.
Marriage programs completely ignore the real barriers that prevent
many from pulling themselves out of poverty. If you want to truly
motivate healthy marriages, then they would support both Democratic
bills, because we address the underlying causes of
[[Page H474]]
marital instability, which in most cases is poverty.
The Democratic bills make poverty reduction an explicit goal of
welfare. It gives States the tools to help families move from welfare
to work and it provides State financial incentive to reduce child
poverty, not kick children off the school lunch program and let them
starve. It lets them live in stable families, have families that have
the income and the support for decent healthy, progressive lives in
this country.
I urge Members to oppose H.R. 4 and support both Democratic
alternatives.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind my good friend from California,
who is talking about Christian programs and how much poverty is
affected by our current welfare bill and the new one, our own State of
California poverty rates by the latest Census have gone down since the
1996 bill by 1,031,000.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), a first-term Member of this body, but a person
who is very experienced in developing domestic policy.
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cardin) for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4 and in support of
the substitute amendment. For 20 years an unwritten agreement regarding
the old welfare system existed between conservatives and liberals.
Conservatives refused to devote more money to the program. Liberals
refused to demand anything of recipients. We have lost two generations
of Americans to that failed system of dependency.
I was proud to be part of the strong bipartisan welfare reform that
the White House and the Congress enacted in 1996. The 1996 reforms were
a bold experiment that broke from the past with a new approach that
grounded the welfare system in the values of work and responsibility.
Enrollment has plunged by more than 50 percent since 1996. Eight
million people left poverty in the 1990s. Teen pregnancy dropped by
more than 20 percent and child support collections doubled. We are
moving in the right direction because we were true to our common
values.
The most important thing that we have accomplished with welfare
reform has been to connect a generation of children to the culture of
work. Most of us in this room grew up watching our parents go to work.
We internalized the value of work, and now we are passing those values
on to our own children. Today, millions of children who would otherwise
have grown up in a home where work was an alien concept are being
raised in a home where they are learning the routine of work.
I know that there are good people on both sides of this aisle with
good values who have seen reforms we created improve the lives of folks
back home. To those in this Congress with whom I worked in 1996, let us
not walk away from what we have accomplished. We have a future
obligation not to let bad politics undo our good work.
I am confident, I am extremely confident, there will be no shortage
of partisan fights this session, tax cuts, the deficits, prescription
drugs. To give up on proven success to engage in another unnecessary
partisan fight is wrong.
Mr. Chairman, welfare reform is about demanding responsibility and
encouraging work. Over the past 6 years we as a Nation have benefited
from our willingness to move beyond the old politics. This legislation
represents a return to the failed policies of the past. It is not
compassionate nor is it conservative. It undermines our common values
as Americans.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Cardin) has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from
California has 19\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Shaw), the original chairman of the committee that put out
the 1996 welfare reform.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I think one of the things, and when you listen to some
of the debate on the floor by a couple of speakers that I had a chance
to watch from my office, you see some bitterness and some hatred trying
to be painted onto this system of welfare reform.
We had worked on welfare reform prior to 1996 for several years. We
worked hard and long and we did it with compassion. We were faced with
a system that was broken, badly broken. And unfortunately, in this
broken system, we were breaking people. They were losing their spirit,
their inner souls, their drive, what makes people try to do better and
to become role models for their kids, actually paying people not to
work, paying people to have kids and not to get married.
And guess what? That failed, broken system encouraged that type of
behavior. And the welfare rolls grew and they grew and they grew in
time of prosperity as well as time of recession.
But then in 1996 after two failed attempts and two vetoes by the
Clinton administration, on August 22, 1996, the welfare reform bill was
signed into law and there were Democrats and Republicans at the signing
ceremony. There were Democrats and Republicans that ended up voting for
this welfare reform. And this was after a debate that was punctuated by
predictions of kids sleeping on grates.
And what have we accomplished with this? We have cut our welfare
rolls by over 50 percent. Even today, we do not see any great rise in
welfare reform even as the jobless rates began to rise as of a couple
of years ago. This is a wonderful success. And I say, it was done with
great compassion.
We were concerned about what happens to the kids. We have provided
child care.
We were worried about how the medical expenses were going to be paid.
We have provided continuation of Medicaid.
We are worried about how the training for jobs was going to go
forward. We have provided job training. The States have done a
wonderful job in not only training people so that they can have jobs,
but in also teaching them how to take interviews, how you dress, how
you shake hands.
{time} 1130
Why is all this necessary? It is necessary because the people that
were on welfare, that had to come off of welfare were victims of
welfare, and they did not know any difference; but they were good
people, and we believed in the human spirit, and we were not
disappointed.
Now who were these people that got out and who are the real champions
of welfare reform? Oh, I hear everybody taking credit for it, but the
real heroes were mostly single moms who, after they realized that there
was something outside of a life of welfare and dependence, could make
something out of themselves, could take control of their lives and
could become role models for their kids.
I think that day in 1996 when we passed in this House welfare reform
after hearing a speech by the President in which he said right before
the vote that he would sign the bill, I think that is one of the
proudest moments in the history of this House of Representatives. Now I
think it is time to go a little further.
There are those, because of the reduction in the welfare rolls, who
would like to decrease the funding. We are getting down now to some
hard-core unemployed people. I think 58 percent of the people receiving
benefits now are not working, and we need to give that extra little
push, but I think we need to continue to do it with compassion.
We need the flexibility that this bill has for child care. We have
got to be sure these kids are not in the street. We have got a
responsibility, and that responsibility has grown out of a failed
welfare program that existed for decades in this country prior to 1996.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would
just like to say to the gentleman, I compliment the gentleman for the
role he played in 1996. I think our side is trying to protect the
product that my colleagues developed in 1996.
[[Page H475]]
This bill that is before us dramatically alters it. The gentleman is
right, it was a great success. Why are we now being so prescriptive at
the national level?
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, to answer the gentleman, there are increases
in the work requirements. We have gotten to a plateau where the
original intent of the welfare reform is not being fully implemented,
and I think this is a good corrective measure.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield three minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Miller).
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R.
4, the Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act of 2003;
and I support this important measure because it will remodel and
improve the welfare reform legislation that has already helped millions
of people off the welfare rolls, improved child well-being, lifted
millions more out of poverty, and boosted personal incomes and improved
the quality of life.
Take, for example, a family from my district in northwest Florida.
James and his wife and their 2-year-old son had to relocate to DeFuniak
Springs at a time when there were few job prospects in that community.
In November of 2001, James and his family had to apply for cash
assistance to meet their needs.
The couple agreed that James would participate in the Welfare
Transition Program; and during the 2-week employment preparation
program, he learned that he had an aptitude for the medical field.
Upon completion, he entered a community service work site at the
Council on Aging; and during this service assignment, he demonstrated
not only an aptitude but also the initiative to seek training and
further experience. He qualified for financial assistance for training
through the Workforce Innovation Act and completed training as a CNA
through Walton County Vocational Tech.
Through his eagerness to learn, James was able to secure a paid
position with the Council on Aging; and last February, he was hired to
a full-time position with benefits and is no longer receiving cash
assistance.
Mr. Chairman, this is just one of the many examples of how hard work,
personal ambition, and a system that puts faith in the individual can
be successful. Even with accomplishments like this, we can do a whole
lot more. Our welfare system is not perfect, and we must improve it by
offering reforms that promote a life of self-sufficiency, dignity and
hope.
I hope that my colleagues support these important principles and will
support H.R. 4.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, it is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished whip on the
Democratic side.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time, and I thank him for his leadership.
Mr. Chairman, today the self-proclaimed compassionate conservatives
dropped their guard and a little bit of a charade, in my opinion.
This hard-hearted welfare reform bill literally mocks the increasing
number of Americans who are struggling to make ends meet, and it forces
cash-strapped States to swallow a huge unfunded mandate. This bill
barks, Get a job, but it turns a blind eye to the most obvious question
facing any job seeker today: Where?
When Democrats and Republicans came together in 1996 and pursuant to
President Clinton's campaign in 1992 when he said he wanted to see
welfare end as we knew it, we came together in a bipartisan fashion;
and he signed that bill, ending welfare as we knew it. This Nation was
enjoying the longest peacetime expansion of our economy in 50 years.
Twenty-two million new jobs were created during the '90s.
I voted for the welfare reform 7 years ago because I strongly support
the principle that a person has to earn what they receive, and if they
receive assistance, they have a responsibility to pursue the ability to
work and support themselves and their children; but oh, how
circumstances have changed, Mr. Chairman.
Today our economy is stagnating. It is in the worst hiring slump in
nearly 20 years. More than 8 million jobless Americans are looking for
work, and more than 2 million jobs have been lost since President Bush
took office. Yet this GOP bill blithely ignores reality.
It would impose unrealistic work requirements on recipients, even
forcing mothers with children under the age of 6 to double the number
of hours they are required to work each week to 40. At the same time,
it utterly fails to provide the funding that is needed to back up these
new work requirements. Where was the passion to get away from unfunded
mandates that I heard so much about in the early '90s before the
Republicans took control?
The bill passes the buck to the States, which will be forced to spend
an estimated $11 billion over the next 5 years to implement the new
rules. How do we expect the States to pay for this unfunded mandate?
They were forced to address a $49 billion budget shortfall in fiscal
2003, and according to the National Conference of State Legislatures
face a minimum $68.5 billion shortfall in 2004.
Mr. Chairman, on its own merits this bill is bad enough; but when
considered in the context of the failed economic policies of this
administration, it is oblivious to the realities confronting our people
and our States. The Republican proposal cracks down on the single mom
who the gentleman from Florida, my good friend, referred to as a hero.
This bill cracks down on that single mom who is trying her best to work
and still take care of her kids. At the same time it supports a plan
that would give the top 1 percent of America's taxpayers over a $25,000
tax cut. Where is the compassion in that? Where is the commitment to
leave no child behind in that?
I urge my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, to vote for the Democratic
substitute which increases work expectations but also assists the
States in accomplishing that objective. It would impose tough, but
fair, work requirements. It would increase mandatory funding for child
care by $11 billion over 5 years. It speaks to the bipartisan agreement
that we had, expecting work but also expecting us to help those who
cannot find work, who cannot work.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like, just in response to the gentleman from Maryland, the
CBO has indicated that there will not be any unfunded mandates. I have
a letter in front of me. Because of the broad flexibility afforded
States under the TANF program to structure the program and determine
benefits, the new requirements of H.R. 4 would not be intergovernmental
mandates.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Portman), a key player in welfare reform on the Committee on Ways and
Means.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time, and I commend him for the legislation before us today which
extends and builds on the very successful welfare legislation that this
House passed back in 1996, truly one of the best pieces of legislation
we have enacted during my time in Congress.
Amazing success. We have lifted 2.7 million children out of poverty
through this welfare legislation over the last 7 years. We have reduced
welfare caseloads by 60 percent. In my own State of Ohio, 267,000
people have left welfare and instead started working; and they are
enjoying now the dignity and the self-respect that comes with work.
It is hard to argue with that success. I commend the gentleman from
Maryland, the ranking member on the subcommittee, for his work with the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and now with the gentleman from
California on this legislation. I know he shares our same goals, but I
would have to dispute what his colleague from Maryland just said about
this being a hard-hearted reauthorization of welfare reform. Hardly
hard-hearted.
The gentleman just made a very good point that there is no unfunded
mandate, which was one of his points; and having been the author of the
unfunded mandate act, I am glad we have gone through that process and
determined there is flexibility here and it is not an unfunded mandate
on States.
More importantly, there is $2 billion in additional funding in this
legislation for child care, a huge commitment over the next 2 years to
provide significant new resources even at a time when our
[[Page H476]]
budgets are tight for something that is very important, which is
transitional child care.
There are more taxpayer resources obviously going to these families
who need help. Back in 1996, we were giving roughly $7,000 on average
per family for welfare. Now, under this program that we will hopefully
pass today, it would be $16,000 per family. That is a substantial
increase.
The point was made that we are cutting the funds to the States. We
are not. Despite a 60 percent reduction in caseloads, we are not
reducing the funding to the States. We are keeping the same commitment
on the block grant, plus we are adding, as I said, another $2 billion
on child care.
These are the statistics, and it is hard to argue with them; and
there has been a lot of success.
I want to talk about the personal stories just for a second. All of
us have gone back home and talked to welfare moms who have taken
advantage of the opportunities we have provided them over the last 6
years with this legislation.
I have had the opportunity to visit with a lot of those families but
also some of our good agencies back home. One is called the
Accountability and Credibility Together Center in Cincinnati, Ohio; it
is called ACT. They have had remarkable success. They have worked with
over 5,000 families in the greater Cincinnati area to move them from
welfare to work; and guess what, only 200 of those families have gone
back to public assistance. Incredible success story.
When I was there at the center recently, I have been there a couple
of times, but a family was there. They had come in. Both the mom and
dad were out of work. They were about to apply for public assistance
and welfare. Instead, the center got them plugged into some educational
opportunities, some job opportunities. Now this woman has gone back,
she has gotten her GED. She is now in college, and her family is
supporting her in that. The husband is working. Again, the dignity and
the self-respect that comes from that having worked, being able to
provide for a family is something that the statistics cannot tell. That
is the great success story of welfare reform that this Congress passed
back in 1996.
This is an important extension of that. It is a necessary
reauthorization, but will encourage more work, will encourage healthier
families, encourage more marriage. I think this is a good bill, and I
hope we will pass it with bipartisan support.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to the time division?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) has 4\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) has 9
minutes remaining.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), another important member of our Committee
on Ways and Means.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I may not need the whole 3
minutes, but I want very much to talk about this issue of work
requirements because, first of all, all the studies show that welfare
reform was most successful in the States with the most stringent work
requirements. The University of Michigan studied this, certainly no
bastion of conservatism. The study by the Manpower Demonstration
Research Corporation also shows that programs that emphasize rapid
entry into the workplace leads to more employment and higher earnings.
Now what does this bill that the President has proposed and the
committee has disposed of and brought to this floor do about work? It
does a very simple thing. It raises the number of hours a person must
work from 20 to 24. That is 3 full work days, 8, 16, 24, three full
work days, but it raises the work requirement to 40 hours. That is 5
days, but the other 16 hours, Tuesday and Thursday for example, could
be used to take classes. The States can count that as work. They can
count, in fact, under the bill, mental health treatment as work,
substance abuse treatment as work, all those things that are necessary
for the person to be able to succeed in a full-time job and to move up
the career ladder in that job.
{time} 1145
So what this requires of people on welfare is to think about their
whole week and how are they going to use the time in that week to
create their own future.
Work experience is, without question, a part of that. You need the
experience, you need the recommendations, you need to be on site in a
workplace to decide whether this is the line of work you want. If you
work at a lower-level job in the insurance industry, you get a pretty
good idea of whether those career ladders are interesting to you. You
start out in a hospital or a nursing home, you get a pretty good idea
of whether those career ladders are worth the extra training to work up
them.
If you do not work, you are isolated from the real world and from
what it takes to advance, what it takes in skill, what it takes in
being able to work with a team, what it takes in personal discipline.
So work is important. It does help us move forward.
But education, training, money management, a better understanding of
career tracks, mental health, substance abuse treatment, all those
things, including caring for your own child, can be counted as work.
You know what communities can do with this bill? They can hire
skilled child development people to head up after-school programs for
children, and then count as work the time that women spend, or welfare
recipients, women and men, spend as assistants in those programs so
that we can explode the after-school program opportunities for our
kids. And that person's children can be in that program. So not only
are you with your own children, but you are learning the child
development information you need to be a better parent. Every parent
needs this.
So this bill creates extraordinary opportunity for human growth and
for personal growth. And without creating that opportunity, the promise
of freedom is a false promise.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, do I have the right to close?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) has the
right to close.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time to close.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, with so much attention devoted to Iraq,
money is now being diverted from quality child care as well. The
Republicans' own Congressional Budget Office estimates that over the
next 5 years, for every dollar that is required for child care and
other associated costs of the goal of moving people from welfare to
work, this Republican bill will provide one very thin dime. This leaves
a gap, a ``window of vulnerability'' of 90 cents on that dollar.
In Texas alone, we will require $688 million that this bill is not
providing to meet the needs of our children and to fulfill the work
requirements of this legislation. It does not take satellite
surveillance photos to see the irrefutable proof in our own
neighborhoods that too many children will not have the child care or
the child protective services that they need and will be left in
neglect.
This is a ticking time bomb in our own country, not on the other side
of the world, and it can be diffused by providing the essential dollars
that even their estimators say will be required to ensure quality child
care and to get people to work. Otherwise, these families already
rowing hard against a severe current of trouble, are now told that they
will be left without a paddle.
This Administration and its allies here in Congress are all too
willing to raid Social Security and Medicare to build smart bombs, but
what about smart kids and opportunities for them? The gap between this
Administration and its Leave-No-Child-Behind policy and the reality of
leaving scores of children behind is a scandal. Only in the sense that
every child today will be forced to pay off the huge public debt have
we left no child behind.
As my friend and State senator from Texas Eliot Shapleigh said, ``In
a society that values tax breaks over kids, ultimately it is the kids,
their education, our prosperity, and America's ability to compete that
will pay the price.'' Inaction is not a solution. We cannot sit here
doing so very little to
[[Page H477]]
meet the needs of our next generation of Americans. What we need is a
coalition of the willing, a coalition of the willing to vote ``yes'' on
a meaningful Democratic alternative to ensure that our youth are given
a chance to become productive members of society instead of a burden to
America.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to respond to my friend from Texas that when we started welfare reform
back in 1996, the average amount of money that was available for each
family was slightly less than $7,000. Today, that amount, because we
block granted it, the average amount that is available for each family
today is about $16,000. More than double. Also in this bill we have $2
billion that is for additional child care.
And just to the State of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), that
will amount to some $370 million of additional child care, just for the
State of Texas.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Camp), a key member of our Subcommittee on Human Resources.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise today in support of H.R. 4, the Personal
Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act of 2003.
Mr. Chairman, we have the opportunity and responsibility to build on
the 1996 law, which many here helped write. The law we crafted has seen
unparalleled success by almost every measure, yet our work is not done.
I am proud that the main focus of this legislation has been on self-
empowerment, work, and most importantly, strengthening family.
If we look at the fact that more parents are working today, we have a
responsibility to ensure that parents have child care. This bill adds
$2 billion over the next 5 years to the current record amounts for this
purpose. In addition, this bill also provides the States new
flexibility so that unused funds can be transferred over and used for
child care needs of working families.
In total, the funds available today per family on welfare, as the
chairman said, represent $16,000. That is double the $7,000 available
for those purposes in 1996.
Many of us are not new to this issue. In addition to being one of the
authors of the landmark 1996 welfare reform law, along with our current
chairman, as well as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the
chairman in 1996, I have held field hearings, sat with advisory panels,
and spoken with constituents. The one common theme was proper access to
child care, that that was an impediment on the road from welfare to
work.
This bill meets the needs of the parents who have told me time and
again that child care is one of the greatest challenges they face. Let
us give support to these families who desperately want the choice to
work.
Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. It strengthens the landmark
welfare reform bill Congress passed and President Clinton signed into
law in 1996. Let us give our families the tools they need to ensure
that parents can enter the workforce with peace of mind, knowing their
children will be in a safe and constructive environment.
I urge support of this bill.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, this is a bad bill at the wrong time. I supported the
1996 welfare reform legislation. I thought it was the right thing to
do. In 1996, we gave the States flexibility. This legislation takes it
back. In 1996, we gave the States the resources they needed. This bill
does not give them the dollars in order to do the job.
The legislation before us is remarkably different from the 1996 bill.
That is why so many of our Nation's governors have said to us in a
letter dated today that we will take a significant step backwards in
reforming welfare. This is not the time to replace State flexibility
with unfunded mandates.
My chairman says this is not an unfunded mandate. The Congressional
Budget Office says it will cost $8 to $11 billion extra money for the
States to comply with the requirements in this legislation. The
Republican bill gives the States $1 billion more and $1 billion on a
promise. That is an unfunded mandate. Maybe technically it is not,
because you can transfer monies from other accounts.
Let me tell you a story of my own State of Maryland. Our States have
record deficits. In 50 years they have not been this bad. We see that
deficits are between $70 to $85 billion in our States. In Maryland, our
governor is recommending a 23 percent reduction in child care because
of the deficits. And what do we do? Mandate they spend more money by a
prescriptive Federal law.
That is not what I voted for in 1996. I voted to give the States
flexibility and the resources, and this legislation is taking it away.
It is going to hurt our children, it is going to hurt our States, and
it is wrong. We should have done better, and had we gone through a
normal process, we would have had a chance to explore what happened
during this past year, correct the mistakes in this body and not rely
on a conference.
I urge my colleagues to reject this bill. We will offer an
alternative, a substitute, later on in the debate so we can correct
these mistakes.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Sometimes, when I listen to the debate on the other side, I wonder if
we are talking about the same legislation. We are seeing in the area of
child care some $2 billion more that is being placed into this
legislation than was in the 1996 bill.
Again, since we keep hearing about unfunded mandates, I again have a
letter in front of me from the Congressional Budget Office indicating
that there are no unfunded State mandates.
But let us go over the incredible successes of the 1996 bill and
where we go here in our new legislation. Child poverty has fallen since
1996 by nearly 3 million children who have been lifted up out of
poverty. The black child poverty rate is now at a record low. More
parents are working today than ever before in welfare. Employment by
mothers most likely to go on welfare rose by 40 percent between 1995
and 2000. Dependents fell by unprecedented levels. Welfare caseloads
fell by 9 million during this period of time, from 14 million
recipients in 1994 to just 5 million today. Yet there is much that
needs to be done.
Even though we have more people working than before, there are still
58 percent of recipients who are not working or who are not receiving
training or who are not involved at all. Too many families are breaking
up. It is tough enough to raise children with two parents, let alone
just one. We still have 2 million families that remain dependent on
welfare that we want to address.
What our new legislation would do is that we allow for more parents
to be able to work and, therefore, be able to receive benefits. States
will continue to receive the record Federal welfare and child care
funds, despite since 1995, a nearly 60 percent reduction in rates. This
means that average allotment per family will go from less than $7,000
in 1995 to some $16,000 today. And there are funds in here to help
encourage and to help give counseling to encourage that every child has
two parents at home. So we recognize this.
Again, of all the legislation that I have been involved with in 16
years, I feel this has been the most successful. And what we are doing
in this current legislation, H.R. 4, is building on these incredible
successes of the last 5 years and continuing them.
I urge the strong, overwhelming support of this body on H.R. 4.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, 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).
{time} 1200
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, 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 the
1960s. We transformed the welfare system from a permanent
[[Page H478]]
entitlement system that tolerated government dependence to a temporary
assistance program which helps people earn a new start, find a job and
become self-sufficient.
Today, with the Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion
Act, we are prepared to build on that success. This bill marks the
beginning of a second phase of reform that will help even more
Americans find productive jobs.
The colleagues 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 1966; but as this chart shows,
some 58 percent of TANF recipients still are not working for benefits,
according to the Department of Health and Human Services.
The bottom line is approximately 2 million families remain on welfare
rolls today, and we need to do something about it. Over the last 2
years, the Committee on Education and the Workforce has held five
hearings on the success of welfare reform and the new challenges that
we face today. Last year our committee approved a bill introduced by
the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the Working Toward
Independence Act, which is now part of this overall bill which is
before us today.
It strengthens work requirements to ensure that we move 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 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
opportunities. They can also attend school full-time for up to 4 months
over a 2-year period. This measure also increases the percentage of
welfare families in each State that must be engaged in work-related
activities, currently at 50 percent, moving to 70 percent by 2008.
Some have questioned whether States can meet these new requirements,
suggesting that we are setting the bar too high. But I agree with what
President Bush said, ``If it brings dignity into someone's life, it is
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 spending for the Child Care and Development Block Grant by $2
billion over the next 5 years.
In addition to this new money, it is important to remember that
States have half the case loads that they had in 1996, which means that
they have twice as much money available to spend on work programs,
child care, transportation and other services that are necessary in
order to help move people from a life of dependency toward the
mainstream of American society.
H.R. 4 also incorporates key elements of President Bush's Good Start,
Grow Smart plan to improve early childhood education. It encourage
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 keep needy families
working towards independence. It would give States and local agencies
the opportunity to coordinate certain welfare and workforce development
programs and improve their efficiency and their ability to help move
people from welfare to work.
Mr. Chairman, in closing I would like to echo the sentiments of
President Bush when he said that no level of despair should be
acceptable in our society. With this bill we are going to help some of
the most vulnerable members of our society to help them achieve
independence and self-sufficiency, and I urge Members to support the
bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Woolsey) will control the time of the gentleman from California (Mr.
George Miller).
There was no objection.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, as a Member of Congress who has actually been on
welfare, let me tell Members, I know the pitfalls of H.R. 4. I know the
pitfalls of the Republican welfare bill.
I also know what we have learned since we passed welfare reform in
1996. We learned that we have to make changes. We learned that we
cannot send people to work and keep them in poverty forevermore. We
learned that we have to do a better job in helping the families that
need that safety net.
In this economy with fewer jobs and a greater waiting list for child
care, we know that we have a lot of work to do because people are
returning to welfare in this bad economy. But the most important thing
that we learned from 1996 is that it is not so hard to get people off
welfare, but it is very hard to get them out of poverty. So if we want
to keep individuals off the welfare rolls, particularly in a weaker
economy, the economy we have today under President Bush, we have to
work very hard; otherwise we have failed because welfare moms, those
who have moved from welfare, have moved into permanent poverty.
Today more than one-fifth of the families that have left welfare
since 1996 have come back onto the rolls and 39 States have reported a
greater caseload increase for the last quarter.
This country needs welfare that gives States the flexibility they
need to get families out of poverty and into real work, work that pays
a livable wage, work that a mother can sustain her family on.
H.R. 4 will push more low-income parents into low-paying workfare
jobs while making it almost impossible for them to get a real
education, the kind of education they need to get good jobs, jobs that
will keep them off welfare forevermore.
While increasing the hours of work, the Republican bill does not
provide the child care support that is necessary to sustain those
families. We have a Democratic substitute. Our substitute enables
States to give welfare recipients the support, the services they need
so that they can go forward, become skilled, educated, and get jobs
which will keep them off of welfare forever.
I am the perfect example of what a good education, child care
resources, good health, and actually being a little bit assertive did
not hurt at all, what a difference that makes to a family. I was on
welfare for 3 years even though I was working. We cannot take those
services away from moms if we expect them to be able to take care of
their families now and into the future.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Employer-
Employee Relations.
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I believe our welfare plan
has worked. It has been shown to work, and the corrections that are in
this plan make it work better. It is no surprise to the people of the
Third Congressional District of Texas that because of the excellent
services provided by the North Central Texas workforce, many leave
welfare behind.
One example is a woman I will call Alice who found help through the
Choices program in Allen. A single mother of two children, Alice went
to the workforce center in Allen 5 months pregnant. She had never held
a steady job. Having worked a month as a receptionist and 3 months as a
waitress, she decided she needed a job to support her and her children.
The Choices program provided her with child care assistance and
transportation assistance to seek employment. She worked with the
employment services staff, and in time she found a job as a warehouse
manager in Plano making $8.50 an hour. The job did not last because the
company went broke and she lost it. That did not stop her. Within 2
weeks of losing her job, she found another working as a receptionist in
Plano making $12.50 an hour.
Her employment counselor reports that Alice always showed
determination and motivation to become self-sufficient so she can
support her family. She still works full time and has even taken on a
part-time job as a Mary Kay distributor. In December, she sent a
[[Page H479]]
Christmas card to the people of the North Central Texas Workforce
Center in Allen thanking them for their help. She is a shining example
of the positive things that happen when people move from welfare to
work. This welfare bill helps them immensely. Let us pass it today.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
Republican welfare bill, even though my colleague from Ohio is on the
other side.
I keep hearing stories about Alice and Mary and Stephanie who have
done well off of welfare. I would like to line up all of the Johns and
Alices and Marys that I know who have not had success, who have gone
from welfare to poverty, to show Members their children who are
suffering as a result of the fact that their mom or dad cannot get
child care in order to go to work.
It is an interesting discussion right now that we would talk about
work for welfare recipients when in fact the people who have been
working all along have no jobs, and we know the last person hired is
going to be the first person fired.
Right now would have been the opportunity in these low economic times
to take this bill back to committee and take into consideration the
fact that the economy is not in as good a shape as it has been, and
maybe we could have put some incentives into this bill to have
employers hire welfare workers, and maybe that might have stimulated
our economy a little bit.
We are in the worst economic times since World War II. Every city,
every county, every State is laying off workers. I just read a story in
the New York Times this morning about layoffs. So to say this is a
great time to talk about moving from welfare to work is ridiculous, and
it is ridiculous to have this discussion without taking into
consideration the whole issue of the economy as it currently exists.
All we have to do is ask Governor Taft, a good friend of the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), what trouble the State of Ohio is in
right now. Even with the programs of Medicaid, even talking about
taxing the poor for getting a manicure or getting a hairdo or for going
to the movies. To say we are going to put them in jobs where they make
$5.25 an hour and have to pay additional dollars for all of these
things is just ludicrous.
I encourage Members to vote against this legislation because it does
not do what it is intended to do.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. McKeon), the chairman of the Subcommittee on 21st
Century Competitiveness.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4, the
Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act. Six years ago,
the Nation's welfare rolls bulged with more than 14 million
individuals. Today the rolls have decreased significantly. In my home
State of California, the welfare rolls decreased by more than one-half.
More than 470,000 California families are free from the bondage of
welfare thanks to welfare reform based on work.
{time} 1215
Between 1996 and this very day, over 9 million individuals have left
welfare for the satisfaction that can only come from working to support
your family. H.R. 4 helps these families and builds on the success of
the 1996 reforms.
Mr. Chairman, today there are few who would argue about the success
of the 1996 reforms, but 6 years ago the nay-sayers cried that if
welfare recipients were required to work for their benefits, millions
of families would be forced to live in the streets and millions of
children would go hungry. But we know that, in the end, welfare reform
based on work helped to reduce the child poverty rate in America to its
lowest level in over 30 years. Child poverty among African American
children is at its lowest rate ever.
The bill before us requires that those who receive temporary
assistance, those needy families that receive that temporary
assistance, be involved in direct work for 24 hours a week and that
they also spend 16 hours improving their abilities, getting educational
instruction or job training that will lead to better marketability for
them in the marketplace. The total combined hours for work and training
equals just 40 hours a week, which is the average American workweek.
For America's families to be ready to lead lives independent of
welfare, they must become accustomed to the demands of the average
workweek.
But the work requirements coupled with ample job training and
educational instruction are not the only ingredients to successful
welfare reform. It is impossible to return to work or search for work
if welfare recipients do not have adequate child care. H.R. 4 increases
the already extremely high levels of funding for the child care
development block grant. The high level of funding is increased by $2
billion, even as the number of families being served has dropped by
over 3 million.
Mr. Chairman, the ultimate goal of welfare reform is fostering strong
and healthy families. When you wade through the rhetoric, when you
eliminate the sound bites, when the grand floor speeches are over and
the only thing that remains is H.R. 4, Americans can be sure that this
Congress has drafted a bill that will help build on the success of the
1996 reform and will help lead families to independence. We re-enthrone
work and help people attain the dignity that comes from providing for
yourself and your family.
I urge that all of us join in support of H.R. 4.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
Mr. TIERNEY. I thank the gentlewoman for California for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Chairman, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have
simply put a new number on last year's bill without any apparent
attempt to address the new realities of this worsening economy. That
bill is, in terms, harsh and seems to be divorced from today's reality.
As written, the legislation will impact some 48,000 families in my
State of Massachusetts alone, which is now in its toughest economy in a
decade. It would cost the State, which is already drowning in red ink,
some $222 million over the next 5 years in order to implement what
essentially are unfunded mandates. Health care and housing assistance
are already being cut back, and in my district the unemployment rate is
now 7.3 percent.
In this type of an economy, we should be helping States, not putting
a further strain on the safety net for America's families. Obviously,
first we need a better policy to create jobs than the one being offered
by this administration and the majority. But then we need this measure
to be crafted so that it will actually help people qualify and enable
them to fill jobs and to lift them out of poverty to self-
sustainability.
In the current economic climate, we have to look at the principles
that really work. Education and training have to count towards the work
requirement more than the bill on the floor allows for. Common sense,
educators and countless examples concur with that opinion. People have
to be able to make contacts, develop skills and find careers, not just
jobs, but jobs that bring them out of poverty. Working parents need
child care.
Our alternative keeps up with inflation and increased work habits and
addresses that situation. The opponents' bill does not, adding $1
billion; and a $1 billion promise does not meet the $11 billion that we
are told is going to be impacted on the States and cost them to meet
these requirements. We cannot be forcing parents to choose between
leaving their children home alone and working to put food on the table
or staying home with their children who are hungry.
And we have to allow State flexibility. States like Massachusetts
have effectively used those waivers, Mr. Chairman, to design their own
versions of welfare, and they have worked in their economies. Those are
the principles that have to underlie this bill. Those are the changes
that have to be made. If they are not made, I would recommend that we
vote against the bill, but for the alternative.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), a valued member of our
committee.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
[[Page H480]]
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4. This legislation
will continue the remarkable success of welfare reform.
I still cannot get over the statistics. Nationally, welfare caseloads
have dropped more than 50 percent from the all-time high of 5.1 million
families in March 1994 to 2.1 million in December 2001. Back in my home
county of DuPage, there were 2,333 families on assistance in 1996.
Today, there are only 419.
Some may argue that caseloads are dropping because individuals have
exhausted their eligibility, but the numbers show that this is not
true. The most recent census figures show that employment by mothers
most likely to go on welfare rose by 40 percent between 1995 and 2000.
This legislation keeps our commitment to America's kids and to
America's great promise of welfare reform. And with the addition of $2
billion in extra funding for child care and development block grants, a
very good bill is even better. I thank Chairman Thomas of the Committee
on Ways and Means for including this funding, as well as my Republican
women colleagues who have worked very hard for this.
Why is this funding such good news? More funding means more kids
covered, and it means that more parents will be able to afford better
quality care. More kids covered means more parents working. That is our
ultimate objective, to give every American the opportunity to work and
to gain the dignity and self-respect that comes with providing for your
own family.
The past 6 years of welfare have shown us what works and what does
not. When I meet with former welfare recipients throughout my
congressional district, each and every one of them tells me that their
success simply would not have been made possible without child care
assistance.
This is an outstanding bill that builds upon the welfare successes of
the past 6 years. Let us get it to the President's desk and into law as
quickly as possible.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to just make one remark before I yield time to the
ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and
that is that 20 States right now have a waiting list for child care,
not just for welfare moms, but for the working poor and working
families in general. We must not forget that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
George Miller), the ranking member of the Committee on Education and
the Workforce.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding
me this time, and I want to thank her publicly for all of the work over
the last several years that she has put into our Democratic substitute,
trying to advance this discussion about our obligation to try and help
those individuals who want to work to be able to go to work and to be
able to get a job that not only takes them off of the public assistance
rolls but it also takes them out of poverty. That has to be our goal.
It is unbelievable that the Republicans would introduce the very same
bill that they introduced almost a year and a half ago when the economy
has changed entirely. During that time what we have seen is the highest
unemployment rate since 1994. We have seen almost 1.7 million jobs lost
since 2001. Almost 2 million jobs have disappeared.
In those sectors of our economy where people are likely to go to get
entry-level jobs, in the hospitality industry, in the retail industry,
in the fast food industry, they are all in trouble. They are all laying
workers off. Yet we want to act like today is how it was a year ago, 2
years ago, 3 years ago.
No. What we need is we need jobs and we need child care for those
individuals who are seeking those jobs. The Republican bill fails to
provide that. It fails to recognize how lousy the Bush economy is and
how many people are in trouble.
We have 1 million people who have exhausted their unemployment
benefits and cannot find work. And somehow we are suggesting that these
people just go out and look, that they will be able to find that work.
I hope they are able to, but they will not unless we provide the kind
of child care that is necessary.
The gentlewoman from California has made it clear: In 20 States we
have a waiting list of the working poor, of people trying to get off of
welfare, of people who are working to try to find child care for their
children. In California, 200,000 people are waiting for child care. The
money they have in the bill will not take care of the problem in
California, much less nationwide.
The problem nationwide is $11 billion in child care. They put in $1
billion in mandatory child care.
The Republicans have got to wake up and understand what has happened
to our economy. We want these people to be able to go to work. We want
those people who are working now to be able to stay in the workplace.
But the economy has to improve, and they have got to provide the
underpinnings so these individuals can take advantage of those job
opportunities should they come along.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), chairman of the Subcommittee on
Education Reform.
Mr. CASTLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I have a
statement which I will submit, Mr. Chairman, for the record.
I would just like to say that I am in very strong support of this
legislation. Welfare reform goes back a long time in this country, well
before Congress actually got too involved in it. It goes back to the
States in the 1980s in which a number of States came forward and said
they could do something about welfare reform. Finally, in the Family
Support Act of 1988, the Federal Government got involved.
Again, in 1996, we passed welfare reform legislation. We debated it
last year and passed a bill, and now here we are again on the floor.
Virtually every time we have done this, every single time, the
opposition to it has gotten up and said, We can't do this. It's
impossible. You can't get this much out of people. You can't get blood
out of a stone.
This is a human issue. If you go back into the jurisdictions where we
all live and you see what they have done with welfare reform, if you
see the opportunities that we have given to people who in many
instances now are living middle-class lives because of a middle-class
income, you see the real circumstances of what we can do to help
people. There has been no social program that has uplifted people more
in this country in a true sense of giving them an opportunity as
America allows you to have as has welfare reform.
This legislation continues a lot of the support systems which are
necessary, including the educational components, the day care
components, the transportation components in the things that have to be
done.
I too believe that we need to refine this somewhat. I am a little
concerned about the transitional medical assistance in terms of
Medicaid continuations. I do worry about transportation. We all worry
about day care a little bit.
I think there needs to be sufficient flexibility at the State and
local levels to carry out what needs to be done in welfare reform, but
I believe this legislation has the basic parameters which will allow
this to happen, and I believe this is the next extension of what we
have to do in the Congress to allow the States across America to
continue their welfare reform programs.
I, for one, believe it can be done. I grant you, the economy is not
what I would like to see either, but I believe that it can be done
sufficiently to help a lot of people, and then you will see all of
those people whom I have seen who will say, Thank you for giving me the
opportunity; I am able to help my family now.
I support the legislation. I hope we all can support the legislation.
The 1996 welfare reform law replaced a broken system with one of the
most successful government programs in recent history.
As Governor, I promoted work as the ladder to opportunity. Former
recipients told me that they needed help breaking away from welfare
dependency, but once they found their place in the workforce, they were
able to create better lives for their families.
For that reason, I was proud to make work the foundation of the 1996
reform. Today, national data confirms our success. Caseloads are down.
Household incomes are up.
[[Page H481]]
Welfare recipients now appreciate the value of work. We provide time
and assistance, but understand that welfare cannot be an open-ended
entitlement--or a way of life. We help those on assistance, but do not
allow them to become passive dependents on the welfare system.
Today's legislation strengthens and embraces these goals.
In particular, H.R. 4 recognizes the education needs of children and
includes my language to increase funding for quality initiatives, such
as teacher training. H.R. 4 also provides historic funding levels for
child care. Both mandatory and discretionary programs, now appropriated
at $4.8 billion, will grow by $2 billion.
Yet, these programs are only part of a larger picture. States spend
TANF grants on child care--either directly or through funding
transfers. And Congress supports child care through other programs like
Head Start. Recent estimates show that annual child care funding
exceeds $18 billion--a significant investment, by any measure.
This bill also contains language from a bill I introduced, ``The
Child Support Fairness and Tax Refund Intercept Act,'' to help
custodial spouses collect past due child support even if their child is
no longer a minor. A Wilmington, Delaware woman, Lisa McCave, was owed
several thousands of dollars in past due child support. The Federal
Government discovered that the father was about to receive several
thousand dollars in a tax refund. However, because her son was no
longer a minor, the IRS could not intercept that money for her. She had
to work two jobs to raise her son and put him through college, while he
waited out the clock until his son was no longer a minor so he could
enjoy his tax refund. Thanks to Lisa McCave's willingness to step
forward and ask for justice, millions of parents in the future will be
able to intercept tax returns to pay the child support owed them, even
if their child is no longer a minor.
With all the improvements to our welfare system contained in this
bill, I believe there are a few issues we should continue to review. I
appreciate the one year extension of Transitional Medical Assistance, a
program that provides continued health coverage for former welfare
recipients, but I hope we can extend and simplify this authorization
for five years as the President's FY 04 budget recommends--and do so in
a way that does not effect Medicaid administrative funds. I have
introduced legislation with Congressman Levin to extend this valuable
program, and I look forward to working with the Senate and the
President to accomplish this goal.
Also, it is my hope that we can reinstate the state flexibility
provisions and give our Governors the ability to find innovative ways
to meet and exceed the goals of this legislation. State waivers were
critical to Delaware's success in the past and they are critical to our
continued success in the future.
Finally, education is important to reducing unplanned pregnancies and
achieving independence for working men and women. Abstinence education
is an important part of this effort. Yet, the language in H.R. 4
provides an overly simple solution to a complex problem. In my opinion,
we cannot restrict access to basic health information if we are to
promote responsibility.
In conclusion, I support H.R. 4--the beginning of our efforts this
year to create the next generation of welfare success stories.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis), a new member of the Committee on Education and
the Workforce.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I have always been told that when you begin with a
faulty premise, you are likely to end up with a faulty conclusion. When
you continue to give large, multiyear tax cuts to the most wealthy, how
in the world do you expect to have enough real money to provide
temporary assistance for needy families? When you allow companies to
incorporate out of the country to avoid paying legitimate taxes, how in
the world do you expect to have money for temporary assistance to needy
families? When you give away billions of dollars in subsidies to
agricultural and other big business interests, how in the world do you
expect to have money to provide day care for children while their
parents go to school or go out and look for a job?
The fact of the matter, Mr. Chairman, is that poverty is on the rise
and the need for public assistance is on the rise, while this bill will
not do anything in the world to really slow it down or to help people
get out of it. We know that TANF has not done enough to address the
needs of the most vulnerable in our society. Reductions in poverty come
as a result of economic growth. We know that more than 2 million people
lost their jobs last year. We know that many people who get jobs
through TANF end up working at low-income poverty wages, mired down at
a level where they will never get out.
I support the Cardin amendment. I support the Lee-Kucinich amendment.
It is really our best hope. Reforming and reauthorizing a TANF program
that not only takes people off welfare, but also takes people out of
poverty should be the focus of this Congress, not simply passing a
neatly packaged pig in a flight bag and calling it a welfare program.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the chairman of the Committee
on Government Reform.
(Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, we heard some of the same
dire predictions from the other side when we passed this legislation
originally in 1996. We heard predictions that the caseloads were going
to rise, that unemployment was going to rise, that the child poverty
level would reach all-time highs. In point of fact, the opposite has
occurred. Instead, welfare rolls shrank as many Americans moved from
welfare to work, from dependence to self-sufficiency.
Over the last 6 years we have seen incredible results, results that
need to continue to spread for the benefit of our Nation as a whole.
3.6 million fewer Americans live in poverty today than in 1996.
Employment of single mothers is now more than 70 percent, which is an
all-time high. Since 1994, welfare caseloads have fallen by 60 percent,
today leaving less than 2 percent of the U.S. population on welfare.
Moreover, crime has dropped, illegitimacy has declined, and abortions
are rarer.
A lot of good things came out of that legislation that we passed in
1996.
{time} 1230
We knew that the original system that was designed for a different
time and a different era. It was designed for a time when most of the
women were home. Most women did not work outside the home, and out-of-
wedlock births were rare; but times changed and we have reformed a
system whose incentives were perverse that discouraged self-
sufficiency, that subsidized out-of-wedlock births, that trapped
beneficiaries by making it too costly for them to go back to work
because of the benefits that they would lose. By sharing this
responsibility with the States, we are using the federalist model going
back literally to a lot of innovation we get at the State level that is
discouraged by Federal bureaucracies.
This legislation takes us to the next step. I think it would return
more people and move them off of the welfare rolls, on to payrolls, of
building successful families and building a successful country. I want
to thank the authors of this legislation, and I am proud to support it.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to just say that a lot of
good things came out of the Clinton economy, and we can all be glad for
what happened with that, but that economy is not the same.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Woolsey), my friend, for her persistence on this issue and her
leadership on this issue.
There is a national consensus in America that if people are able-
bodied to stay on welfare, they should have to work and the goal should
be to work to get off of welfare. But there is also a national
understanding, or there should be, that we cannot have a law that says
people have to go to work if there are not any jobs for them to get.
Today in America there are about 8 million people without a job looking
for work and about 2\1/2\ million unfilled jobs being advertised. It
makes no sense to tell people they must get a job that is not there.
There is a national consensus that people should be good parents at the
same time they are good workers. This bill would require people
[[Page H482]]
to hold down three full-time jobs if they want to really get out of
poverty and advance their family: the job they have to hold down to
stay off of welfare; the job they need to do to go to school on
evenings or weekends or whatever time they can find to move out of
poverty; and the job they need to do as a mom or a dad, which is their
most important job. Requiring people to hold down three full-time jobs
is a surefire recipe for more poverty and greater welfare rolls.
And finally I thought there was a national consensus that we are
going to stop telling State governments and State taxpayers what they
had to do with their money. This bill contains $10 billion of unfunded
mandates for the States at the time when they can least afford it. This
bill violates an underlying bipartisan consensus for welfare reform.
The Cardin bill, which the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey)
helped so actively to write, would instead carry out that bipartisan
consensus. It deserves the support of every Member of this body.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Kingston), a member of our leadership team.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for
yielding me this time.
We have got a new freshman class this year; and a month ago one of
the Members said to me, You have been in Congress 10 years. What is the
most significant thing you have done?
And I thought and I said, I believe it was supporting welfare reform.
And here is why. In 1994 there were 14 million people on welfare. Today
there are 5 million. Still too many, and yet 9 million people are now
in the workplace, having a very positive effect, enjoying life and
supporting themselves.
Some of the principles that are very basic American principles in the
welfare reform bill are promoting work, improving child care, promoting
healthy marriages and strengthening families, fostering hope and
opportunity. These are all basic American rights and giving those 9
million people an opportunity to participate in them.
Since 1996, work among welfare recipients has tripled. Employment of
single mothers is now more than 70 percent, an all-time high. Since
1994, welfare caseloads have fallen by 60 percent, leaving less than 2
percent of the U.S. population on welfare. These are all significant
and positive. The numbers go on: 3.6 million fewer Americans live in
poverty today than they did in 1996; 2.7 million fewer children are in
poverty today than in 1996. These are real changes, and we did this
despite the rhetoric that we heard in 1996, which we are again hearing
from the left who like status quo and do not like change. They address
children.
Look at the facts on children. This bill increases child care
funding. It improves child care quality and strengthens child care
support, and that is something that we could get into on another topic.
Look at the numbers. The increase in child care expenditures under
welfare reform goes from $3 billion to $9.7 billion. If the Members
want to help children like those of Bruce Mullins, help pass this bill
because these are real people. It has had a positive effect on them,
and I believe that our actions today will not always be known by all
the people who can benefit from it; but our actions will be felt by
those, and therefore I support this bill and I thank the gentleman from
Ohio.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Kildee), one of the leaders in education.
Mr. KILDEE. I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Republican welfare bill and
in support of the Cardin-Woolsey-Kind Democratic substitute. Mr.
Chairman, much has changed from the last Congress when we last debated
this legislation. Our States are facing deep financial deficits. States
are cutting health care programs, funding for the schools and
universities, and struggling to ensure their citizens have employment.
The bill we are debating today does not recognize these dire times for
our States.
The Republican bill would increase work requirements when 8.3 million
Americans are out work. The Republican bill fails to provide adequate
child care funding, relegating many of the children to substandard or
unsafe child care arrangements. The Republican welfare bill actually
reduces education and training opportunities for TANF recipients.
Fortunately, the Democratic substitute offered by the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey),
and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) provides us with a viable
alternative to improve this country's welfare system. The Cardin
substitute would allow 24 months of education and training to permit a
TANF recipient to get the skills they need to acquire a good-paying
job. The Cardin substitute would increase child care funding by $11
billion over the next 5 years. The Cardin amendment also ensures that
TANF recipients do work by requiring that 70 percent of welfare
recipients are engaged in work activities.
Today's debate should not be a debate over whose bill forces more
welfare recipients to work longer hours. Instead, we should be focused
on how the system can help individuals to acquire long-term, high-
paying jobs.
Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to defeat the Republican bill and to
support the Cardin-Woolsey-Kind substitute.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), a valued member of our committee.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, it is an honor for me to be here today to speak on
behalf of the reauthorization of welfare reform. I worked on welfare
reform in the South Carolina State senate 7 years ago. I heard the same
arguments, that it would not work; and we were able in South Carolina
to enact welfare reform, and exactly like the Republican Congress in
1996, reduce the caseload, provide jobs for people, provide training,
the child care and the health care. It was the greatest experience, and
it has been the most exciting activity. I agree with the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Kingston), it is the most exciting activity that I have
participated in in legislation.
Additionally, there has been some question as to whether we have had
sufficient meetings. Last year I was very fortunate thanks to the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
DeLay) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) to be working on this
issue. We met dozens of times. It was all very positive. And the effect
has been, as the Savannah Morning News and the Carolina Morning News
have reported, that welfare reform has been the most successful social
program in the last 50 years. So I am excited to be here. It speaks for
itself, and I urge a positive vote today on reauthorization.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), a valued member of the Committee on Education and
the Workforce.
(Mr. HINOJOSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4, the
Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Protection Act. I opposed this
bill last year when we had the same debate. Since then more workers
have lost their jobs, more families have lost their homes, and more
Americans are in need of Federal assistance. Jobs are scarce as
businesses continue to fail. Instead of considering a new bill that
reflects this new economic environment, the Republican leadership has
brought to the floor the same inadequate bill from last year. Education
and training should be the cornerstones upon which this legislation is
written. We 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, and we lead the State of Texas in job creation. I urge my
colleagues to vote against the Republican bill. It is the wrong bill at
the wrong time.
[[Page H483]]
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), a valued member of the committee.
Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to rise in support of H.R. 4.
I think that H.R. 4 addresses some of the issues that have become
increasingly problematic to our young people, and I observed some of
these problems in over 36 years of coaching.
Back in 1960 when I started out, roughly 5 percent of our athletes
came from broken homes. Today, roughly one half of our marriages end in
divorce. Fifty percent of our young people spend part or all of their
childhood without both biological parents. So as time went on, I began
to see more and more young men that I was working with carry a lot of
emotional baggage, having their lives disrupted in various ways.
Currently, we have 18 million fatherless children in our country, and
when their dads do not care enough to stick around and see what they
look like, they have a vacuum in their lives and they try to fill that
vacuum with all the wrong stuff, gangs, drugs, promiscuity, and so on.
So one of the aspects of H.R. 4 that I think is particularly important
is the healthy marriage program. An example that happened in my
district recently was a young couple who were pretty much thrown out of
both houses, their homes, and an older couple mentored them and made a
tremendous difference. So we think this is very important and certainly
support H.R. 4.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman (Ms.
Woolsey), my former colleague on the Committee on Education and the
Workforce, for yielding me this time.
I rise to voice my opposition to H.R. 4, the so-called Personal
Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act. How our names sometimes
get in the way! H.R. 4 is not the solution to what we need to do. There
has been success in lowering welfare rolls since 1996, but it was the
good economy that did this, not welfare reform; and I would love to see
numbers for welfare recipients for 2002 instead of just going back to
when our economy took the dip in 2001.
We all know that education is the silver bullet and it is the key
that helps individuals find higher-paying jobs which lift them out of
poverty and achieve the American dream, but this bill makes the same
mistakes as its predecessor by limiting recipients' access to education
and training. Without these services, welfare beneficiaries are trapped
in those low-paying jobs. The best solution to welfare is a job that
pays a decent wage. This legislation will also have disastrous effects
on our State budgets because it imposes strict new requirements but
provides absolutely no funding. For example, it increases the work
requirements to 70 percent, which philosophically I do not mind; but
currently in my home State of Texas it is struggling to maintain its
participation at 26 percent. It will cost the State of Texas $688
million when we already have a $12 billion shortfall.
{time} 1245
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Crowley).
(Mr. CROWLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to talk about a very large
and important group of my constituents that the Republican TANF bill is
completely ignoring.
This Republican bill is completely ignoring legal immigrants. This
bill denies even its smallest safety net for families who are
diligently making their way through the legal immigration process
towards becoming full citizens of our country. This bill is ignoring
people across the U.S. who pay taxes, who support their communities
and, according to Alan Greenspan yesterday, are a positive factor for
U.S. economic growth.
This bill is hurting children and families, especially in States with
large immigrant populations like mine in New York. New York State,
under a Republican governor, understands the necessary reality of
providing some benefits to legal immigrants.
Moreover, immigrants, on average, contribute more in tax dollars than
they get back through government services and benefits, and the bulk of
the dollars immigrants contribute in taxes go to the Federal
Government. Yet, when immigrants fall on temporary hard times, the
Federal Government chooses to ignore them, and this Republican bill
today ignores them as well.
If we are a nation of immigrants, then this Republican bill is not
only irresponsible, it is also a slap in the face to our Nation's
heritage. This Republican bill is not about finding a solution to
poverty; it is about exacerbating the class warfare in this country, it
is about dividing and conquering, and unfortunately they are conquering
and winning.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thompson).
(Mr. THOMPSON of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
California for yielding the time, and for her great work on the effort
to make this bill a better bill.
Mr. Chairman, since the implementation of TANF, California has
tripled the number of welfare recipients who are today working. Cash
aid has decreased by 45 percent and caseloads have declined more than
40 percent. H.R. 4 will not help California or any other State continue
to make such progress.
The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) and the others who have
worked on this substitute are offering a good measure. The substitute
calls for tough, real work requirements that move welfare recipients
into meaningful employment. The substitute gives States flexibility to
create programs that prioritize efficiency over the majority's one-
size-fits-all model.
The substitute gives States the resources needed to enact these new
tougher mandates, unlike the majority's bill that provides $11 billion
in unfunded mandates that no State can afford. It will cost California
alone $2.5 billion over the next 5 years.
The substitute balances tough work requirements with financial
resources that are necessary to move people into working jobs.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to support the Cardin-Woolsey-
Kind substitute.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) has 1 minute
remaining.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 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 about how to build on that success and how to put even
more Americans on the path to self-reliance.
While it is true that the 1996 reforms significantly reduced welfare
caseloads, we still have a lot of work to do. A majority of TANF
recipients today are still not working for their benefits.
The Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act builds
upon the best aspects of the 1996 welfare reform law. It strengthens
work requirements, enhances flexibility for States and localities, and
it does so while providing States with significantly more funding for
child care, which is crucial for welfare families transitioning into
the workforce.
President Bush stated that no level of despair should be acceptable
in our society. With this new legislation we help some of the most
vulnerable members of our society achieve independence and self-
sufficiency.
I urge my colleagues today to support the welfare reform law, H.R. 4.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Tauzin) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) each will control 15
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4, the Personal
Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act of 2003. This bill does a
number of things that are very important to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce that I chair. It contains an extension of
[[Page H484]]
funding for the abstinence-only education, and also reauthorizes
transitional medical assistance, and I want to speak to both of these
issues briefly.
The 1996 welfare reform law 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 must match every 4 Federal dollars with 3 of their own, it is
noteworthy that almost every State in the Union has now participated in
this block grant program. The high rate of State interest suggests that
abstinence-only education is indeed one of the ways to address the
terrible problems of teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases
in our society.
Last year, my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Bilirakis), the chairman of our Subcommittee on Health, held a hearing
on abstinence-only education. It was an eye opener.
At that hearing we learned that problems stemming from increased
sexual activity among teens has not abated at all in this country. Even
though teen birth rates have declined, we still have the highest teen
birth rates of any industrialized nation in the world, and 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.
When we were growing up in the 1960s, there were really only two
sexually transmitted diseases that were of a real concern. Now we are
aware of more than 25, and the diseases that are primarily affecting
young people today are now the viral diseases, such as human
papillomavirus, herpes and chlamydia.
Mr. Chairman, these viral diseases cannot be cured. They are
incurable sexually transmitted diseases. Chlamydia, for example, a
major cause of infertility in young women, is asymptomatic in up to 85
percent of the cases. That means for 85 percent of the young women
contracting this sexually transmitted disease, which is incurable, they
may lose their opportunity ever to bear a child, ever to become a
mother, ever to experience the joys and the tremendous rewards of
motherhood.
One of the other things we learned was that 50 percent of the
sexually active young women between the ages of 18 and 22 are now
infected with the papillomavirus, or HPV. Now, this is a virus, again
we learn, that most young women do not realize they have, because again
it is asymptomatic in most cases. But what we have learned about it is
that it is a precursor, it is one of the incurable diseases that often
leads to cervical cancer. And guess what else we learned? We learned
that there is no evidence whatsoever that condoms reduce the sexual
transmission of this infection.
These statistics are terrifying. But they show that the safer sex
model has not solved all of these problems despite more than 20 years
of a variety of education programs aimed at promoting condom or
contraception use.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues, for the sake of these young men
and women in our society who are being infected by these incurable
diseases, many of which will cause them incredible damage in their
lives, and they are not aware, that we extend the abstinence-only
education programs under H.R. 4. H.R. 4 simply maintains the status
quo, extends the level of funding of $50 million each year through the
year 2008.
New research is beginning to suggest that abstinence-only education
can effectively address the prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases
among young people and the proportion of births occurring to unmarried
mothers. We must continue indeed that effort begun in 1996 and support
abstinence-only education programs that empower students to choose
abstinence for themselves, while receiving the relevant facts and
information that would make them want to make that choice.
The 1996 welfare reform law also included a critical work support for
former welfare recipients called transitional medical assistance.
Former welfare recipients typically enter low-wage jobs that do not
offer private health insurance coverage or offer coverage with very
expensive premiums. Transitional medical assistance extends up to a
year of Medicaid coverage to these individuals and their families. This
is the bridge of health care coverage that helps take young people out
of welfare and into the workforce with adequate medical coverage in the
bridge years.
There is strong bipartisan support for this assistance, which
provides a valuable incentive for people to move off of welfare into
work, and this 1 year reauthorization of transitional medical
assistance will have a 5-year cost of $355 million.
Because funding was not included, Mr. Chairman, in the last year's
budget resolution, we had to find the money to pay for it, so H.R. 4
includes a limited offset to do so.
We recognize the Medicaid budget difficulties many States are
currently experiencing and important functions that are funded with
Medicaid administrative costs, and for that reason, the offset included
in H.R. 4 is merely a partial adjustment that lasts for only 2 years
and pays for the 1-year extension of this important program.
Before 1996, common costs for administering food stamps, Medicaid and
welfare were often charged to the AFDC program, the predecessor of the
TANF program. These common costs have been included in the calculation
of each State's TANF funds. The offset reduces Federal reimbursement
for Medicaid administrative costs to reflect the portion of these costs
that are already included in the TANF block grants the States receive.
In effect, this offset for the 2-year period deals with a problem we
already corrected in the food stamp program in 1998, this double
reimbursement for administrative costs. This is a partial adjustment
that lasts for only 2 years and then phases out.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 4, which indeed
responsibly pays for the 1-year reauthorization of transitional medical
assistance. I know there are many in this room who would like us to
extend it for longer than a year. We simply have problems funding it in
this bill at this time.
We recognize the careful balance we have achieved between the offset
and this 1-year reauthorization, and commit ourselves to revisiting the
issue again next year so that this important program can be continued.
I urge Members to join me in full support of this important
legislation.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\3/4\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, we should pass a welfare reform bill that is realistic
about what people need to transition from welfare to good, paying,
lasting jobs. It is in no one's best interest to see people transition
from welfare to work and back onto welfare. If we underinvest in job
training and child care and other support services, we are setting
welfare reform up for failure and wasting money.
The Democrat bill invests in permanent change. The Republican bill
does not. From a public policy perspective, from a fiscal perspective,
the Democratic bill makes sense.
Transitional medical assistance is a program that provides health
coverage for families leaving welfare. Individuals moving off welfare
wind up in jobs that do not offer health coverage, or if it is offered,
it is simply too expensive. Transitional medical assistance allows
these families to keep Medicaid coverage so that getting a job does not
mean giving up one's health insurance.
The Republican bill only extends the TMA program for 1 year. There is
no logic for that. It is temporary assistance, not a temporary program.
The Democratic bill is up front about this and makes transitional
Medicaid assistance permanent.
Of added concern, Republicans would cut other parts of Medicaid in
order to pay for this extension. It makes no sense to take coverage
from some people so that others can keep it. It is illogical.
The second provision extends title V abstinence-only sex education,
but locks States into a inflexible curriculum. It is controversial and
rightly so. The President and House Republicans' message on welfare for
years has been loud and clear, States need greater flexibility. But
when it comes to another critically important program, abstinence
education, Republicans are unwilling to afford the States the same
flexibility. Let me make that clear.
The substitute bill we are offering today supports abstinence
education.
[[Page H485]]
No one disputes the benefits of teaching abstinence. Under our
substitute, if a State chooses to continue its abstinence-only
education program, it can. But our substitute offers States the right,
the States' rights, if you will, the right to develop an education
program that teaches abstinence and comprehensive contraception.
Our substitute requires any curriculum funded with Federal dollars to
be scientifically and medically accurate. On that, again my Republican
friends fall far short.
The Democratic substitute requires Federal dollars fund only programs
proven to be effective in delaying sex. It requires a report to
Congress comparing abstinence-only education to programs that teach
about abstinence and contraceptives. We should listen to the needs of
parents and children; 80 percent of them support abstinence and
contraceptive education for their children.
{time} 1300
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
4, the Personal Responsibility, underlined, the Personal
Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act of 2003. In particular, I
would like to lend my strong support to provisions in the welfare bill
that our committee included in the package last year, and I am
speaking, of course, of the abstinence-only education funds which are
provided through title V of the Social Security Act and a 1-year
extension of transitional medical assistance.
Last year, the Committee on Energy and Commerce approved a 5-year
reauthorization of the title V abstinence-only education funding, and I
am pleased to see that this language is again included in this year's
reauthorization of welfare reform. This important program provides $50
million in annual funding to States for abstinence education. These
abstinence-only education funds were first included as part of the 1996
welfare reform law; and today, 49, 49 of the 50 States have elected to
participate in this very important program.
I am pleased that my own State of Florida has elected to participate
also. In fact, during my subcommittee's hearing last year, we heard
just how effective these programs can be. Participants in ReCapturing
the Vision, a program that operates in an impoverished area of Miami-
Dade County, have only a 1.1 percent teen pregnancy rate, a 1.1 percent
teen pregnancy rate.
By continuing title V funding for another 5 years, we can encourage
the development of more successful programs like ReCapturing the
Vision. This is so critically important, because the consequences of
ill-advised sexual activity by young people is certainly severe. As we
all agree, abstinence is the only sure way to prevent the spread of
sexually transmitted diseases as well as out-of-wedlock pregnancies.
The bill also reauthorizes the Transitional Medical Assistance
program, or TMA. TMA ensures that low-income individuals who are
leaving welfare and entering the workforce will continue to have access
to health insurance for an additional, let us be clear, for an
additional year past, past when they would normally become ineligible
for Medicaid. This removes a powerful disincentive to leaving welfare
and provides numerous low-income individuals with critical support as
they work towards economic self-sufficiency. This provision is even
more important today as we see the number of uninsured increasing.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to vote for this bill. It has been
proven, it has worked, and we have to continue it.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), a registered nurse.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill.
We cannot ask mothers with small children to put in more hours of work
without ensuring that their children will be cared for. This bill does
not do that. It is unreasonable and flies in the face of family values.
We must increase funding for child care to ensure that we do not harm
poor families and single parents. Additionally, the abstinence-only
provisions of this bill should be removed. Our children should be
taught abstinence, yes; but they also need to learn the facts about sex
so that they know how to make good choices to protect themselves.
Otherwise they will simply get misinformation from television, the
movies, and their friends. We must trust parents and teachers to know
how to educate their own children.
This morning at a hearing here on Capitol Hill, I heard the Secretary
of State, Colin Powell, address the Global AIDS Initiative. He said
that in addition to promoting abstinence, our U.S. AIDS programs abroad
also emphasize full education and protection. If these are our policies
abroad, should they not also be our policies here at home?
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from the great State of Florida (Mr. Stearns), the
distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and
Consumer Protection.
(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, we talk here about abstinence. We have to
look no further than Uganda for proof of the effectiveness of
abstinence in the fight against HIV and AIDS.
Riddled with HIV infections since the 1970s, Uganda took the first
step. It found that through community education efforts, they could
develop a strategy to prevent more HIV/AIDS patients; and in fact, a
study done by Harvard University has proven that promotion of
abstinence through billboards, radio programs, and school sex education
curricula has resulted in a slow and steady drop in HIV infection
rates, as well as new attitudes about conquering AIDS in Uganda. So we
have proof positive from this study that abstinence works.
When the program started in the late 1980s, the number of pregnant
women infected with HIV was 21.2 percent. By 2001, the number had
dropped dramatically to 6.2 percent. The Harvard study also reported
Uganda adults are not having as much risky sex. Of women 15 and older,
those reporting many sexual partners dropped from 18.4 percent in 1989
to 2.5 percent in the year 2000. The emphasis is on abstinence in
Uganda's program. It is unique all through Africa.
In other nations where HIV infections are high, such as Zimbabwe,
condoms have been promoted as an answer to ending the AIDS crisis. But
we cannot ignore, we just cannot ignore this study from Harvard or
ignore the success of the abstinence program in Uganda.
Mr. Chairman, the welfare reform package we consider today goes a
long way in achieving our goal of empowering families, promoting
independence through work and lifting millions of Americans out of
poverty. One particular aspect that is of great encouragement to me is
that this bill includes $50 million to provide for abstinence
education. Educators, health workers, government officials,
entertainment and news media outlets bombard children with the wrong
messages. It is increasingly clear that unbridled sexual activity is
hurting our youth: sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), AIDS,
abortion, unintended pregnancy, fatherlessness, crime, welfare,
violence and poverty are rampant social diseases. According to a survey
by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, most Americans
support abstinence for teens as a way of diffusing these damaging
messages.
We need look no further than Uganda for proof of the effectiveness of
abstinence in the fight against HIV/AIDS. Riddled with HIV infections
since the 1970s, Uganda has found miraculous success by using
abstinence as its prevention strategy. A study done by Harvard
University has proven that promotion of abstinence through billboards,
radio programs and school sex education curricula has resulted in a
slow and steady drop in HIV infection rates, as well as new attitudes
about conquering AIDS in Uganda. When the program started in the late
1980s, the number of pregnant women infected with HIV was 21.2 percent.
By 2001, the number was 6.2 percent. The Harvard study also reported
Ugandan adults are not having as much risky sex: of women 15 and older,
those reporting many sexual partners dropped from 18.4 percent in 1989
to 2.5 percent in 2000.
The emphasis on abstinence in Uganda's program is unique. In other
nations with high HIV infections, such as Zimbabwe and Botswana,
condoms have been promoted as the answer to ending the AIDS crisis. In
Botswana, 38 percent of pregnant women were
[[Page H486]]
HIV positive last year, contrasted with 6.2 percent of Ugandan women.
We cannot ignore the success of abstinence programs in our country and
throughout the world and for this reason we must explore this option.
Sexual disease and the negative results from unwanted pregnancies
cross physical borders, and are a recognizable concern for all nations
and all people. This problem can only be addressed through the
exploration of proven and effective methods of sexual education. It is
time we give serious thought to the unique initiative of abstinence-
based health education.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4, and I do
so with extreme disappointment today.
As one that worked awfully hard in 1996 with both sides of the aisle
in coming up with a welfare reform bill, working with my own State,
working with the providers of welfare, working with the recipients of
welfare, working with the business community, we came up with a good
compromise bill.
Now, I am disappointed that we are taking the same bill that was
passed last year, without legislative input, and bringing the same bill
up today without committee action and the nonrecognition that the
economy has changed since last year.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4 would severely restrict the flexibility of
States such as Texas to continue the activities that have been
successful in their welfare reform bills. According to CBO, it will
cost Texas $688 million over 5 years to pay for the Washington-mandated
policies in this bill. Texas cannot afford these enormous expenses at
the same time that we face a $9.9 billion budget shortfall and a
sagging economy that continues to reduce State revenue. This will force
Texas to drastically cut back on basic services or raise taxes, and
they are not going to do that. It would be the height of arrogance for
me to stand here in Washington and vote to require Texas to increase
taxes or cut spending on other programs to implement policies that the
Texas legislature has already considered and rejected in favor of other
policies which have been proven to work.
Vote down H.R. 4; support the Cardin substitute. It will be much
better for the State of Texas and other States.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from the great State of Michigan (Mr. Upton),
the chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications.
(Mr. UPTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4.
Mr. Chairman, welfare reform in the past did not work. We did not
have it. It was welfare under the old system. We did not have reform.
We passed welfare reform then; and President Clinton, after a couple of
vetoes, ended up signing the bill, and we established a base to get our
States out of the trouble that they were in.
Last year, this House passed a bipartisan proposal to again move the
process forward, but there were some in the other body who chose not to
take that legislation up. This year, we are acting a little quicker.
There are two very important components of this legislation. One is
the abstinence-only education which provides $50 million each year to
the States under a matching program. It does not take away from other
programs, it works, and we have seen teen pregnancy rates drop
dramatically in those States that have used it. In my State, a 40
percent drop.
The second thing that we did was we removed the incentive for people
to stay on welfare in lots of ways. Primarily what we did, though,
through TMA, transitional medical assistance, we are able to say to
those folks that were on welfare and knew that by taking a job they
would lose their Medicaid for themselves and their kids, that that is
not going to happen, that we provided the transition so that those
families could take a job, get into the workforce, move up the ladder,
that they would not lose that provision that would otherwise have taken
away their health insurance. We changed that. TMA is in this bill, it
was the bill that we helped write in our subcommittee, it was done, and
it is part of this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support it and
move the bill again to the other body so that we can see this
legislation reach the President's desk.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4, legislation
reauthorizing the very successful 1996 welfare reform act. As a senior
member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Education and
the Workforce Committee, two of the three House committees with
jurisdiction over welfare reform, I have worked closely with my
colleagues to further strengthen this legislation so that more families
can know the benefits of personal responsibility, work, and stronger
family units.
I'd like to focus today on two key components of the 1996 law that I
have taken the lead on--the reauthorization of the Transitional Medical
Assistance program and the Title V abstinence education block grant
program.
One of the greatest disincentives to leaving the welfare rolls is the
lost of Medicaid coverage for oneself and one's family. H.R. 4
reauthorizes the Transitional Medical Assistance program, which will
ensure that individuals leaving welfare for employment have guaranteed
health care coverage for up to one year.
H.R. 4 also reauthorizes the Title V abstinence education program at
the current funding level of $50 million a year. When we passed welfare
reform, we emphasized work and personal responsibility. We have made
great strides in promoting work, but too many of young people's dreams
are still being cut short by poor personal decisions that dramatically
affect the course of their lives. Teen birth rates have been failing,
but nearly \1/2\ million teens in this country give birth each year--a
rate higher than those of most industrialized nations. And 8,519 births
are to girls under the age of 15. We know that out-of-wedlock births
and teen births take a high toll--on the child, the teen mother, and
our society as a whole.
Further, sexually transmitted diseases have reached epidemic
proportions, placing the health and very lives our young people in
serious peril. In the 1960s, one in 47 sexually active teens was
infected with a sexually transmitted disease. Today, one in four is
infected.
It is important to note that State participation in the Title V
abstinence education program is voluntary, and this is not free money
to the States. States have to match every 4 federal dollars they
receive with three dollars of their own. Yet today, 49 of the 50 states
are participating.
Anyone who doesn't think abstinence education works has only to
examine my State of Michigan's record. The State began its own program
in 1993--the Michigan Abstinence Partnership program. One reason that
it works so well is its emphasis on involving entire communities--
parents, teachers, health professionals, youth leaders, youth
organizations, and community leaders--in developing programs tailored
to their unique needs. Michigan's teen pregnancy rates have dropped 40
percent in the targeted group of 15-17 year olds, and for the last
several years, Michigan has been one of up to five states rewarded by
the Department of Health and Human Services for achieving the largest
decrease in their ratios of out-of-wedlock to total births while also
experiencing a reduction in their abortion rates.
Abstinence education programs are much more than ``just say no''
programs. They are positive, motivational programs that give young
people the information and inspiration they need to think of their
futures and abstain not only from sexual activity but also from drug
and alcohol use.
Mr. Chairman, President Bush got it exactly right when he said that
abstinence is not just about saying no to sex, it is about saying yes
to a happy, healthier future.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the underlying bill
and in support of the Cardin substitute and in outrage for the
circumvention of the committee process.
Mr. Chairman, last year in the Education and the Workforce Committee,
we sat down and discussed TANF reauthorization extensively. We had
several days' worth of hearings at both the committee and subcommittee
level before a two-day markup in full committee. Two other committees--
Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce--worked on the bill at the same
time. Then the leadership of the majority party brought the bill to the
floor, they only allowed two hours of debate and no amendments were
permitted. This was an egregious example of the political partisanship
and poor procedure that has dominated the House in recent years. But
this year, the situation is even worse; no committees looked at the
bill. The entire committee process was ignored, and again we have is no
opportunity for real debate or amendment on the floor.
[[Page H487]]
Mr. Chairman, I don't know if some of my colleagues have noticed, but
since we last looked at TANF reauthorization, we've had an election.
Aren't the new members of this body entitled to hear more this bill?
Aren't they entitled to their say in committee? We've also seen our
economic situation get worse last year. Unemployment has gone up.
Wouldn't it be a good idea for the committees to discuss the effects of
these factors? Is it wise to ignore any potential new research that may
have been conducted?
I'm not going to speculate as to why the leadership found it
necessary to circumvent the committee process. But this is a dangerous
precedent to set, and we should do more than give a cursory examination
when we reauthorize the program providing assistance to the neediest of
our families.
Not only should we have looked at this bill in committees, but we
should also be focusing more on trying to find the facts behind
temporary assistance in this country. 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 the unemployed? Are they
simply off the rolls? What factors contribute to the ability of people
to comply with TANF work requirements? No one knows for sure.
That's why 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 directions that TANF
and CCDBG should take we need more information on the issue.
I believe that 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 eliminate the caseload
reduction credit and phase in an employment credit. For each 1% of the
caseload that obtains employment, the work participation rate would be
reduced by 1%. In addition, there would be extra credit for recipients
who obtain higher paying jobs. Another way of assisting families in
moving up the income ladder is giving people the tools to get a good
job with the potential for advancement, not a dead-end make-work job.
We need to provide the training for individuals trying to get jobs.
This is how we can ensure that families will not return to the welfare
rolls.
We must also give parents what they need to achieve the work
requirements. First and foremost, this means providing funding for
quality childcare. A parent will not make a reliable employee if he or
she is always concerns about the quality of their child's care, or
cannot get childcare at all. If welfare recipients are going to get
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
need good childcare programs.
Mr. Chairman, all these issues could have been brought up in
committee. All of them could have been considered during markup or
addressed by witnesses during hearings. But we never got the chance.
And while I laud the goal of providing TANF recipients with the
resources to move from welfare to work. I cannot support this bill and
I cannot condone the circumvention of the legislative process.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), who establishes his health care
credentials very well.
(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Cardin substitute
on the basis that not all welfare reform plans are created equal. The
Cardin plan, I believe, is the superior plan for one basic reason. That
reason is that it will work. It will work where the rubber meets the
road, which is actually getting people to have livable-wage jobs,
rather than to put them in temporary make-work positions where they are
going to wind up right back up on the public assistance program.
The reason I believe it will fundamentally succeed is that the Cardin
plan recognizes the reality that without providing people child care
while they are going to school, while they are going to vocational
school, while they are going to community college, they will not
succeed in breaking the chains of poverty. The Cardin plan makes
allotments to States to allow that to happen.
I have to tell my colleagues, the States are in big trouble and they
are incapable of doing this job right now without assistance. In my
area, at the Edmonds Community College, Shoreline Community College, we
have enrollments at Shoreline Community College of thousands of
students over-enrolled in this program to break the chains of poverty.
We need to give these students child care to make sure kids are not
waiting in the parking lot while mothers are in, or fathers are in,
retraining but, in fact, are cared for during their development years.
I have to say that this is going to cost the State of Washington $144
million. Where is the help from Uncle Sam? The Cardin bill will do it.
It will make welfare reform work.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). The Chair would advise the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) that he has 1 minute remaining
and the right to close, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) has 8
minutes remaining.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson), and I am reminded that
Governor Davis has talked about the inflexibility and mandates of the
Republican plan.
Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, the bill that is on the floor today comes
without any committee consideration by either the Committee on
Education and the Workforce or the Committee on Ways and Means.
Yesterday, I testified before the Committee on Rules on two
amendments that would ensure fair and equitable access to ex-drug
offenders, since the President pointed out in his State of the Union
that we need to do more to rehabilitate ex-drug offenders, and also one
that would protect the Federal civil rights and workplace rights for
welfare recipients. Like so many other amendments, they were summarily
rejected. My bills were fair and reasonable, and I believe they
deserved a chance.
H.R. 4 imposes massive and costly new mandates on States that they
cannot afford. My State alone has a $35 billion shortfall. 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 welfare recipients job-
ready. Is this reform? No, it is not.
Implementing the Republican proposals in California will cost our
State an additional $2.8 billion over the next 5 years, and we do not
have the money.
{time} 1315
Without additional funding, the costs for child care in California
alone are projected to increase by $130 million. Reject this bill.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford).
Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, the crux of a lot of this, no one disagrees
with a lot of what the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) has touted
in terms of this abstinence program, there may be some issues that need
to be worked through, but all of us are in support of curtailing the
transmission of sexually transmitted disease.
The challenge, I think, that many of us have with this is that the
Republican approach, in addition to some of the procedural challenges
raised most recently by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson),
is that many of the freshman Members have never had an opportunity to
hear this committee or hear a debate or to have hearings to talk a
little bit about what the bill will accomplish. We did not even have it
marked up.
Some may say we focus too much on process, but it is important for
those who have only been here a little over a month now to have that
opportunity.
Two, we constantly complain in this Chamber about imposing unfunded
mandates on States. Coupled with the fact that so many States as has
already been mentioned, including my home State of Tennessee, faced
with some $350 to $400 million in shortfall which pales in comparison
to California, Florida, Texas and New York, nonetheless these are real
dollars for real people. Here we are now imposing another unfunded
mandate on the States.
As much as I appreciate the vigor, the zeal of many of my friends on
the other side of the aisle, and many on this side who support the
abstinence programs and other aspects of the this bill, we need not kid
ourselves. Unemployment is up. Many of the economic factors and
indicators of the past 4 to 6 years that have moved in the right
direction are not moving in the right direction for a variety of
reasons.
It is my hope that we can all see fit to support the Cardin
substitute, not
[[Page H488]]
because it is a Democratic substitute or because it is not the
Republican bill; because it actually provides States with the resources
to do all of the things that all of us hope we can do, which is move
people from welfare to work.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).
(Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I oppose H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility,
Work and Family and Promotion Act.
I opposed this bill during the last Congress and I oppose it now. For
as long as I remain in this House, I will oppose any bill that claims
to help American families while punishing them. I oppose H.R. 4 because
it offers no educational opportunities, and I state, no educational
opportunities. It does not provide for adequate funding for child care,
for child care, I state. It is very important to a lot of us.
It does not restore the benefits to legal permanent residents.
I am tired of bills that pretend to promote families, that pretend to
promote families. I am tired of bills that tell the unemployed that you
are just lazy.
Unemployment rates are steadily climbing in our country. It is time
we get serious about fixing our problem. If you ask any person on
welfare in this country if they would be rather working, overwhelmingly
the majority would say yes. They desire to work and we should make sure
we do increase the workforce.
We are at a time in our country where we do not have the employment
right now, and more and more people are in poverty. And yet we are
asking many of these individuals to go out and fight for this country.
And yet we are willing to put more people out in the streets and not
provide jobs. We should be providing jobs.
We should be providing educational training, vocational programs. We
need to have access to English language training. We needs more access
to literacy programs. Jobs in this country are becoming scarce. We need
to provide help for people.
I oppose this legislation.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). The gentleman from Ohio has
3\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) has
1 minute remaining.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time,
and I associate myself with his opening remarks.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to try to inject a heavy dose of economic
reality into what has been a morning of self-congratulation. TANF was
not a success because of our brilliance, Mr. Chairman. The economy more
than any other factor made TANF a success, yet this bill ignores the
economic cycles and is on automatic pilot going in precisely the wrong
direction.
This is the worst economy in 15 years. Yet we are increasing the
hours of work for those who receive TANF and increasing the percentage
of families in work-related activities. We have got 6 percent
unemployment for those who are already in the workforce with skills.
What worries me most, Mr. Chairman, is that TANF has already creamed
off the most ready to work, yet we are raising requirements for the
hardest to place. This is nuts.
This bill is a recipe for failure, not the success we have enjoyed.
Look at the racial composition. We are told, hey, we have reduced the
rolls. Are the rolls really down? For whites, they are down 5.8
percent; for blacks, they are up 2.1 percent. This is since 1996. And
for Hispanics they are up 5.2 percent. In the third quarter, 39 States
had increased welfare rolls.
In the face of these difficulties, we need more flexibility, not
less. Less prescriptiveness, this is the opposite of what this bill is
giving us. We know how to respond to economic cycles when it comes to
business and when it comes to those who have been in the workforce. We
must respond in the same rational way to those left on TANF,
particularly considering that they are the hardest to place.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman from Louisiana
(Mr. Tauzin) have the right to close?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) who is a new member of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4 and in support of
the Cardin-Kind-Woolsey substitute and the Mink properly named
substitute, which both take a giant leap forward in addressing the
needs of the poor.
Let us talk about jobs. President Bush and the Republicans want to
eliminate a tax on dividends when the only work involved in that is
opening up an envelope. People who go to work every single day, who
earn the same amount of money, now they are going to have to pay taxes
on that. And let us try and instill then a work ethic in poor people.
Well, I want to say, poor people want to work. Where are those jobs?
Poor people want to take care of their children. Where is the money for
the child care? We want to invest in families. Poor people want to
better themselves. They do not want just a job. They want to be out of
poverty, and that should be our goal too.
That is what we do. We expand opportunity for education, provide $11
billion in child care funding, restore benefits to legal immigrants,
include poverty reduction, not just simply caseload reduction as a new
purpose of TANF.
I would contend that H.R. 4 grossly underfunds child care. It would
cost $7 billion over the next 5 years just to keep up with inflation.
It is an unfunded mandate to the States when, again, the plan by the
Republicans does not help the States.
That is bad bill. Support the substitutes.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, welfare reform passed by this Congress, signed so
reluctantly by Bill Clinton, has been an unmitigated success. It was
built on one premise. You do not love people by condemning them to a
lifetime of poverty and dependence. You love them by giving them a
chance for independence and self-dignity.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) who will close for this side.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of success stories
today, but what is important is that we build on these successes and
that we give even more Americans this dream of moving from dependency
to dignity and moving to hope and to freedom. Now we must offer this
opportunity to all Americans.
Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman and all of those who have
worked in concert to make this a possibility to bring this bill to the
floor and to free Americans from the oppression of unemployment to give
them the skills and the abilities they need and the opportunity to move
from welfare to dignity and to hope and to freedom.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to revise
and extend my remarks.
I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4 and in support of the Cardin-
Kind-Woolsey substitute amendment.
In its current state, this bill will not only put great strains on
the families and individuals we set out to protect in every other
aspect of life, but adds unbearable strains on States that already
suffer from shortfalls and unfunded mandates. These new requirements
could cost states up to $11 billion over the next 5 years. in addition
to the $50 to $70 billion in shortfalls estimated by the National
Conference of State Legislators.
It is important that we write and support laws that have positive
effects on our nation's families. Now, while Florida's efforts at
welfare reform are by no means perfect, it has at least recognized that
a well-trained adult is a self-sufficient adult. Instead of focusing on
keeping participants busy for precisely 40 hours per week while they
are on welfare, Florida and other States have recently placed a greater
emphasis on structuring programs that provide the types of activities
needed to move participants into paid employment and off of welfare,
like training programs and educational incentives. Also, Florida
determined that providing
[[Page H489]]
supports to low-income families, such as child care and transportation
assistance, before they resort to welfare, is an essential part of
work-based welfare reform. By increasing work program costs for
families on welfare, a 40-hour requirement would limit the resources
states have to help other low-income working families stay off of
welfare.
The bill would reduce the flexibility states now have to tailor work
activities to the individual needs of parents and families. In
particular, States would have less ability to place recipients in
vocational education programs because such activities generally would
not count toward the first 24 hours of participation required of
parents. The bill also would limit significantly States' ability to
engage recipients in activities designed to address various barriers to
employment--such as physical, mental, and learning disabilities,
domestic violence, and substance abuse--because these activities would
not count for the bulk of the mandated hours of participation.
I wonder how many children will continue to be alone or with
inadequate care while parents are forced to increase their hours of
work. In the State of Florida and throughout this country, we have
issues in our child protective services, because many poor or near poor
parents are working and children are left to fend for themselves. While
this bill fosters and promotes marriages by giving States grants for
research, technical assistance and promotional activities, it diverts
$200 million from current bonus to States. All while hurting the single
parent trying to make a living and care for their family without any
additional programs.
We should have looked at this reform from the point of view of both
the family and States in implementing change. We cannot use the carrot
and the stick approach and not allow the States the flexibility to
administer this Federal program.
States will be required to have 70 percent of their welfare caseload
working within the next 5 years, up from the current work participation
rate of 50 percent while keeping TANF block grants at $16.5 billion
annually for the next 5 years.
Section 8 housing vouchers for low-income families will be replaced
with a block grant program. These vouchers were targeted to welfare
recipients for whom housing assistance is critical to obtaining or
retaining employment. HUD provided 50,000 vouchers at a cost of $283
million. The program allowed families to rent apartments near available
jobs, transportation or childcare. The vouchers were targeted to
families who are currently receiving, are eligible for, or have left
the welfare roll within the last 2 years.
But, instead, this bill fails at every turn:
Instead of increasing access to education and training, this bill
requires that such activities would count for up to 24 months against a
State's participation requirement.
Instead of increasing mandatory funding for child care by $11 billion
over the next 5 years, and restoring the Social Services Block Grant
funding to $2.8 billion per, this bill will cost states $11 billion
over the next 5 years, and still sacrifice support services that would
allow parents to maintain working hours.
Instead of removing barriers to serving legal immigrants, including
the current ban on States providing Federally funded TANF benefits to
immigrant families, the bar on serving pregnant women and children
under Medicare, and the bar on disabled children under SSI, this bill
retains the discriminatory restrictions despite bipartisan support for
removing them.
Instead of providing States with the flexibility to tailor programs
to their clients, while maintaining some minimum level of support, this
bill takes away the ability to help people how they need to be helped,
all the while saying that Federal agencies can choose not to help them
at all by implementing a superwaiver overriding most Federal laws
related to low-income programs.
We had an opportunity today to help the hardest to help find a way to
self-sufficiency. Instead, we have forced States to go deeper into
fiscal crisis or cut programs that could actually aid reform. Webster's
defines reform as improvement by alteration, correction of errors, or
removal of defects. I don't think there will be a picture of this
legislation by definition.
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4 reflects the President's and
Congress' proposals to move more Americans off government dependence
toward individual financial freedom. Prior to the passage of the 1996
welfare law, many mistakenly forecast that welfare reform would place
more people in poverty. Instead, welfare rolls were cut by more than
half and more than 9 million recipients left the welfare rolls and
began collecting paychecks. In fact, one of the greatest success
stories of the 1996 welfare reform law has been my home State of
Georgia. Some have stated that States will not be able to meet the new
work requirements in this legislation; this is not the case with the
state of Georgia. Last year, as the House was considering welfare
reauthorization legislation, I had the opportunity to speak with
Georgia's Labor Commissioner Michael Thurmond about the increased work
requirements in this legislation. Before serving as Labor Commissioner,
then Governor Zell Miller selected Michael Thurmond to direct Georgia's
Workfirst program to move Georgians from welfare to work. It was this
program that laid the foundation for Georgia's success in moving so
many from welfare to work. In our conversation, Commissioner Thurmond
stated with the confidence that Georgia will be able to meet these
standards. By passing this legislation today, this House is both
honoring and building on the success of States like Georgia who are
breaking the cycle of dependence and placing more Americans on the road
to financial independence. Through the passage of H.R. 4, my home State
of Georgia, and other States, will be able to build on the success of
the 1996 law and place more Georgians and more Americans on the road to
self-sufficiency.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this tax and spend
bill before us today. This bill will force States to increase taxes to
pay for the increased spending necessary to meet the costs of the
bill's unfunded mandates.
The Republican bill would impose mandates that would force States to
change their existing welfare programs. Welfare reform has been a
success in Texas and across the country in large part because of the
State flexibility. I do not understand why the majority wants to force
States to scrap the programs that have produced this success in order
to comply with a Washington-knows-best approach. The States and folks
at the local level know what works and what doesn't work in their local
communities. They do not need Washington telling them how to run
things.
According to a survey conducted by the National Governor's
Association, 41 out of 47 States who responded would have to
significantly alter their welfare program in order to comply with the
requirements of the bill. This will require a costly redirection of
resources. States will have to dismantle effective programs that have
met the individual needs of their citizens.
For example, Texas's program helped them achieve a 61 percent
reduction in welfare recipients since 1996. The Texas welfare program
establishes time-limited benefits and requires welfare recipients to
participate in work activities. The Texas Workforce Commission (TWC)
oversees the Choices employment program, as well as child care, through
a system of 28 local workforce development boards. The Department of
Human Service is responsible for client eligibility determinations.
If the bill proposed by the majority passes, Texas will have to
dismantle this successful program. They would have to drastically scale
back its vocational education program which has been successful in
matching welfare recipients with business needs, and implement a
subsidized wage program that the State previously rejected as being
ineffective. Texas would have to end its current practice of levying a
reduction in cash benefits in order to comply with the mandate that
States terminate assistance completely for families out of compliance
with work requirement.
The Republican plan proposes radical waivers and block grant options
what would affect the basic structure of the Food Stamp Program. It
puts at risk the Program's effectiveness as a work support for families
leaving cash assistance, ignores the considerable flexibility States
currently have to run the program, and would undermine essential
protections for the program's vulnerable clients. Congress instead
should maintain the Food Stamp Program structure affirmed in last
year's bipartisan farm bill reauthorization.
The Republican bill would create an unfunded mandate of $8 billion
over 5 years according to the Congressional Budget Office to meet the
work requirements in the bill. CBO estimated that if States actually
meet the 40 hour work requirement with meaningful, structured
requirements instead of self-reported activities, the unfunded mandate
would increase to $11 billion. For Texas, the equates to a sum of up to
$668 million over 5 years. Texas cannot absorb these costs. Faced with
a $9.9 billion budget shortfall, and now a sagging economy that
continues to reduce state revenue, the State will have no other option
than to explore alternative ways to fund the government. This will mean
cutting back on basic services or raising taxes.
In would be the height of arrogance for me to stand here in
Washington and vote to require Texas to increase taxes or cut spending
on other programs to implement policies that the Texas legislature has
already considered and rejected in favor of other policies which have
been proven to work. Many other States will face the same problem, as
they face an $85 billion combined budget shortfall.
Republicans do not often like the term ``unfunded mandate'' because
States would have the option of terminating current, nonmandatory
services like child care to working families to cover the additional
costs, rather than
[[Page H490]]
spending new State dollars. However, child care is a necessary
component of a welfare-to-work program, and terminating these programs
are not a real option for States who want to help working families
afford child care.
The Democratic substitute increases funding to States for child care
assistance to match the CBO estimate of increased child care costs
resulting from the work requirements in the Democratic substitute. The
Democratic bill provides an additional $11 billion for mandatory child
care over 5 years.
The Democratic plan focuses on moving welfare recipients into work
and keeping them employed. The majority talks about their bill being
tougher on work because of the 40 hour work requirement, but the
reality is that 16 hours of that work is in unsupervised, unstructured
activities that are not defined and could include helping children with
homework or other self-reported activities. On the core work
requirements, the Democratic substitute matches the Republican bill
with 24 hours of work. More importantly, the Democratic substitute
provides a credit for moving welfare recipients into employment,
whereas the Republican bill allows States to reduce the work
participation requirements simply by reducing the caseload for any
reason.
The Democratic plan aims to equip welfare recipients with the
knowledge and skills necessary to escape from poverty and welfare, and
into a paying job, while the Republican bill does not. The Democratic
plan allows for education and training to count toward the
participation rate for up to 24 months, while the Republican plan
limits them to 4 months. Republican plan eliminates vocational
education from the list of work-related activities that count toward
the State's participation rate--for the first 24 hours a week.
If you want States to be able to continue succeeding at the necessary
job of helping folks get back to work, vote no on H.R. 4.
Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the
Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act of 2003. Since
Congress passed historic welfare reform legislation in 1996 with work
at the centerpiece of the initiative the results have been irrefutable.
3.6 million fewer Americans live in poverty today than in 1996 and
welfare caseloads have fallen by 60 percent, since 1994.
In my home State of South Carolina, 70,043 people left welfare
between 1996 and 2001. 70,043 people who now know the feeling of
independence, self-worth and accomplishment that comes with getting a
job and supporting ones family. It pleases me even more to be able to
say that 82,000 South Carolinians left poverty between 1996 and 2000.
Providing job training and education, increasing funding for child care
programs and providing incentives to strengthen families allows people
to leave welfare programs and leave poverty behind. The results have
been remarkable, but there is more to be done. We need to ensure that
when a person leaves the welfare system they do not return. We live a
wonderful country full of promise and opportunity for everyone, anyone
can do anything in this country--it's the American dream, and in many
ways a job is at the heart of that dream.
The Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act of 2003
will ensure parents will have the opportunity to tap into reliable
child care so they can have the peace of mind that comes with knowing
their children are safe while they train for, find, and keep a job.
It's important once an individual is able to find a job they continue
to train so they have the opportunity to further their career. Another
key component is a stable home life because it is so important to set
the stage for a child's future. American families do not want a hand
out and they don't want a system that offers a life of poverty. They
want a helping hand when it's needed and more importantly, they want a
chance to rebuild their lives so they can provide a brighter future for
themselves and their loved ones, on their own.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I've been looking forward to today for
quite some time. Today we will pass a welfare reform bill that will
build upon the successes of our historic 1996 reforms. In the past 7
years I have heard numerous success stories that arose from the 1996
Welfare Reform legislation that touched the lives of millions.
Our great former president Ronald Reagan once said, ``We should
measure welfare's success by how many people leave welfare, not by how
many are added.''
In 1996, there were over 14 million welfare cases. Since then,
however, that number has been reduced by 9 million. But this debate is
about more than just numbers--it is about people. Statistics don't do
justice to the smiling faces of success.
I am often asked what I consider my proudest accomplishment as a
Congressman. I am extremely proud to have been a Member of the historic
105th Congress that passed the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. Perhaps more
than anything else we have accomplished during my time in Washington,
reforming welfare has had a positive impact on American families.
Families have achieved independence: Welfare caseloads fell by 9
million--from 14 million recipients in 1994 to just 5 million today.
Promoting work has delivered results: Employment by mothers most
likely to go on welfare rose by 40 percent between 1995 and
Child poverty fell dramatically: Since 1996, nearly 3 million
children have been lifted from poverty, and the black child poverty
rate is now at a record low.
The success of the 1996 welfare reform law is beyond dispute. Our
challenge and great opportunity now is to build on that success--by
putting even more Americans on the path to self-reliance. I urge my
colleagues to vote in favor of this bill, and help the most desperate
in our society realize their dreams.
Mr. CASE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the democratic
alternatives to H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility, Work and Family
Promotion Act, and in opposition to the underlying bill.
I support what is widely referred to as Patsy Mink Memorial TANF
Reauthorization substitute introduced offered by Representatives
Kucinich, Lee, McGovern, and, Lantos for two principal reasons. First,
I owe it to my distinguished predecessor, the late Congresswoman Patsy
T. Mink, to vote to support her legacy of work on welfare reform. This
substitute is based on H.R. 3113, which was introduced by Congresswoman
Mink in the 107th Congress, and reflected her deeply-held belief that
education was the key to enabling poor women and children escape
poverty. Indeed, improving welfare law in these respects was her major
legislative priority during her last term in Congress.
Second, I believe that the States should have very broad authority on
how to spend their TANF funds, including decisions on whether to
provide benefits to legal permanent residents and educational
opportunities beyond basic vocational training. The principal bill does
exactly the opposite.
I am also voting for the Cardin-Kind-Woolsey substitute, which
retains the State flexibility contained in current welfare law and
provides States with the option of allowing recipients up to 24 months
of education, doubling the provision in current law.
I am voting against H.R. 4 because it reduces State flexibility
provided under the current law and imposes an unfunded mandate on
States. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that implementing the
expanded work requirements for welfare mothers--up from 30 hours to 40
hours per week--will cost the States $8 to $11 billion to create make-
work jobs and to provide for increased child care.
I am supportive of reasonable, fair welfare reform that moves people
from welfare to work. But I reject Federal mandates that limit the
States' flexibility and unnecessarily harm people who are trying to
improve their futures and that of their children through education.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of
strong, meaningful welfare reform.
I was not a member of this body when welfare reform was first debated
in 1996. But, the changes that came about as a result of that debate
have brought significant and positive developments to my home state of
California.
Under TANF, California has tripled the number of welfare recipients
working and their average monthly earnings have significantly
increased. Cash aid has decreased by 45 percent and caseloads have
declined more than 40 percent.
These are the types of results that the 1996 reforms intended our
states to achieve and we must build upon them in a way that will
continue to bring people out of poverty and into meaningful employment.
Unfortunately, the bill that we debate today places unrealistic
expectations on both our states and our welfare recipients. Worse, it
calls for the enactment of work requirements that cannot be met without
enhancing childcare, job training and transportation benefits--but
minimal funds are provided for these support services.
Tough work requirements are a critical component of any welfare
reform legislation and I strongly support strengthening our current
provisions. But, I cannot support a plan that shifts a disproportionate
financial responsibility onto our states simply because the federal
government has squandered our surplus.
The underlying legislation contains approximately $11 billion in
unfunded mandates--costs that our states will have to bear alone in
order to comply with these new provisions. These mandates will cost
California almost $2.5 billion--a tremendous hit particularly at a time
when the state is struggling with a budget shortfall of $35 billion.
Mr. Chairman, as evidenced by the Cardin/Kind/Woolsey substitute, we
can balance tougher work requirements with the financial resources
necessary to truly move people from welfare to work.
This substitute calls for tough, real work requirements that move
welfare recipients into meaningful employment.
[[Page H491]]
This substitute gives states the flexibility to create programs that
prioritize efficiency over the majority's ``one-size-fits-all'' model.
Flexibility has enabled California to implement individual
responsibility plans following job search and job preparation
activities.
We have been very successful in placing people into work first,
rather than wasting both funds and time to develop plans for
individuals who have already attained employment.
These innovative approaches are supported by this substitute, which
encourages states to implement sensible reforms and to tailor their
programs to the needs of their beneficiaries--combining though work
requirements with vocational training or ESL education.
Finally, this substitute gives states the resources they need to
enact these new, tougher mandates--providing the $11 billion in
additional child care funding that CBO has indicated states will need
in order for recipients to meet these new work requirements. By
preventing unfunded mandates and promoting flexibility, this substitute
ensures universal engagement and continued success in transitioning
people from welfare into gainful employment.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this substitute, which will
build upon the accomplishments our states have already achieved.
Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4, the
Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act. This bill,
which is similar to the welfare reform bill passed by the House in the
last session, extends the authorization for the Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families (TANF) block grant program through FY 2008.
While I welcome the possibility of reauthorizing this vital program,
I am frustrated by the way in which this legislation was brought to the
floor--without any markup in the three committees that share
jurisdiction on the issue. Furthermore, the House of Representatives
has had ample time to rewrite this bill and present a meaningful
proposal that will address the needs of low-income families and the
states that administer these programs. The bill before us today is
nearly identical to last year's legislation and does little to help
those most in need of services. The goal of this bill should be to
assist welfare recipients in finding employment while transitioning out
of poverty. In order to do so, we should be focusing on adjusting the
grants for inflation, providing additional funding for childcare and
retaining the current thirty-hour workweek requirement while allowing
flexibility for education and training programs.
This bill comes at a time when states are experiencing unprecedented
budget shortfalls. The economy is sluggish and the unemployment rate
has risen from 3.9 percent to 6 percent. Without additional funding,
states will be forced to cut important services, including child care
and transportation benefits. I cannot support a bill that increases the
work requirement for those most difficult to place in employment while
failing to provide adequate child care funding. If we demand that
people must work for their benefits, we need to provide those
individuals with the resources necessary to do so. Massachusetts
currently has more than 17,000 children on its child care waiting list.
An additional $111 million in childcare funding is needed over the next
five years to implement this legislation in Massachusetts alone. The
Democrats have responded to this crisis by offering an alternative
reauthorization bill. The Cardin substitute provides states with the
resources they need to meet these new requirements. It increases
childcare by $11 billion over the next five years, while allowing more
flexibility to count education and training as work requirements. It
retains the current thirty-hour work week rule and allows states to use
federal cash assistance for legal immigrants.
The TANF program has been successful in helping to move families off
the welfare and into work. It is our job to ensure that states have the
resources to continue this important work. I urge my colleagues to
support working families and vote against the Republican bill and for
the Democratic substitute.
Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the
reauthorization of a welfare program that has brought confidence and
helped restore a sense of self-worth and freedom to thousands of my
constituents who have fallen on hard times. Reauthorizing the Temporary
Assistance to Needy Families, or TANF, program is and should be a top
priority, both for my state and our country. We have come far in giving
Americans better opportunities but there is much left to do.
The landmark welfare reform Congress undertook seven years ago has
been a success. Caseloads have gone down. And states now have the
flexibility to spend the money in areas where it is most needed. But
even more important is the fact that welfare reform has brought to
millions of American citizens economic and social freedom, the feeling
of self-satisfaction that comes with a job well done and a goal or
milestone reached.
And though this reform has enjoyed a strong show of success, we
should be content to rest until all our work is done. This bill offers
such a commitment. States will receive each and every year between now
and 2008 $16.6 billion. This includes an increase in the Child Care and
Development Block Grant, which goes directly to helping mothers and
fathers provide better opportunities to their children, as well a
measure to provide financial support to mothers newly off welfare.
This welfare program has been a success nationally and in
Connecticut.
I speak of Richard Morgan, a 32-year-old resident of North
Stonington. Richard enrolled in the Job Search Skills Training (JSST)
class offered through the state welfare office. ``It was very good,
excellent,'' he said. ``I learned some things I hadn't known before,
like how to market myself. I learned how to write a resume, how to make
goals.'' Richard now has the liberty to pursue the job and a life of
his choosing.
I speak of Milagros Medina, a 28-year-old single mother of three. As
a requirement of her federal welfare assistance, Medina went to a Jobs
First orientation at the Connecticut Works Center in New London. After
this training, Medina interviewed with Brian Kingsley, a Food Service
Director, trying to get a job as a nutritionist. ``Now whenever I have
a job opening,'' he says, ``I go the Connecticut Works Center first. I
see them as a pre-screening support agency.'' Milagros now has the
freedom to use her own merits as an asset.
In Connecticut, federal action and reform has made possible our Jobs
First Employment Services Program, a resource to those out of work who
need guidance, training and the tools to find their path. As Richard
and Milagros will tell you, this program works.
If we search, we can find proof in the numbers. Connecticut caseloads
have gone from 38,891 families in 1997 to nearly 12,000 in 2002. Over
60 percent of our state's families on welfare are engaged in some form
of work activity. But numbers are not the true merit of this program.
The heart of welfare is in its ability to offer these are men and women
with new opportunities, new freedoms a new sense of self-determination.
Every American has the chance, the right, to know that the doorways to
success are open to him or her. This action we are taking the reforms
we have put into place is that doorway.
Mr. Chairman, this welfare offers hope where there was none. It helps
develop the skills, the motivation, and more importantly, the
confidence and freedom to reenter the workforce. That is a right that
should be available to all hard-working men and women in America. Our
state programs and local officials are getting the job done. It is time
for Congress to do the same.
Mr. CHOCOLA. Mr. Chairman, today, I rise in support of the Personal
Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2003.
Over the last decade, many in this Congress have worked to turn the
welfare system around. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Act of 1996 has been an enormous success. All across America, the
welfare rolls are down, and many young people have returned to lives of
self-reliance and dignity.
The 1996 welfare reform law expired at the end of last year. Congress
must now act to maintain and expand the success of welfare reform by
promoting work, strengthening families, and helping more welfare
recipients move toward independence and self-reliance.
The bipartisan bill before us today helps welfare recipients follow a
responsible path toward independence by increasing minimum work
requirements, providing additional opportunities for education and
training, and making health benefits available to individuals leaving
welfare as they transition to self-sufficiency.
This legislation takes important steps to strengthen families and
protect children by increasing funding for childcare, so single parents
can go to work. It also provides financial incentives for states to
return more money collected from past-due child support to mothers and
children. And, as soon as the legislation becomes law, it makes
available up to $300 million annually for programs that encourage
healthy, stable marriages.
Finally, this bill frees states to seek out new and innovative
approaches to serve those in need. It allows states greater flexibility
and encourages projects to improve program effectiveness and to improve
service delivery.
I am proud to have co-sponsored this bipartisan bill. H.R. 4
maintains and strengthens the 1996b reforms, while providing a sensible
plan that promotes work, requires responsibility, strengthens families,
and protects children.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, today, I voted against passage of H.R.
4, the Welfare Reform Reauthorization. I opposed passage of the bill
last session and today for the same reasons.
First, the Republican bill has weak educational opportunities for
welfare recipients, it places unfunded mandates on States, and
implements stricter requirements without taking into account increases
for inflation. This puts States in a very compromising position.
Furthermore, this bill only includes $1 billion in
[[Page H492]]
additional funding over five years for childcare. It is general
knowledge that there is insufficient money provided for childcare to
meet the current needs of our nation. Moreover, the Republican bill
places harsher work requirements on mothers with young children,
without providing for a sufficient increase in childcare funding. How
are families to cope?
Additionally, the Republican bill is only concerned about the numbers
looking good on paper. The majority points to the success of the
reduction of welfare rolls with the Welfare Reform Law of 1996;
however, they fail to take into account the number of welfare
recipients that have moved off the welfare rolls straight into low-
income, minimum wage jobs. Many families still must rely on government
assistance to stay afloat. Their measure of success is terribly flawed.
Providing government assistance to needy families should not be based
on unlimited assistance--this is something that those of us on both
sides of the aisle can agree on. However, this bill should be directed
at providing fair and meaningful assistance that will help lift
families out of poverty. This objective is at the heart of both the
Kucinich and Cardin Substitutes that I supported. Both of these
alternatives to H.R. 4 put a greater emphasis 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.
Welfare reform should include policies that provide real solutions to
helping families leave and stay off of welfare. Helping families to
succeed is the Democratic approach--and the right approach. If we fail
to enact policies that give families a real chance to create a better
life, we fail families and we fail children.
Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4, the
Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2003 and in
support of the Cardin/Kind/Woolsey alternative.
I supported the 1996 Welfare Reform bill (P.L. 104-193). States like
Missouri have made great progress in moving 100,000 individuals from
welfare to work. Ms. Jones is one of Missouri's success stories. When
she was called into Department of Family Services (DFS) case management
she had numerous barriers keeping her from employment. She had three
children, ages 9, 10, and 11. Ms. Jones had no driver's license, no
automobile license, no insurance for her car, and the car needed
mechanical repairs. Before she could get a job these barriers had to be
addressed. She received Temporary Assistance. With the creative
collaboration of DFS and the Welfare to Work consultants, Ms. Jones is
no longer receiving Temporary Assistance, has employment paying her
$8.50 per hour, has her driver's license, transportation and some new
uniforms to wear.
To continue moving individuals from assistance to gain employment
maintaining state flexibility is critical to the success of welfare
reform. State like mine have been the laboratories for change and
success in moving people from government assistance to self-
sufficiency. The state of Missouri utilizes an innovative case by case
assessment in providing temporary assistance. We participate in
effective community based partnerships that foster independence from
public assistance and improve family well being. We have award winning
programs that promote and provide youth mentoring, extended school
days, parenting skills, child development, job training, post-secondary
education, and job placement services that are effective at moving
welfare recipients into self-sufficiency.
H.R. 4 jeopardizes the flexibility that Missouri utilizes in
providing personalized case management through these programs. H.R. 4
eliminates Missouri's flexibility in vocational education training by
stipulating only four months of education and training. In a time when
states like mine are already facing serious deficits and cut in
spending, this bill exacerbates their budget woes by providing no new
money to implement its stricter work and participation requirements,
and states currently cannot balance their budgets as required by their
constitutions. Missouri would have to come up with over $200 million
dollars to implement to inflexible changes in H.R. 4 when it is already
facing $814 million in deficits. This does not include the $116.5
million Missouri would need in additional child care money to ensure
the children affected will have access to safe and nurturing care. The
bill before us today funds the Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families--TANF--block grant at the 1995 level and proposes barely
enough funding for childcare to keep up with inflation.
The Cardin/Kind/Woolsey substitute both provides an inflationary
increase in the TANF block grant (an additional $6 billion over five
years) and increases child care funding by $11 billion over five years.
If my colleagues on both sides of the aisle truly want to promote self-
sufficiency and encourage more single mothers like Ms. Jones, who has
moved off of temporary assistance, then we must adopt the Cardin/Kind/
Woolsey substitute because it provides the resources that promote
working toward self sufficiency.
Mr. Chairman, stricter work requirements with fewer resources is a
losing equation for the welfare mothers and children of metropolitan
Kansas City and for our nation.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4,
the Republican welfare bill, and in support of the Democratic
alternative offered by my colleagues Representatives Cardin, Kind, and
Woolsey.
To paraphrase baseball great Yogi Berra, this legislation ``is like
deja vu all over again.''
Indeed, the bill we are considering today is almost identical to the
flawed welfare bill we debated last May. Since then, our national
economy has continued to stagnate, unemployment has risen sharply, and
our states have fallen further into fiscal crisis. In light of this,
one would think that the Republican Leadership would take some time to
re-think their welfare bill and write a better one. Instead, they offer
today the same welfare bill that failed to pass Congress last year.
What wasn't good enough for America's working families then, is worse
for America now.
There are three main problems with H.R. 4. First, it burdens the
states with a large unfunded mandate. Second, it fails to provide
welfare participants with adequate access to education and job
training. And finally, it significantly underfunds childcare.
I strongly support putting people to work to help them obtain self-
sufficiency. While the Republican bill requires more work hours, H.R. 4
does not provide the states with the resources to implement these
additional work requirements. According to the Congressional Budget
Office, it will cost $8-11 billion to comply with these new provisions.
In North Carolina, which is in the midst of a severe budget crisis,
H.R. 4 would cost $222 million.
Additionally, welfare reform should not limit one's opportunity to
succeed and care for one's family. Under the Republican welfare bill,
education initiatives that allow welfare recipients to take community
college classes or obtain their GED are eliminated. That's
unacceptable. As the former Superintendent of North Carolina's public
schools, I understand how important education is to finding and keeping
a good job. Education is the key to a successful future. Many of the
folks who remain on the welfare rolls today are the least prepared to
enter the workforce, and we must provide them with the tools they need
to lift themselves and their families out of poverty.
Finally, the republican bill also requires parents to work ten more
hours per week, yet it does not provide enough resources for childcare.
Finding quality childcare is one of the most daunting challenges with
which welfare recipients must contend. Good childcare helps young
children develop and keeps older children in positive, productive
environments. It keeps children off the streets while their parents are
at work. This is common sense. If you require folks to spend more time
working, you must give them an avenue for caring for their children.
I support the Democratic alternative to this bill. As a member of the
New Democratic Coalition, I especially want to commend the good work
done by my colleague Congressman Kind on this alternative. Mr. Kind's
leadership has produced a far superior bill. Like H.R. 4, our plan
requires more work hours, but it goes much further in providing the
resources necessary to make welfare reform work. It also allows states
to count education and job training as work related activities, which
help welfare recipients prepare to get good jobs and permanently leave
the welfare rolls. Further, this alternative makes reducing poverty a
core purpose of the welfare program. And most importantly, this plan
invests significant resources for childcare.
Mr. Chairman, I've lived all of my life in the rural communities
located in the heart of North Carolina. There we share common values
that stress the importance of family and hard work. Welfare reform
should provide families with the tools to lift themselves out of
poverty to self-sufficiency. Disappointingly, the Republican welfare
bill will not work; it will fail our families. Conversely, the
Democratic alternative honors hard work and provides our families with
opportunities to find hope and achieve success.
I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 4 and to support the Democratic
alternative.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman. I rise today in opposition to H.R.
4, a bill to reauthorize the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families
Program.
The purpose of this program is to move people from welfare to work;
however Democrats and Republicans approach this effort very
differently. The Democratic plan moves welfare recipients into real
jobs and out of poverty. Republicans focus only on adding work hours,
even if it means pushing recipients into minimum wage jobs that keep
them in poverty.
[[Page H493]]
The Democratic plan provides education and training to workers, so
they can move up the economic ladder into decent paying jobs. The
Republican plan ignores the need for training.
The Democratic plan increases access to quality child care, which is
critical for families moving from welfare to work. The Republicans
underfund child care programs by 9 billion dollars.
Finally, the Democratic plan provides States with the flexibility to
tailor their services based on past experience. The Republican plan
forces states into a one-size-fits-all program full of unfunded
mandates that ignores the unique needs of individual states.
Mr. Chairman, it is clear that the Democrat approach will reform
welfare in a way that helps move people from welfare to work with the
hope of improving their quality of life. I urge my colleague to vote
against this punitive Republican bill that fails to offer hope, and
support the Democratic substitute.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, today we are considering
critically important legislation to reauthorize the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families, TANF, block grant program for another
five years. This is an incredibly important task made even more so in
light of the difficult economic circumstances our country is currently
facing. In light of the fact that there are over 8 million Americans
out of work. And in light of the fact that nearly all of the states are
facing serious fiscal crises.
Unfortunately, I believe that H.R. 4 fails to take into consideration
the particularly difficult times facing some of the most vulnerable
individuals in our society and those becoming increasingly more
vulnerable in these times of economic uncertainty. Now is not the time
to impose more restrictions and costs on states and TANF recipients,
yet that is precisely what H.R. 4 does. And it does so without
providing any additional funding, which does not fit my definition of
compassionate conservativism.
Seven years ago, when TANF was created to replace the AFDC program,
the bill was funded at $16.5 billion per year. Today we are considering
a bill that not only provides only the exact same amount of money as
the 1996 welfare reform bill, disregarding inflation, but also
increases TANF recipients' required work hours from 30 hours to 40
hours a week. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this
provision alone will cost the states $8 to $11 billion over the next
five years, and will cost my home state of New Mexico an estimated $100
million to implement the work participation requirements. These
additional mandates that lack the funds to accompany them will
exacerbate already dire fiscal crises in the states. The combined 2002-
2005 state budget gap is projected to be $189 billion. Add the
additional costs associated to implement the work requirements and the
states are staring a combined budget gap of $200 billion right in the
face.
In addition, H.R. 4 also fails to help working mothers with the
increasing cost of childcare. Though the bill does include $1 billion
in new mandatory child care funding--the only new funding in this
legislation--this amount is not nearly enough to help cover the
additional child care funds that states would need to implement the
child care provisions in H.R. 4. New Mexico alone would require an
additional $50 million over 5 years to implement the childcare
provisions of this legislation.
I do strongly support, however, the substitute legislation being
offered by Mr. Cardin, and Mr. Kind, and Ms. Woolsey. Not only does
this legislation strengthen current work requirements and provide
states with the flexibility and freedom to innovate, but also provides
sufficient funding necessary to help states with additional
requirements.
The substitute being offered today increases work participation rates
from its current level of 50 percent by 5 percent a year to reach 70
percent by 2007. It increases the number of work-focus activity hours
from 20 to 24 hours, and provides states the option of increasing the
number of required hours of work from 30 hours to 40 hours a week if
they so desire. However, unlike H.R. 4, the substitute provides the
states with the resources necessary to meet these changes. The Cardin-
Kind-Woolsey substitutes provides inflationary increases for the TANF
block grant, which equals an additional $6 billion over five years, as
well as an additional $11 billion for mandatory childcare funding over
five years to meet the requirements.
Mr. Chairman, as President Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said, and
which is engraved on a wall at the FDR memorial not 15 minutes walking
distance from here, ``The test of our progress is not whether we add
more to the abundance of those who have much, it is whether we provide
enough for those who have too little.'' Today, as we consider this
legislation to provide a safety net for our great country's poorest and
most vulnerable population, as the income disparity between the rich
and poor continues to grow, this quote from a great man and great
leader should resonate loudly throughout the chambers of the capitol
and throughout the land. We need to help provide opportunities for
people to get out of poverty and off of TANF. H.R. 4 does not do this,
but instead imposes unfunded mandates on states. H.R. 4 focuses on
caseload reductions, not poverty reduction, which should be the true
standard by which a successful welfare program should be measured.
I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 4 and support the Cardin-
Kind-Woolsey substitute.
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to
support the Cardin Democratic alternative on the Welfare
Reauthorization bill. This bill would reduce poverty, promote State
flexibility, and help move welfare recipients into real jobs.
It adds a strong new work requirement, but it also provides welfare
recipients with support through education, training, and childcare, and
it gives states adequate resources to fund these programs.
In contrast, H.R. 4 would leave Maine with a $56 million dollar
unfunded mandate over five years. Just as bad, right now, a Maine
family of three receiving the maximum benefit only reaches 39 percent
of the federal poverty level.
H.R. 4 doesn't give any new resources to change that. Instead, it
simply asks states and welfare recipients to meet new goals, without
giving them a real change to achieve them.
So let's support the alternative, and pass welfare reform that works.
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I stand before you today to show the
American people what the Republicans in Congress really stand for. This
welfare reform bill perpetuates the misconception of the stereotypical
welfare recipient and does little to actually help those on the welfare
rolls gain economic independence. H.R. 4 does nothing to help people
move into real jobs providing livable wages.
One of the key factors in moving recipients from welfare to work is
the ability to obtain education and job training. This legislation
ignores the reality of the situation: education is imperative to propel
those on the welfare rolls into higher paying jobs that are the real
road to self-sufficiency. In the current state of our economy, now more
than ever, we need to provide job skills and training to the poorest
families. Even skilled workers are having a difficult time finding
employment, and it would be ruthless for us to turn our backs on those
with less skills in their time of need.
Mr. Chairman, this Republican bill's extended work provisions are
extremely troubling. Mandating a 40-hour work week for single parents
on welfare without providing the needed monies for child care is
reprehensible. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that $11
billion will be needed to fund for child care in order to make this
extended-work mandate feasible. H.R. 4 allows only $1 billion for this
care, thus leaving our already financially-strapped states in a serious
predicament.
Further, this legislation lacks alternatives to abstinence-only
education. It is irresponsible that we are not providing monies for
comprehensive sex education program that would help reduce teen
pregnancy, reduce sexually transmitted diseases and promote sexual
health.
I support the Democratic substitute that understands and provides for
the real purpose contained in the title: Temporary Assistance to Needy
Families. These alternatives give recipients a hand up, not a hand out.
By extending the definition of work to include job training, getting a
GED, and care for a child under 6 or the disabled, my Democratic
colleagues and I show our compassion for the poor in their time of
need.
Republicans are showing their true colors by introducing this
legislation: a sincere lack of understanding of the factors that lead
people to seek government assistance and a lack of mercy for those down
on their luck in this time of economic recession. We need a fair and
decent method of helping those who need our help the most. I urge my
colleagues to vote against H.R. 4.
Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, the proposal before us today to
reauthorize Temporary Assistance to Needy Families TANF, is one that
falls short of providing temporary assistance or focusing on needy
families. While there are aspects of H.R. 4 that should be applauded,
such as increasing overall funding, restoring federal support for the
Social Services Block Grant, removing the disincentives for two parents
families, and approaching welfare cases with a family-oriented
perspective, this legislation falls short on providing the real
solutions that families struggling in Utah require.
There are several essential elements for welfare reform that are
lacking in H.R. 4. First, is state flexibility. H.R. 4 would limit
state flexibility and subsequently undermine the welfare successes that
Utah has experienced. The whole concept of the 1996 reforms was for
states to tailor services. Over the last six years, it has been the
ability of the states to adapt programs to meet the needs of
populations with multiple barriers that has allowed
[[Page H494]]
caseloads to decline. Developing true self-sufficiency requires state
flexibility. It means looking towards the long-term and providing
credit for educational and vocational training, and it requires state
alternatives to increase participation rates.
At the same time that H.R. 4 limits state flexibility, it fails to
even provide adequate funding for the increased requirements it
entails. H.R. 4 would require the states to do more with fewer
resources. It increases the mandates on the states to increase
participation rates and work hours, but does not provide the resources
to implement these changes. It leaves the states without the ability to
cover the increased costs related to stricter work requirements and
removes the credits available to the states for decreasing caseloads
without providing other benefits. This unfunded mandate cannot be
supported by Utah, and will not provide the temporary assistance
required at this time.
H.R. 4 also falls short on supporting families. It requires parents
to go to work without any resources to care for their children. The
Congressional Budget Office has estimated that new work requirements
would require $44 million dollars more for child care in Utah. H.R. 4
does not provide these resources. In addition, H.R. 4 would no longer
allow single mothers with children under age six to be fully compliant
if they work 20 hours a week. Instead, they would be required to work
40 hours a week, despite the young children they have at home, and then
would be provided with no additional resources to help them obtain
child care. Such actions are not pro-child and are not pro-family.
I cannot support legislation that falls short on providing for the
real people that I represent in Utah. They deserve more. That is why I
support reauthorization of TANF that is built on sound principles:
flexibility for the states, reasonable requirements, real work that
will lead to long-term self-sufficiency, educational and vocational
training, and adequate resources for childcare. Such a proposal would
recognize the real needs of real Utahns and provide needy families with
real, temporary assistance.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, especially in these troubled economic
times, the safety net, in the words of President Reagan, is critical
for many families in Oregon and across America. Unfortunately, after
months of delay, we are being presented with a TANF Reauthorization
that shows little improvement from the bill presented to us almost a
year ago, even though the economic situation has deteriorated
dramatically in the last year, putting millions of Americans out of
work. This bill does little to recognize the needs and challenges
facing a growing number of Americans.
In Oregon, the new welfare system is getting its most severe test.
Our statewide jobless rate is now 7.1 percent, the highest in the
nation. Oregon's budget is in shambles, but we are not alone. At least
46 states are struggling to close a combined budget gap of $37 billion
in the most recent fiscal year. Budget shortfalls are reaching record
levels, and are projected to approach $85 billion. Some states have
already made cuts to TANF-funded programs, including Ohio, the
homestate of the author of this bill. At a time when states are facing
serious budget crises and are being asked to do even more on hometown
security, the federal government should be giving assistance, not
retreating. Instead, this bill would create a series of unfunded
mandates that in Oregon alone are expected to cost $100 million over
the next five years.
This proposal also fails to address the critical need for childcare
among families receiving assistance. A recent report by the Children's
Defense Fund found that budget shortfalls have forced a number of
states to reduce funding for child care, despite the pressing need for
these services as economic circumstances worsen. Asking for increases
in make-work hours without significantly increased childcare funding is
shortsighted and ultimately destructive in the fight to help these
families achieve self-sufficiency.
Finally, this bill fails to recognize the fiscal realities facing
states and the mounting challenges facing a growing number of
Americans. Instead of targeted tax cuts to those who are least in need;
the federal government should step up to the plate and support welfare
reform that will achieve a real reduction in poverty.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4,
the Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2003.
While proponents of H.R. 4 argue that they are building upon the
successes of the sweeping 1996 welfare reform plan by promoting
independence through work and lifting millions of Americans out of
poverty--they in fact promote helplessness and misery for millions.
They fail to recognize that while research tells us that even though
poverty levels are down, hunger, utility cut-offs, and hopelessness
have increased among former Temporary Assistance of Needy Families
(TANF) recipients. Within these poor families many children suffer
because poverty prevents them from having basic needs met. When the
prevalence of poverty is combined with the fact that less than one
fourth of children eligible for a range of government subsidies receive
any of them, we are failing to protect our most important and
vulnerable assets--our children.
H.R. 4 does not provide sufficient funding for programs essential to
reaching the goal of reducing poverty. It would freeze the amount of
the TANF block grant at current funding levels for the next five years.
These funding limitations are especially critical during these times of
increasing unemployment and State budget deficits. The reality is that
the value of the TANF block grant has fallen by 13.5 percent between
fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 2002. In my home State of Texas alone
it would take $688 million, over the next five years, in addition
funding to implement the work participation requirements in H.R. 4.
Forcing States to implement new provision in the welfare bill, while
providing no new resources for either TANF block grants or child care,
is a recipe for disaster and not a responsible approach to
reauthorizing TANF.
States should be provided appropriate funding to ensure that TANF
recipients receive the assistance they need to become self-sufficient.
H.R. 4 does not provide states with the financial support, or the
programmatic flexibility needed to tailor work activities to the
individual needs of parents and families to overcome workplace
barriers. Instead it imposes harsh work requirements that are recipes
for failure and restricts States' ability to operate education and
training programs that prepare TANF recipients for long term, well
compensated employment.
Finally, an important component of any proposed reauthorization of
TANF must ensure access to job and health care programs for this
Nation's legal immigrants. Despite widespread support for providing
hardworking, tax paying legal immigrants with the opportunity to apply
for safety-net programs, H.R. 4 continues the unfair ban on providing
such critical services to legal immigrant families with children.
Medicaid and CHIP eligibility should be based on need, not the date one
enters the country. States should be allowed to continue to use state
funds to provide primary and preventative care to immigrants.
I will only support a welfare reauthorization bill with the true
purpose of reducing poverty, and one which provides its participants
with real opportunities and with the self-dignity to pursue the
necessary tools to ensure future success.
I will support the amendments presented to this bill, made in the
form of substitutes, which increase childcare funding, which allow
States more flexibility to count education and training and other work
preparation towards more realistic work requirements, that restore
eligibility and benefits to legal immigrants and that reward States
that place parents in real, long term employment.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to lend my full support to H.R. 4 the
reauthorization of the Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family
Promotion Act of 2003.
Before 1996 there were many cases of honest, hard-working individuals
on the welfare rolls, who, faced with hard times, were forced to rely
on our government in order to help provide for themselves and their
families. Unfortunately, there were also many cases of individuals who
in the past abused this system set up to help those in need. I believe
that individuals who choose to live off of government welfare, with no
intention of leaving the rolls, not only cheat the American taxpayer,
they also cheat their children and grandchildren who often live their
lives trapped in a cycle of receiving government handouts.
Mr. Chairman, the bill we are considering on the floor today
gradually raises work requirements over the next five years and
continues to award States that are successful at moving people from
welfare to work. This bill protects children with a $2 billion increase
in childcare funding. The bill allows States greater flexibility in
providing care for children of low-income working families. This keeps
with the idea that those closer to a problem know best how to fix it.
The plan also includes $300 million annually to encourage healthy
marriages and two-parent married families, through programs such as
pre-marital education and counseling.
Let me briefly say that despite my support for the measure, I remain
concerned about some of the provisions in the legislation. While the
measure does improve upon work requirements from the 1996 Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) bill, in some cases it does not go
far enough. For instance, H.R. 4 increases the number of hours a
welfare beneficiary must work and spend in job training programs, but
it allows the states to define ``work'' in practically any way they see
fit for these additional hours. Mr. Speaker, I am in favor of allowing
States flexibility in administering welfare programs--flexibility is,
after all, the linchpin of the reforms we enacted in 1996--but in my
view we should set some
[[Page H495]]
sort of minimal standard and let the States implement them as they see
fit.
Mr. Chairman, TANF has shown how, through simple common sense means,
the lives of millions of Americans can change from a cycle of poverty
and dependence to lives that are happier and more productive. They have
shown how expecting more from our fellow citizens can lift the Nation
as a whole. I am happy to support this measure and encourage my
colleagues to vote in favor of this important legislation.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, 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 least, reduce Federal
control over the provision of social services. Unfortunately, the
misnamed Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act (H.R.
4) actually increase the unconstitutional Federal welfare state and
thus undermines personal responsibility, the work ethic, and the
family.
H.R. 4 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. 4 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. Chairman, 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, this
proposal constricts the ability of the States to design welfare-to-work
programs that meet the unique needs of their citizens. I also question
the wisdom of imposing as much as $11 billion in unfunded mandates on
the States at a time when many States are facing a fiscal crisis.
As former Minnesota Governor, Jesse Ventura pointed 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. Chairman, H.R. 4 further expands the reach of the Federal
Government by authorizing approximately $10 million 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. Chairman, 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. 4 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. 4
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 contract, 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 that
encourage dependency. After all, when a private organization moves a
person off 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. 4 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.
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong opposition
to H.R. 4, the Republican Welfare Reform bill that would push millions
of American families deeper into a life of poverty.
I represent Santa Clara County, California, which has an unemployment
rate of 8.2 percent. In a shrinking job market with an intensely
competitive workforce, it makes no sense for H.R. 4 to require an
increase to a 40-hour workweek. Many welfare recipients are already
working two to three jobs trying to make ends meet.
Santa Clara County has one of the most diverse immigrant populations
in the Nation. A third of current welfare recipients in the county lack
basic education, and almost half lack vocational skills. Over 60
percent of current recipients have difficulty speaking and reading
English.
While employers demand basic language training for these individuals,
H.R. 4 eliminates any vocational education as a primary work activity.
In effect, this change penalizes non-English speaking immigrants all
across our Nation. I find it untenable that under H.R. 4, the road to
self-sufficiency will not be paved with education and training.
H.R. 4 unreasonably increases work requirements and irrationally
restricts training. It undermines TANF's goal of self-sufficiency and,
most disturbingly, places harsh burdens on American families in a time
of economic uncertainty.
It is even more distressing that on such a crucial issue, House
Members will not be given a chance to offer amendments that would
improve upon the bill. It is apparent that there are legitimate
concerns with several provisions of H.R. 4--concerns that translate
into
[[Page H496]]
real consequences for our constituents. Now should not be the time to
disregard the families and children who need our leadership the most.
Mr. Chairman, in substance and in process, I adamantly oppose H.R. 4
and I urge my colleagues to support a Democratic substitute.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Democratic
substitute to H.R. 4, which reauthorizes welfare reform. H.R. 4 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, and Woolsay, in crafting a Democratic substitute that better
assists the States in moving families from welfare to work and I am
pleased to be a lead sponsor of this legislation.
Furthermore, as co-chair of the New Democratic Coalition, I am
satisfied that our substitute incorporated many of the new Democrats'
suggestions based on the principle of ``work first.''
The successful welfare legislation passed in 1996 was one of the
signature New Democrat initiatives and succeeded where previous
attempts to reform welfare failed.
Welfare reform, however, now faces its stiffest test since its
enactment. The roaring 90's--the decade during which more than 22
million new jobs were created--are long gone. Our economy today is
stagnating. The unemployment rate and welfare rolls are up. An
estimated 8.6 million Americans are out of work, including 166,000 in
my home State Wisconsin.
Adding insult to injury, the States, which took responsibility under
the 1996 law for administering assistance programs, are in the grips of
their worst fiscal crisis in 50 years. They are being forced to cut
back services--services that provided critical supports for welfare
recipients and the working poor and, as many recipients reach the five-
year benefits limit, States increasingly will find themselves providing
very basic supports for their citizens through food programs and
homeless shelters.
Unfortunately, our changing economic fortune has not stopped the
House leadership from pushing welfare reform legislation that fails to
help those who are struggling to make end meets and imposes even more
unfunded mandates on the States.
The GOP plan, for example, would drastically increase the number of
house that mothers with young children will be required to work,
without a corresponding increase in child care funds. In fact, House
leadership would freeze funding for welfare and child care at current
levels, even though the Congressional Budget Office estimates that
implementing the new work requirements will cost the States an
additional $8 billion to $11 billion over five years. In Wisconsin
alone, this would add another $89 million to our State's projected $3.2
billion budget deficit.
Thus, the Democratic substitute is a better alternative that places
welfare recipients on the path to independence from public assistance
by preparing them for good paying, private-sector jobs. Our alternative
reform provides the States with flexibility and freedom to be
innovative in moving families from welfare to work and empowering
individuals to become self-sufficient.
Currently, the most promising State programs that help welfare
recipients obtain and advance in a job, combine a ``work first''
approach with supplements training and education. Our plan helps these
States by providing employment credits and allowing them to count
education and training towards their participation rate for up to 24
months. Finally, our plan combines heightened work requirements with an
addition $2.2 billion per year in childcare funding to ensure that
families transitioning off of welfare can afford to work.
In addition to the Democratic Substitute, I offered two amendments
during Rules Committee yesterday, which, unfortunately, were not
accepted by the House leadership and were kept from being debated on
the floor today.
The first amendment was an employment credit that I offered with
Congressman Levin. Currently, States have the option of taking
advantage of the caseload reduction credit that rewards States with
credit against its participation rate just for moving people off
welfare. Our amendment, however, would have replaced the caseload
reduction credit with an employment credit, thus, rewarding States for
moving people into jobs, with a bonus for moving them into high paying
jobs. Last year, even the Administration's plan eliminated the caseload
reduction credit and replaced it with its own employment credit.
The second amendment I offered gave States incentives to put fathers
to work. It rewarded States with a credit towards its worker
participation rate if they worked with fathers to increase their
employment and pay child support. While very little research exists
about marriage and its direct benefit to children, substantial research
shows a working father most effectively improves children's emotional
and financial well-being.
Again, I am pleased to have sponsored the Democratic substitute with
Representatives Cardin and Woolsey. Our alternative is a step forward
in the right direction. Today, while facing a stagnant economy coupled
with unprecedented budget deficits, our welfare reform legislation
ensures that families are strengthened, companies well served, and
individual futures improved. By building on our past success, we can
continue to help millions of Americans once and for all gain a foothold
on the first rung of the career ladder.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 4 and support the
Democratic substitute offered by Representatives Cardin, Woolsey and
myself. Finally, I regret that this legislation was pushed through the
House so quickly without any consideration from the committees of
jurisdiction. Acting with such haste completely ignored the process and
shut out all our new Members. Such an important issue should have
received more thought and consideration.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4--the ``Personal
Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2003.''
The Committee on Financial Services approves H.R. 4's State
flexibility authority that would cut across jurisdictional lines, both
statutory and regulatory, 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 would petition a Federal review board for
this broadened waiver, with the appropriate Secretary exercising veto
authority over the plan.
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. 4 will knock down firewalls and
bureaucratic obstacles that many housing organizations complain about
when attempting to blend programs from different agencies.
This proposal is an opportunity to allow some demonstration programs
to see different ways of tackling the problem of service delivery,
poverty, and a permanent underclass that 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 homelessness. H.R. 4
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. 4 requires that the concerns of the residents 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. 4 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. 4 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. 4.
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4, the
Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2003.
[[Page H497]]
The welfare reform law of 1996 is a resounding success. The welfare
rolls have been cut in half, the number of welfare recipients working
for pay has more than doubled, the employment rate of single mothers
has nearly doubled, and child poverty has reached a 25-year low.
Millions of families have been freed from the shackles of government
dependency. They are holding their heads up high as they earn a living,
care for themselves and their families, and improve the future for
their children.
Today we have the opportunity to help more families escape from the
vicious cycles of poverty and despair. I am a proud cosponsor of H.R.
4, which continues the truly compassionate policy of providing a hand-
up instead of just a hand-out. By coupling temporary financial
assistance with opportunities for higher education and vocational
skills training, more families will achieve financial independence and
improve their quality of life. As the saying goes, you can give a man a
fish and feed him for a day, or teach a man to fish and feed him for a
lifetime.
H.R. 4 also continues the landmark program which has dramatically
lowered teenage pregnancies in our nation. This program provided $250
million over five years for states to educate teenagers about
abstaining from sex until marriage and remaining faithful afterwards.
From 1994 to 2000, the number of unwed teenagers who became pregnant
fell from 46.6 to 39.6 per thousand. The abstinence movement profoundly
influenced this trend.
Newsweek magazine recently reported that ``more than one-third of
U.S. high schools teach abstinence until marriage and 700 abstinence
programs spread the sex-can-wait gospel in all 50 states.'' The
majority of these programs are a result of the 1996 welfare reform law.
Their success can be measured by new Federal data revealing that
virginal teenagers now outnumber sexually-active ones. The Youth Risk
Behavior survey found that the number of teenagers who say they have
never had sexual intercourse rose by 10 percent between 1991 and 2001.
We must improve upon this success to give more teenagers the positive
message of abstinence until marriage.
There is a great need for this message. According to the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, three million teenagers contract a
sexually-transmitted disease each year, and over half of high-school
seniors lose their virginity before graduation. This is a tragedy of
epic proportions. Thousands of young women are sterile for life after
contracting the sexually-transmitted disease Chlamydia. Many will enter
marriage without knowing they cannot conceive children.
Abstinence until marriage education will save millions of teenagers
from the heartache of infertility, the pain of having an incurable STD,
the regret of giving too much of themselves too soon, and the anguish
of being sexually abused. Many abstinence programs help teenagers
protect themselves from sexual abuse by teaching them to recognize
emotional blackmail and inappropriate sexual pressure.
Failed ``comprehensive sex education'' and misleading ``abstinence
plus'' programs have for too long given teenagers the message that
``anything goes'' as long as a contraceptive is used. These destructive
programs have done incalculable damage by failing to inform teenagers
about the full risks of STDs, the failure rates of contraceptives, and
the strong emotional bonds formed during intercourse. Authentic
abstinence education programs give teenagers the full truth: there is
no contraceptive for a broken heart, and no guaranteed protection
against pregnancy or STDs except abstinence until marriage and fidelity
afterwards.
Presdient Bush has rightly said that ``for children to realize their
dreams, they must learn the value of abstinence. We must send them the
message that of the many decisions they will make in their lives,
choosing to avoid early sex is one of the most important. We must
stress that abstinence isn't just about saying no to sex; it's about
saying yes to a happier, healthier future.''
I am proud that H.R. 4 continues this commitment to our children. I
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation to help
lift more families out of poverty and protect more teenagers from the
dangers of sexual activity outside of marriage.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4, the
welfare reauthorization bill.
H.R. 4 is much the same as the legislation opposed by 197 Members
last year. It imposes enormous unfunded mandates on State governments,
while requiring States to make fundamental changes to their welfare
systems. It caps the amount of rehabilitative services a State can
provide and imposes inflexible work requirements that restrict States'
ability to respond effectively to their populations.
A little known fact about TANF is that 44 percent of families in the
program include a person with a physical or mental impairment. Not
surprisingly, studies show that families including a person with a
disability disproportionately lose TANF assistance through sanctions.
Increased demands on States and families of the disabled heighten their
already extraordinary risk of inappropriate sanctions.
It is our responsibility to incorporate safeguards for families
caring for individuals with special needs. I urge my colleagues to act
responsibly by supporting the alternative, Democratic substitute, which
allows for State flexibility in meeting the needs of people with
disabilities by leaving in place mechanisms for a real chance at
rehabilitation.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to insert into the
Congressional Record this letter from the Consortium for Citizens with
Disabilities.
I urge my colleagues to read this letter, which provides important
reasons why they should vote against H.R. 4, the Personal
Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2003.
This letter suggests needed changes to the TANF law that would help
many welfare recipients with barriers to work to get and maintain
employment.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the Democratic alternative welfare
reauthorization that includes many of these important changes.
Consortium for Citizens
with Disabilities,
February 11, 2003.
Dear Representative: The Consortium for Citizens with
Disabilities (CCD) is a coalition of national consumer,
advocacy, provider and professional organizations
headquartered in Washington, DC. We work together to advocate
for national public policy that ensures the self
determination, independence, empowerment, integration and
inclusion of children and adults with disabilities in all
aspects of society. The CCD TANF Task Force seeks to ensure
that families that include persons with disabilities are
afforded equal opportunities and appropriate accommodations
under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block
grant. We are very concerned that the provisions in H.R. 4
will greatly harm, rather than help, families in which there
is an adult or a child with disabilities. We are writing to
urge you to vote ``no'' on H.R. 4, the ``Personal
Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2003.''
Some argue that those who are concerned about the needs of
people with disabilities should welcome the emphasis in H.R.
4 upon higher work participation rates and increased hours of
work, because then states will be required to work with
parents with disabilities. Unfortunately, the exact opposite
is true. It is important to understand that, without some
flexibility, higher work requirements for states and for
families will prevent states from helping move families with
disabilities from welfare to work--at a pace that works best
for the individual family and will have long-term benefits.
If states face more rigid rules on rates and hours of
participation, sanction rates will climb and people with
disabilities and their families will continue to be heavily
represented in their numbers.
Over 40 percent of TANF recipients have a disability, yet
this important fact is largely unknown. In July 2002, GAO
reported that overall, 44 percent of TANF recipients have
impairments or are caring for a child with impairments,
compared with 15 percent of the non-TANF population. Many
face multiple barriers. GAO also reported that, in eight
percent of TANF families, there is both a parent and a child
with disabilities, compared to only one percent in non-TANF
families. Also in July 2002, the HHS Office of the Inspector
General agreed with GAO's findings.
What should this mean for TANF reauthorization? The
problems facing TANF parents with disabilities are
significant. But, just because a person has a disability
which may be a barrier to work, this does not mean that she
cannot work. With appropriate services and supports,
including accommodations in state policies and procedures and
in the work place, most parents with disabilities should be
able to work and would very much like the opportunity to so.
While their policies vary, many states have taken some steps
to help families with disabilities. Comgress must encourage
states to continue to develop their programs to serve people
with disabilities--both adults and children--on TANF. We are
very concerned that H.R. 4 does not do this.
Listed below are the key components that people with
disabilities need in TANF reauthorization.
1. Permit states to determine how long a family will need
rehab services and allow participation in rehab services to
meet the full weekly work requirement for as long as the
state determines the family needs. HR 4 provides that only
three months of rehabilitative services can be counted as
work activity. After three months, a person with a disability
must climb a steep mountain of 24 hours of work before the
state will get credit for providing her with any additional
rehabilitative services. This is a formula for failure. To
suggest that this will work because 16 hours of
rehabilitative services can still be provided misses the
point: people with disabilities and other barriers often are
going to need intensive help--including mental health
treatment, training that accommodates their learning
disabilities, substance abuse treatment, services that
address other
[[Page H498]]
barriers--before any other work activity will be appropriate.
Many times, this help will take in excess of a year to result
in good, long-lasting outcomes. This will not be possible
under HR 4.
2. Protect families with barriers from unnecessary and
inappropriate sanctioning. The 1996 law requires states to
impose sanctions where a parent ``refuses'' to comply with a
state work requirement. Unfortunately, many of those who are
being sanctioned cannot comply--they are not refusing to
comply, they simply cannot because of a disability or other
barrier, or may not even understand what is being required of
them. Efforts to increase the number of hours of required
work activity and states' overall work participation rates
are likely to harm these same families. Without strong
protections against inappropriate sanctioning, it is likely
that the number of inappropriate sanctions will increase.
States should be required to have procedures that review a
family's circumstances prior to the imposition of a sanction
and determine whether modifications are needed to the
requirements so that the family is better able to comply.
Fairness dictates that all states have such basic policies.
HR 4 does not include this protection.
3. Permit states to exempt parents caring for a child with
a disability from the work requirement and time limit. States
should have the option to exempt from the work requirement
and time limit parents caring for a child with a disability
if caring for the child prevents the parent from meeting the
state's work requirement. Some states already do this.
Appropriate, safe child care for children with disabilities
is very difficult to find. In many areas, it is non-existent.
The medical needs of some children require frequent medical
visits and care. If the need for such care becomes
unnecessary, parents then can be brought more fully into the
program with their allotted time for receipt of benefits
still intact.
4. For the previous provisions to be effective in helping
families move from welfare to work and avoid inappropriate
sanctioning, states must have screening and assessment
policies and procedures that identify a family's barriers and
the steps needed to assist the family to move to greater
independence. Assessments should be done by qualified
personnel. Because all later decisions hinge on the quality
of the assessments, it is important that they be done by
qualified personnel. Family self-sufficiency plans developed
without meaningful assessments are all too likely to be
ineffective, wasting state and federal resources and
preventing families from receiving the assistance needed to
move successfully from welfare to work.
As a result of all of the concerns raised above, we urge
you to vote ``NO'' on H.R. 4. We also urge you to raise
concerns about how families with disabilities will fare under
this bill and to suggest that changes be made before the bill
leaves conference.
For further information, please contact members of the
Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD) TANF Task
Force, including any of the co-chairs: Laurel Stine, Bazelon
Center for Mental Health Law, 202-467-5730,
[email protected]; Donna Meltzer, Association of University
Centers on Disability, 301-593-8549, [email protected]; and
Sharon McDonald, National Alliance to End Homelessness, 202-
638-1526, ext. 109, [email protected].
Thank you for considering our concerns.
Sincerely,
Adapted Physical Activity Council.
American Association on Mental Retardation.
American Association of People with Disabilities.
American Network of Community Options and Resources.
Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs.
Association for Persons in Supported Employment.
Association of University Centers on Disabilities.
Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law.
Brain Injury Association of America.
Council for Exceptional Children.
Council of State Administrators of Vocational
Rehabilitation.
Learning Disabilities Association of America.
National Alliance to End Homelessness.
National Association of Developmental Disabilities
Councils.
National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems.
National Association of School Psychologists.
National Association of Social Workers.
National Mental Health Association.
National Respite Coalition.
NISH--creating employment opportunities for people with
severe disabilities.
Research Institute for Independent Living.
Spina Bifida Association of America.
The Arc of the United States.
United Cerebral Palsy.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice grave concerns about
this bill. This bill reflects a steady erosion of the federal
government's commitment to provide a safety net for low-income working
families.
States now face a severe fiscal crisis due to the slack economy. This
bill imposes expensive new requirements on states, without providing
sufficient funding to help states meet these requirements. The
Congressional Budget Office estimated that the additional costs to
states of meeting the increased work requirements in this bill are
between eight billion and eleven billion dollars over five years.
This bill largely mirrors the welfare plan that President Bush first
put forth last year and proposed again this year. The President's 2004
budget makes clear that the President's welfare plan is just one part
of a larger drive to abandon the Federal government's traditional role
of providing a safety net for society's most vulnerable members. The
budget also includes plans to recast several other major federal
programs for low-income individuals and families as block grants to
states. The President offers states increased program flexibility and
administrative streamlining, but requires in exchange that states give
up the traditional assurance that future federal funding will keep pace
with the estimated need for these programs. The programs affected by
these policies provide health care and housing to low-income children,
elderly, persons with disabilities, and low-wage workers.
If the President's proposal for welfare reform is any indication,
these other block grant proposals point the way toward a shrinking
federal financial commitment to the poor. States will be left to figure
out how to fill the fiscal hole. This raises very serious concerns that
I encourage my colleagues to consider long and hard before heading down
this path.
The President's block grant proposals are likely to lead to enormous
inequities across states as to who gets assistance and who does not. A
major role of federal income security policy is to provide a level
playing field by offering a safety net to all citizens. Under the
president's plan, low-income individuals and families will be the mercy
of geography.
Income security programs are sensitive to economic conditions. Need
increases disproportionately when the economy is slack and state
budgets are tight. Only the federal government has the ability to
borrow when times are bad. Block grant funding will give states the
incentive to respond to hard times by cutting low-income benefits more
than they would choose to do otherwise.
I voted for welfare reform, and I along with Members of both parties
have cheered the progress of former AFDC beneficiaries into work during
the prosperous 1990s. But that progress requires support in the form of
child care and other vital services. Penny-wise but pound-foolish
policies now threaten that vital underpinning and they risk all our
recent progress against dependence.
Finally, I believe the President's overall priorities deserve serious
questioning. At the same time he proposes to shrink the federal
commitment to the poor, he proposes $1.5 trillion in new tax cuts that
largely benefit our nation's most prosperous, create record deficits,
and burden working families with a growing debt tax. The Administration
now argues that its tax-cut plan is really an anti-poverty plan because
it will stimulate growth and create jobs. This is the old theory of
trickle-down economics that has been discredited time and time again.
Tax policy does not exist in a vacuum. The point of safety-net programs
is to support people when the economy falters, or when circumstances in
their own lives make it difficult or impossible for them to participate
fully in the economy.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, today, we are debating the re-
authorization of the welfare program. It is a repeat of the debate we
had last Congress, when Republican ideology prevented a common-sense
reauthorization. I believe that we have a responsibility to help
families transition into the workforce and provide essential support to
make work play. The Cardin substitute will do that. Regrettably, the
Republican bill will not.
Two provisions within this re-authorization are in the jurisdiction
of the Committee on Energy and Commerce: transitional medical
assistance (TMA) and abstinence-only education. The Republican versions
are inadequate; the Cardin substitute fixes both.
First, 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 Cardin substitute
provides. In addition, the Republican bill does not include the
simplifications that would help families get coverage and keep
coverage. These provisions were in the President's budget this year,
and are in the Cardin substitute. They should also be in H.R. 4, but
they are not.
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
[[Page H499]]
parts of safety net programs that truly allow the poor to work. This is
illogical and I oppose it.
Second, the bill extends the Title V abstinence-only sex education
program, but locks states into an inflexible curriculum; it is
controversial, and rights to. The Cardin 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, including the National Institutes of Health, the
American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and
the American Public Health Association, recommend school-based
comprehensive sex education programs, yet states are unable to fund
these types of programs with Federal dollars.
The Cardin 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.
The Cardin 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. Advocates of abstinence-only programs oppose any
realistic and objective look at those programs, apparently content to
waste Federal dollars in the name of ideology.
The Cardin 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. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, 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 long time I have been concerned by the disincentives
to working hard, earning more money, and getting married that we have
created over time. The lack of coordination between federal programs
directed toward 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 laboratories for successful change in our
welfare system, and this flexibility will enhance their capabilities.
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. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, this bill is considered read for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
The text of H.R. 4 is as follows:
H.R. 4
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 2003''.
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.
Sec. 122. Extension through fiscal year 2003.
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--CHILD SUPPORT
Sec. 301. Federal matching funds for limited pass through of child
support payments to families receiving TANF.
Sec. 302. State option to pass through all child support payments to
families that formerly received TANF.
Sec. 303. Mandatory review and adjustment of child support orders for
families receiving TANF.
Sec. 304. Mandatory fee for successful child support collection for
family that has never received TANF.
Sec. 305. Report on undistributed child support payments.
Sec. 306. Use of new hire information to assist in administration of
unemployment compensation programs.
Sec. 307. Decrease in amount of child support arrearage triggering
passport denial.
Sec. 308. Use of tax refund intercept program to collect past-due child
support on behalf of children who are not minors.
Sec. 309. Garnishment of compensation paid to veterans for service-
connected disabilities in order to enforce child support
obligations.
Sec. 310. Improving Federal debt collection practices.
Sec. 311. Maintenance of technical assistance funding.
Sec. 312. Maintenance of Federal Parent Locator Service funding.
TITLE IV--CHILD WELFARE
Sec. 401. Extension of authority to approve demonstration projects.
Sec. 402. Elimination of limitation on number of waivers.
Sec. 403. Elimination of limitation on number of States that may be
granted waivers to conduct demonstration projects on same
topic.
Sec. 404. Elimination of limitation on number of waivers that may be
granted to a single State for demonstration projects.
[[Page H500]]
Sec. 405. Streamlined process for consideration of amendments to and
extensions of demonstration projects requiring waivers.
Sec. 406. Availability of reports.
Sec. 407. Technical correction.
TITLE V--SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME
Sec. 501. Review of State agency blindness and disability
determinations.
TITLE VI--STATE AND LOCAL FLEXIBILITY
Sec. 601. Program coordination demonstration projects.
Sec. 602. State food assistance block grant demonstration project.
TITLE VII--ABSTINENCE EDUCATION
Sec. 701. Extension of abstinence education program.
TITLE VIII--TRANSITIONAL MEDICAL ASSISTANCE
Sec. 801. Extension of medicaid transitional medical assistance program
through fiscal year 2004.
Sec. 802. Adjustment to payments for medicaid administrative costs to
prevent duplicative payments and to fund extension of
transitional medical assistance.
TITLE IX--EFFECTIVE DATE
Sec. 901. 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 year
1999 and continued steady in fiscal years 2000 and 2001. In
fiscal year 2001, 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 2001, 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 June 2002,
2,025,000 families and 5,008,000 individuals were receiving
assistance. Accordingly, the number of families in the
welfare caseload and the number of individuals receiving cash
assistance declined 54 percent and 58 percent, respectively,
since the enactment of TANF. These declines have persisted
even as unemployment rates have increased: unemployment rates
nationwide rose 50 percent, from 3.9 percent in September
2000 to 6 percent in November 2002, while welfare caseloads
continued to decline.
(D) The child poverty rate continued to decline between
1996 and 2001, falling 20 percent from 20.5 to 16.3 percent.
The 2001 child poverty rate remains at the lowest level 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 is at the lowest level
reported in over 20 years.
(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 2001, in an average month, only just over
\1/3\ of all families with an adult participated in work
activities that were countable toward the State's
participation rate. Five jurisdictions failed to meet the
more rigorous 2-parent work requirements, and 19
jurisdictions (States and territories) 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 2001, however not at the sharp rates of increase seen in
recent decades. The birth rate among unmarried women in 2001
was 4 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 24,500,000 children do not live with their
biological fathers, and 7,100,000 children do not live with
their biological mothers. 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 2001, in married-couple families, the child
poverty rate was 8 percent, and in households headed by a
single mother, the poverty rate was 39.3 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 more than a 100 percent increase through in-hospital
acknowledgement programs to 790,595 in 2001 from 324,652 in
1996. Child support collections were made in well 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 2001 were $25,500,000,000, up from $24,000,000,000 in
fiscal year 2000 and $22,600,000,000 in fiscal year 1999.
This increased spending is attributable to significant new
investments in supportive 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--
[[Page H501]]
(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 ``2004 through 2008''; 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 409 or 412(a)(1)) bears to the total
amount required to be paid under this paragraph for fiscal
year 2002 (as so determined).
``(C) Appropriation.--Out of any money in the Treasury of
the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are
appropriated for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008
$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 ``2004 through 2008''.
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 or individuals 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.--
``(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 2008
$100,000,000 for grants under this paragraph.
``(ii) Extended availability of fy2003 funds.--Funds
appropriated under clause (i) for fiscal year 2003 shall
remain available to the Secretary through fiscal year 2004,
for grants under this paragraph for fiscal year 2003.''.
(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 2004 through 2007'';
(3) in clause (ii), by striking ``2002'' and inserting
``2007''; and
(4) in clause (iii), by striking ``fiscal year 2002'' and
inserting ``each of fiscal years 2004 through 2007''.
SEC. 105. BONUS TO REWARD EMPLOYMENT ACHIEVEMENT.
(a) Reallocation of Funding.--
(1) In general.--Section 403(a)(4) (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(4)) is
amended--
(A) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``high
performance states'' and inserting ``employment
achievement'';
(B) in subparagraph (D)(ii)--
(i) 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
(ii) in subclause (II), by striking ``$1,000,000,000'' and
inserting ``$900,000,000''; and
(C) in subparagraph (F), by striking ``$1,000,000,000'' and
inserting ``$900,000,000''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraph (1)
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act,
or September 30, 2003, whichever is earlier.
(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 $600,000,000.
``(E) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
``(i) Bonus year.--The term `bonus year' means each of
fiscal years 2004 through 2009.
``(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.--
``(i) In general.--Out of any money in the Treasury of the
United States not otherwise appropriated, there are
appropriated for fiscal years 2004 through 2009 $600,000,000
for grants under this paragraph.
``(ii) Extended availability of prior appropriation.--
Amounts appropriated under section 403(a)(4)(F) of the Social
Security Act (as in effect before the date of the enactment
of this clause) that have not been expended as of such date
of enactment shall remain available through fiscal year 2004
for grants under section 403(a)(4) of such Act (as in effect
before such date of enactment) for bonus year 2003.
``(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
[[Page H502]]
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),
except for section 403(a)(4)(F)(ii) of the Social Security
Act as inserted by the amendment, 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 ``2004 through 2008''; 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 2004 through
2008''.
(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,''.
(f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 2003.
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
2004 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, 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, 2003,
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) Elimination of Separate Participation Rate Requirements
for 2-Parent Families.--
(1) In general.--
(A) Section 407 (42 U.S.C. 607) is amended in each of
subsections (a) and (b) by striking paragraph (2).
(B) Section 407(b)(4) (42 U.S.C. 607(b)(4)) is amended by
striking ``paragraphs (1)(B) and (2)(B)'' and inserting
``paragraph (1)(B)''.
(C) Section 407(c)(1) (42 U.S.C. 607(c)(1)) is amended by
striking subparagraph (B).
(D) Section 407(c)(2)(D) (42 U.S.C. 607(c)(2)(D)) is
amended by striking ``paragraphs (1)(B)(i) and (2)(B) of
subsection (b)'' and inserting ``subsection (b)(1)(B)(i)''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraph (1)
shall take effect on October 1, 2002.
(b) Work Participation Requirements.--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 2004;
``(2) 55 percent for fiscal year 2005;
``(3) 60 percent for fiscal year 2006;
``(4) 65 percent for fiscal year 2007; and
``(5) 70 percent for fiscal year 2008 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.--
[[Page H503]]
``(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
``(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.''.
(c) Recalibration of Caseload Reduction Credit.--
(1) In general.--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 the base year.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 407(b)(3)(B) (42 U.S.C.
607(b)(3)(B)) is amended by striking ``and eligibility
criteria'' and all that follows through the close parenthesis
and inserting ``and the eligibility criteria in effect during
the then applicable base year''.
(3) Base year defined.--Section 407(b)(3) (42 U.S.C.
607(b)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(C) Base year defined.--In this paragraph, the term `base
year' means, with respect to a fiscal year--
``(I) if the fiscal year is fiscal year 2004, fiscal year
1996;
``(II) if the fiscal year is fiscal year 2005, fiscal year
1998;
``(III) if the fiscal year is fiscal year 2006, fiscal year
2001; or
``(IV) if the fiscal year is fiscal year 2007 or any
succeeding fiscal year, the then 4th preceding fiscal
year.''.
(d) 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.''.
(e) 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.''.
(f) 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.--
``(i) In general.--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.
[[Page H504]]
``(ii) Limitation.--Clause (i) of this subparagraph shall
not apply after the 1-year period that begins with the date
of the enactment of this subparagraph.''.
(g) 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''.
(h) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
(other than subsection (a)) shall take effect on October 1,
2003.
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, 2008, or 2009''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B)(ii)--
(A) by inserting ``preceding'' before ``fiscal year''; and
(B) by striking ``for fiscal years 1997 through 2002,''.
(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 Reconciliation 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 the matter preceding clause (i), by inserting ``and
on families receiving assistance under State programs funded
with other qualified State expenditures (as defined in
section 409(a)(7)(B))'' before the colon;
(2) in clause (vii), by inserting ``and minor parent''
after ``of each adult'';
(3) in clause (viii), by striking ``and educational
level'';
(4) in clause (ix), by striking ``, and if the latter 2,
the amount received'';
(5) 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'';
(6) 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.'';
(7) in clause (xii), by inserting ``and progress toward
universal engagement'' after ``participation rates'';
(8) in clause (xiii), by striking ``type and'' before
``amount of assistance'';
(9) in clause (xvi), by striking subclause (II) and
redesignating subclauses (III) through (V) as subclauses (II)
through (IV), respectively; and
(10) 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
[[Page H505]]
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 a 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 2005, 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).''.
(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 (e) 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 ``2004 through
2008''.
(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 ``2004 through 2008''.
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) Appropriation.--
``(A) 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 2008, 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.
``(B) Extended availability of fy 2003 funds.--Funds
appropriated under this paragraph for fiscal year 2003 shall
remain available to the Secretary through fiscal year 2004,
for use in accordance with this paragraph for fiscal year
2003.
``(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 ``2004 through 2008''.
(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
or enhance a longitudinal survey of program participation,
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--
(A) by striking ``1996,'' and all that follows through
``2002'' and inserting ``2004 through 2008''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following: ``Funds
appropriated under this subsection shall remain available
through fiscal year 2008 to carry out subsection (a).''.
(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.--
[[Page H506]]
(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 2003''.
(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 children
under age 18 not living with their biological father, 37
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 2004 through 2008 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
[[Page H507]]
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 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 2004 through 2008 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
[[Page H508]]
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, 2011.
`` `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 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 2004
through 2008 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.
SEC. 122. EXTENSION THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 2003.
Except as otherwise provided in this Act and the amendments
made by this Act, activities authorized by part A of title IV
of the Social Security Act, and by section 1108(b) of the
Social Security Act, shall continue through September 30,
2003, in the manner authorized, and at the level provided,
for fiscal year 2002.
TITLE II--CHILD CARE
SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Caring for Children Act of
2003''.
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 States 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 ``$2,100,000,000 for
fiscal year 2003, $2,300,000,000 for fiscal year 2004,
$2,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, $2,700,000,000 for
fiscal year 2006, $2,900,000,000 for fiscal year 2007, and
$3,100,000,000 for fiscal year 2008''.
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 SCHIP 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 2004, 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
2004, 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
the State available to low-income parents from eligible child
care providers, 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 2004, 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
[[Page H509]]
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 in the State available to low-income
parents from eligible child care providers. 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, 2005, 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.
``(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 2004 through
2008.''.
TITLE III--CHILD SUPPORT
SEC. 301. 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,
2005.
SEC. 302. 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 301(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.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply to amounts distributed on or after October 1,
2005.
SEC. 303. 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, 2005.
SEC. 304. 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 such fees 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, 2004.
SEC. 305. 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 undistributed child
support and the average length of time it takes undistributed
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. 306. 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, 2004.
SEC. 307. 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, 2004.
[[Page H510]]
SEC. 308. 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, 2005.
SEC. 309. 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, 2005.
SEC. 310. IMPROVING FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES.
(a) In General.--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).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on October 1, 2004.
SEC. 311. 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. 312. 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 IV--CHILD WELFARE
SEC. 401. 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 ``2008''.
SEC. 402. 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. 403. 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. 404. 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. 405. 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. 406. AVAILABILITY OF REPORTS.
Section 1130 (42 U.S.C. 1320a-9) is further amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(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. 407. 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 V--SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME
SEC. 501. 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 2004;
``(ii) at least 40 percent of all such determinations that
are made in fiscal year 2005; and
``(iii) at least 50 percent of all such determinations that
are made in fiscal year 2006 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 VI--STATE AND LOCAL FLEXIBILITY
SEC. 601. 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.
[[Page H511]]
(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 (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--
[[Page H512]]
(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 2003 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. 602. 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
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 2004 through 2008, 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'
[[Page H513]]
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 2003; 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 2001 through 2003; 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 2003; 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 2001 through 2003.
``(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 VII--ABSTINENCE EDUCATION
SEC. 701. EXTENSION OF ABSTINENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM.
(a) Extension of Appropriations.--Section 510(d) (42 U.S.C.
710(d)) is amended by striking ``2002'' and inserting
``2008''.
(b) Allotment of Funds.--Section 510(a) (42 U.S.C. 710(a))
is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ``an
application for the fiscal year under section 505(a)'' and
inserting ``, for the fiscal year, an application under
section 505(a), and an application under this section (in
such form and meeting such terms and conditions as determined
appropriate by the Secretary),''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), to read as follows:
``(2) the percentage that would be determined for the State
under section 502(c)(1)(B)(ii) if the calculation under such
section took into consideration only those States that
transmitted both such applications for such fiscal year.''.
(c) Reallotment of Funds.--Section 510 (42 U.S.C. 710(a))
is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(e)(1) With respect to allotments under subsection (a)
for fiscal year 2004 and subsequent fiscal years, the amount
of any allotment to a State for a fiscal year that the
Secretary determines will not be required to carry out a
program under this section during such fiscal year or the
succeeding fiscal year shall be available for reallotment
from time to time during such fiscal years on such dates as
the Secretary may fix, to other States that the Secretary
determines--
``(A) require amounts in excess of amounts previously
allotted under subsection (a) to carry out a program under
this section; and
``(B) will use such excess amounts during such fiscal
years.
``(2) Reallotments under paragraph (1) shall be made on the
basis of such States' applications under this section, after
taking into consideration the population of low-income
children in each such State as compared with the population
of low-income children in all such States with respect to
which a determination under paragraph (1) has been made by
the Secretary.
``(3) Any amount reallotted under paragraph (1) to a State
is deemed to be part of its allotment under subsection
(a).''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall be effective with respect to the program under section
510 for fiscal years 2004 and succeeding fiscal years.
TITLE VIII--TRANSITIONAL MEDICAL ASSISTANCE
SEC. 801. EXTENSION OF MEDICAID TRANSITIONAL MEDICAL
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 2004.
(a) In General.--Section 1925(f ) (42 U.S.C. 1396r-6(f ))
is amended by striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2004''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1902(e)(1)(B) (42 U.S.C.
1396a(e)(1)(B)) is amended by striking ``September 30, 2002''
and inserting ``the last date (if any) on which section 1925
applies under subsection (f) of that section''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect October 1, 2003.
SEC. 802. ADJUSTMENT TO PAYMENTS FOR MEDICAID ADMINISTRATIVE
COSTS TO PREVENT DUPLICATIVE PAYMENTS AND TO
FUND 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 Extension of Transitional Medical Assistance.--
``(1) Reductions in payments for administrative costs.--
Effective for each calendar quarter in fiscal year 2004 and
fiscal year 2005, the Secretary shall reduce the amount paid
under subsection (a)(7) to each State by an amount equal to
45 percent for fiscal year 2004, and 80 percent for fiscal
year 2005, of 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 IX--EFFECTIVE DATE
SEC. 901. EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided, the
amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the date of
the enactment of this Act.
(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 CHAIRMAN pro tempore. No amendment to the bill shall be in order
except those printed in House Report 108-9. Each amendment may be
offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by
a Member designated in the report, shall be considered read, debatable
for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House
Report 108-9.
Amendment No. 1 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Kucinich
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in
the nature of a substitute.
[[Page H514]]
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
Amendment No. 1 in the nature of a substitute offered by
Mr. Kucinich:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Patsy Mink Memorial TANF
Reauthorization 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. Findings.
Sec. 4. Amendment of Social Security Act.
TITLE I--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 101. Purposes.
Sec. 102. State plan.
Sec. 103. Funding.
Sec. 104. Use of funds.
TITLE II--WORK REQUIREMENTS
Sec. 201. Reduced work requirement for parents of school-age children
who cannot find adequate child care.
Sec. 202. Conforming the number of weeks to the unemployment insurance
compensation standard.
Sec. 203. Revision of work activities.
Sec. 204. Penalties against individuals for unjustified refusal to
work; additional justifications.
Sec. 205. Elimination of miscellaneous provisions.
TITLE III--PROHIBITIONS; REQUIREMENTS
Sec. 301. Replacement of requirement to sanction individual for
noncooperation in establishing paternity or obtaining
child support with prohibition on requiring such
cooperation.
Sec. 302. Prohibition on requiring assignment of support rights to the
State; return of support rights assigned to the State.
Sec. 303. Elimination of sanction against teenage parents not attending
high school or other equivalent training program.
Sec. 304. Requirements relating to disregard of child support.
Sec. 305. Elimination of sanction against teenage parents not living in
adult-supervised settings.
Sec. 306. Protection for children.
Sec. 307. 5-year time limit.
Sec. 308. Requirement to provide notice of rights of recipients, and
train program personnel in carrying out program
consistent with the rights.
Sec. 309. Requirement to provide information to individuals who are, or
are at risk of being, sanctioned.
Sec. 310. Ban on counting income, scholarship, or gift received by
dependent minors.
Sec. 311. Ban on diversion of potential applicants for assistance.
Sec. 312. Prohibition on requiring recipients to respond to surveys
conducted to obtain information for quarterly reports.
Sec. 313. Confidentiality of program information.
Sec. 314. Nondiscrimination.
Sec. 315. Requirement to provide opportunity to appeal adverse
decision.
Sec. 316. Clarification of penalty for failure to comply with
individual responsibility plan.
Sec. 317. Applicability of civil rights laws.
Sec. 318. Elimination of special rules relating to treatment of aliens.
TITLE IV--PENALTIES
Sec. 401. Increase in penalty for failure to submit required report.
Sec. 402. Replacement of penalty against State for failure to comply
with paternity establishment and child support
enforcement requirements with penalty for requiring
cooperation in establishing paternity or obtaining child
support (including assigning support rights to the
State).
Sec. 403. Extension of maintenance of effort requirement.
Sec. 404. Penalty for failure of State to comply with child support
disregard requirements.
Sec. 405. Penalty for penalizing birth of child.
Sec. 406. Penalty for failure to notify recipients of rights, or train
program personnel in respecting rights of recipients.
Sec. 407. Penalty for failure to provide information to individuals who
are, or are at risk of being, sanctioned.
Sec. 408. Penalty for counting income, scholarship, or gift received by
dependent minor.
Sec. 409. Penalty for diverting potential applicant for assistance.
Sec. 410. Penalty for requiring recipient to respond to survey
conducted to obtain information for quarterly report.
Sec. 411. Penalty for unauthorized disclosure of information provided
by recipient.
Sec. 412. Penalty for discrimination.
Sec. 413. Penalty for failure to provide opportunity to appeal adverse
decision.
Sec. 414. Penalty for failure to comply with minimum benefit rules.
Sec. 415. Penalty for failure to provide individual child care
entitlement.
Sec. 416. Failure to submit report on welfare access and outcomes.
Sec. 417. Elimination of reasonable cause exception.
Sec. 418. Modification of availability of corrective compliance plan
option.
Sec. 419. Repeal of ban on assistance for persons convicted of a drug
felony.
TITLE V--STUDIES AND REPORTS
Sec. 501. Additional information to be included in quarterly State
reports.
Sec. 502. Elimination from secretarial report to the Congress of
information on out-of-wedlock pregnancies.
Sec. 503. Access to welfare; welfare outcomes.
Sec. 504. Assessment of regional economies to identify higher entry
level wage opportunities in industries experiencing labor
shortages.
Sec. 505. Research, evaluations, and national studies.
Sec. 506. Study by the Census Bureau.
TITLE VI--WAIVERS
Sec. 601. Waivers.
TITLE VII--REPEAL OF LIMITATION ON FEDERAL AUTHORITY
Sec. 701. Repeal of limitation on Federal authority.
TITLE VIII--MINIMUM BENEFIT RULES
Sec. 801. Minimum benefit rules.
TITLE IX--CHILD CARE
Sec. 901. Individual entitlement to child care.
TITLE X--DEFINITION OF POVERTY LINE
Sec. 1001. Definition of poverty line.
TITLE XI--SERVICE PROVIDERS
Sec. 1101. Protection for beneficiaries.
TITLE XII--EFFECTIVE DATE
Sec. 1201. Effective date.
SEC. 3. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) Welfare reform has reduced the welfare caseload but has
failed to move families out of poverty. More than 40 percent
of former welfare recipients continued to live below the
poverty line in 1999. Employed former recipients earn a
median hourly wage of $7.15. Because challenges to economic
opportunity and well-being are not adequately addressed by
current welfare programs, existing law must be changed to
ensure that welfare policy effectively promotes the reduction
of poverty.
(2) Between 1995 and 1999, a strong economy reduced poverty
by about 2 percent. Reductions in Government transfer
payments during this period, however, eliminated almost all
of the antipoverty effectiveness of economic growth. Prior to
welfare reform, between 1993 and 1995, Government transfer
payments had produced the opposite effect, reducing poverty
among American families.
(3) About \1/3\ of people who have left welfare say they
have had to cut the size of meals or skip meals because they
did not have enough food in the house.
(4) Over 40 percent of welfare leavers report that they
have had trouble paying housing and utility bills since
leaving welfare.
(5) Since welfare reform was enacted in 1996, and despite a
strong economy, there have been sharp increases in the rates
at which single mothers with children have had to rely on
food pantries and homeless shelters.
(6) An estimated \1/3\ to \1/2\ of all families leaving
welfare for work do not receive medical assistance, food
stamps, or child care to which they are entitled.
(7) Only 1,500,000 of the 9,900,000 children who are
eligible for child care subsidies under their States'
eligibility guidelines receive child care assistance.
(8) Between 1997 and 1999, over 500,000 families were
sanctioned off welfare and these families have been more
likely to experience poverty than have other families leaving
welfare. On a variety of measures, families who have been
sanctioned off welfare tend to fare worse than other leavers.
(9) States in which African Americans make up a higher
proportion of recipients are statistically more likely to
adopt full-family sanctions. African American recipients are
statistically more likely than white recipients to
participate in a TANF program that employs full-family
sanctions. African-American families have, in fact, been
sanctioned more frequently than their white counterparts.
(10) States in which African Americans make up a higher
proportion of recipients are statistically more likely to
adopt family cap policies. African American recipients are
statistically more likely than white recipients to
participate in a TANF program that employs a family cap
policy.
(11) States in which African Americans make up a higher
proportion of recipients are statistically more likely to
adopt time limits shorter than the Federal Government
requires. Approximately \2/3\ of all families that will
exhaust their allowable time on welfare are families of
color.
(12) Overall, 78 percent of children with immigrant parents
are themselves born in the United States and are therefore
eligible for services if poor. Nearly \1/4\ of all children
of immigrants live in poor families and 23 percent of all
poor children in the United States
[[Page H515]]
are either first- or second-generation immigrants. Immigrants
whose children are eligible for public benefits often don't
know about the services, are afraid to access them, or are
incorrectly turned away.
(13) About 25 percent of former welfare recipients have no
paid employment and have either no partner or a partner who
is unemployed.
(14) Under welfare reform, single mothers have been forced
to work at unsafe and hazardous job sites and to be subject
to sexual harassment and racial discrimination.
(15) Most single mothers who leave welfare for work do not
earn enough in wages to lift their families out of poverty,
even several years after leaving welfare. 55 percent remain
poor 1 year after leaving welfare; 49 percent 3 years after
and 42 percent 5 years after. Only about \1/3\ of all leavers
have incomes above 150 percent of the poverty line years
after going off welfare.
(16) Adolescent children of single mothers who have left
welfare for work have school performance rates below those of
other low-income children. Early studies of families in
welfare-to-work programs in Florida, Minnesota, and Canada
have found unexpected evidence that their adolescent children
have lower academic achievement and more behavioral problems
than the children of other welfare households. The
researchers hypothesized that parents in the programs might
have less time and energy to monitor their adolescents'
behavior once they were employed; that under the stress of
working, they might adopt harsher parenting styles; or that
the adolescents' assuming more responsibilities at home when
parents got jobs was creating too great a burden.
(17) Under welfare reform, when families lost income
regardless of the reason, children were more likely to
experience bad outcomes such as increased school suspensions,
behavior and mental health problems including symptoms of
depression, an increase in the number of children removed
from their mother's care, increased enrollment in special
classes for behavioral or emotional problems, and health
problems such as increased trips to the emergency room. In
programs where both employment and income were increased, the
impact on children was more positive.
(18) Most single mothers on welfare who are eligible for
the exemption from cooperating in establishing paternity are
not made aware of this option.
(19) 35 percent of low-income families reported mental
health problems according to a 1999 study. Similar rates of
mental health problems have been found among welfare
recipients. Among California welfare program participants,
more than \1/3\ had at least 1 diagnosable mental health
problem in the previous 12 months, and about 20 percent had 2
or more. Nationally, between 70 and 90 percent of working-age
adults with serious mental health problems are unemployed.
According to a 2001 study, major depression significantly
decreases the likelihood that a woman receiving welfare will
be employed and the presence of 1 or more of 4 psychiatric
disorders increases the likelihood of receiving cash
assistance by 32 percent.
(20) Over half of women receiving welfare have been victims
of domestic violence as adults. According to several studies,
a quarter to a third of welfare recipients report having been
abused within the last year. Abusive partners often interfere
with women's attempts to work or to obtain education.
SEC. 4. 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--GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 101. PURPOSES.
Section 401(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 601(a)(1)) is amended to read
as follows:
``(1) In general.--The purpose of this part is to end child
and family poverty by--
``(A) supporting caregivers so that children may be cared
for in their own homes;
``(B) promoting education, training, work supports, and
access to jobs that pay a living wage;
``(C) assuring access to Medicaid, Food Stamps, child care,
and such other assistance for which the family is eligible;
``(D) providing access to services to address barriers to
leaving poverty, including mental health, disability,
substance abuse, domestic violence, and sexual assault; and
``(E) reducing poverty of families with children.''.
SEC. 102. STATE PLAN.
(a) In General.--Section 402(a) (42 U.S.C. 602(a)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) by striking clause (ii) and redesignating clauses (iii)
and (iv) as clauses (ii) and (iii), respectively; and
(ii) by striking clauses (v) and (vi); and
(B) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) in clause (iii), by inserting ``and will notify
recipients of assistance under the program of the rights of
individuals under all laws applicable to program activities''
before the period;
(ii) by striking clauses (i) and (iv) and redesignating
clauses (ii) and (iii) as clauses (i) and (ii), respectively;
(2) in paragraph (7), by striking subparagraph (B) and
inserting the following:
``(B) Domestic or sexual violence defined.--In this title,
the term `domestic or sexual violence' has the same meaning
as `battered or subject to extreme cruelty' in section
402(a)(7)(C)(ii).''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(7) Certifications regarding domestic and sexual
violence, mental illness, disability, and substance abuse.--
``(A) Standards and procedures.--A certification by the
chief executive officer of the State that the State has
established and is enforcing standards and procedures to
ensure that the State will do the following:
``(i) Address recipient's barriers to leaving poverty.--
Address the needs of a recipient who has a mental health
problem, disability, or substance abuse addiction, or who is
dealing with domestic or sexual violence, including how the
State will, at the time of application, at a recipient's
request, and before imposing any sanction or penalty for
noncompliance--
``(I) have trained caseworkers screen, and, at the option
of the recipient, qualified professionals assess and identify
individuals who are dealing with a mental health problem,
disability, substance abuse addiction, or domestic or sexual
violence;
``(II) in the case of an individual who is so identified,
at the option of the individual, refer the individual and
affected children or other close family members for
appropriate treatment, counseling, vocational rehabilitation,
job training, and other services;
``(III) coordinate, contract, or hire appropriate licensed
qualified professionals, including licensed qualified mental
health service providers, licensed qualified physicians or
medical service providers, licensed qualified substance abuse
professionals, domestic violence coalitions, sexual assault
coalitions, or victim services organizations;
``(IV) ensure the strict confidentiality of such
information; and
``(V) pursuant to a determination of good cause, waive,
without time limit, any State or Federal program requirement
for so long as necessary in every case in which the
requirement--
``(aa) makes it more difficult for the individual to manage
his or her mental health problem, disability, substance abuse
addiction, or domestic or sexual violence situation;
``(bb) unfairly penalizes the individual; or
``(cc) makes the individual unsafe.
``(ii) Use of qualified professionals.--Enter into
contracts with or employ qualified professionals for the
provision of services in each of the fields of mental health,
substance abuse, disability, and domestic or sexual violence,
and that the contracts will require that, in the case of an
individual who has multiple such barriers, the qualified
professionals assigned to the case will collaborate to
provide the individual with integrated, comprehensive
services.
``(B) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
``(i) Domestic violence coalition.--The term `domestic
violence coalition' means a nonprofit, nongovernmental
membership organization that--
``(I) consists of the entities carrying out a majority of
the domestic violence programs carried out in a State;
``(II) collaborates and coordinates activities with
Federal, State, and local entities to further the purposes of
domestic violence intervention and prevention; and
``(III) among other activities, provides training and
technical assistance to entities carrying out domestic
violence programs in a State, territory, political
subdivision, or area under Federal authority.
``(ii) Sexual assault coalition.--The term `sexual assault
coalition' means a nonprofit, nongovernmental membership
organization that--
``(I) consists of the entities carrying out a majority of
the sexual assault programs carried out in a State;
``(II) collaborates and coordinates activities with
Federal, State, and local entities to further the purposes of
sexual assault intervention and prevention; and
``(III) among other activities, provides training and
technical assistance to entities carrying out sexual assault
programs in a State, territory, political subdivision, or
area under Federal authority.
``(iii) Victim services organization.--The term `victim
services organization' means a nonprofit, nongovernmental
organization that provides assistance to victims of domestic
or sexual violence or to advocates for such victims,
including a rape crisis center, an organization carrying out
a domestic violence program, an organization operating a
shelter or providing counseling services, or an organization
providing assistance through the legal process.
``(iv) Licensed qualified mental health service provider.--
The term `licensed qualified mental health service provider'
means a psychiatrist, clinical psychologist, clinical social
worker, community mental health counselor, or other licensed
individual who has appropriate training in the diagnosis and
treatment of mental illness in children, adolescents, and
adults or provides mental health services reimbursed under
title XVIII or a State plan approved under title XIX.
``(v) Qualified professional.--The term `qualified
professional' means--
``(I) with respect to a disability, a physician or other
licensed medical provider;
``(II) with respect to substance abuse, a licensed drug
counselor or clinician with expertise in the assessment and
treatment of parents with drug addiction issues, who may
[[Page H516]]
be affiliated with an out-patient or residential family drug
or alcohol treatment program; or
``(III) with respect to domestic or sexual violence--
``(aa) a State or tribal domestic violence coalition or
sexual assault coalition; or
``(bb) a State or local victim services organization with
recognized expertise in the dynamics of domestic or sexual
violence whose primary mission is to provide services to
victims of domestic or sexual violence, such as a rape crisis
center or domestic violence program.
``(8) Certification regarding assessment of regional
economies and informing localities of sectoral labor
shortages.--A certification by the chief executive officer of
the State that, during the fiscal year, the State will assess
its regional economies and provide information to political
subdivisions of the State about the industrial sectors that
are experiencing a labor shortage and that provide higher
entry-level wage opportunities for unemployed and
underemployed job seekers.''.
SEC. 103. FUNDING.
(a) Family Assistance Grant.--Section 403(a)(1) (42 U.S.C.
603(a)(1)) is amended in each of subparagraphs (A) and (E) by
striking ``1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002'' and
inserting ``1996 through 2008''.
(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:
``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), 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.
``(ii) Special rule for fiscal year 2003.--The inflation
percentage applicable to fiscal year 2003 is \1/2\ of the
inflation percentage determined under clause (i) for fiscal
year 2003.''.
(c) Replacement of Bonus To Reward Decrease in Illegitimacy
Ratio With Child Poverty Reduction Bonus.--Section 403(a)(2)
(42 U.S.C. 603(a)) is amended to read as follows:
``(2) 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.
``(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.
``(v) Special rule for fiscal year 2003.--The amount
payable to a State under this paragraph for fiscal year 2003
shall be \1/2\ of the amount otherwise so payable.
``(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--
``(I) for fiscal year 2003, $75,000,000 for grants under
this paragraph; and
``(II) for fiscal year 2004 and each fiscal year thereafter
$150,000,000 for grants under this paragraph.
``(ii) Availability.--Amounts made available under clause
(i) shall remain available until expended.''.
(d) Supplemental Grant for Population Increases in Certain
States.--Section 403(a)(3) (42 U.S.C. 603(a)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by striking ``, 2000, and
2001'' and inserting ``through 2008'';
(2) by striking subparagraphs (C) and (D) and inserting the
following:
``(C) Qualifying state.--For purposes of this paragraph, a
State is a qualifying State for a fiscal year if rate at
which the population of the State with income less than 200
percent of the poverty line has increased (as determined by
the Bureau of the Census) for the most recent fiscal year for
which information is available exceeds the such rate for all
States (as so determined) for such most recent fiscal year.
``(D) State defined.--In this paragraph, the term `State'
means each of the 50 States of the United States, the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin
Islands, and Guam.''; and
(3) in subparagraph (E)--
(A) by striking ``1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001'' and
inserting ``2003 through 2008''; and
(B) by striking ``$800,000,000'' and inserting
``$2,000,000,000''.
(e) Amendment of Bonus to Reward High Performance States.--
Section 403(a)(4) (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(4)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(4) Bonus to reward high performance states.--
``(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 a high performing State with respect
to a category described in subparagraph (C).
``(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 a high performing State
for a bonus year with respect to a category, which shall be
based on the score assigned to the State under subparagraph
(D)(i) with respect to the category for the fiscal year that
immediately precedes the bonus year.
[[Page H517]]
``(ii) Limitation.--The total of the amounts 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.--Not later
than October 1, 2003, the Secretary shall, in consultation
with affected groups, including recipient groups and State
governors, issue regulations implementing criteria for
awarding of bonuses under this paragraph in the following
categories:
``(i) Preparation and placement of recipients in employment
that will move families out of poverty.--The degree of
success in implementing employment-related measures,
including job entry, job retention and earnings gain rates,
improvement in each of such measures, and the success of
States in--
``(I) meeting self-sufficiency needs for welfare leavers;
``(II) training, placing and retaining welfare leavers in
higher-waged jobs identified in the assessment most recently
submitted by the State pursuant to section 411(d);
``(III) training, placing and retaining welfare leavers in
technical, professional, or nontraditional occupations for
women;
``(IV) providing career development assistance related to
higher-waged jobs including reliable, up-to-date career
counseling services, employability assessments on available
employment that pays a sustainable wage, nontraditional
training and education options, and employment opportunities;
``(V) encouraging participation in post-secondary
educational programs;
``(VI) encouraging use of effective literacy programs that
strengthen basic skills in the context of employment; and
``(VII) encouraging participation in vocational education
programs for occupations identified in the assessment most
recently submitted by the State pursuant to section 411(d).
``(ii) Removal of barriers to self sufficiency.--The degree
of success in removing mental health, substance abuse,
disability, or domestic or sexual violence barriers to
escaping poverty, which shall be based on an equal weighting
of the following:
``(I) Notification.--The percentage of individuals
receiving assistance under this part who report having been
notified of the option to be assessed for and receive
services to manage a barrier to escaping poverty. A State
shall not be eligible for a grant under this paragraph with
respect to the category described in this subparagraph unless
at least 75 percent of the individuals surveyed by the State
respond in the affirmative to the question of whether the
individual has received the notification.
``(II) Training.--The percentage of caseworkers,
supervisors, and new employees who have been trained in a
curriculum developed by or in collaboration with qualified
professionals in each of mental health, substance abuse,
disability, or domestic or sexual violence services. A State
shall not be eligible for a grant under this paragraph with
respect to the category described in this subparagraph unless
at least 80 percent of the caseworkers, supervisors, and
employees administering the State program funded under this
part have been trained in the curriculum.
``(III) Assessment and services.--The State must certify
that the State has contracts with or employs qualified
professionals in mental health, substance abuse, disability,
or domestic or sexual violence services, and that the
contract requires that where an individual has multiple
barriers the professional service providers will collaborate
to provide the individual holistic services.
``(iii) Provision of work supports.--The extent to which
the State has increased the percentages described to in the
following subclauses in comparison to the percentages
achieved in fiscal year 2001:
``(I) Food stamps measures.--Of the number of families with
children in the State who are eligible to receive food stamp
benefits under the Food Stamp Act of 1977, the percentage who
receive such benefits.
``(II) Medicaid and schip measures.--Of the individuals who
have ceased receiving assistance under the State program
funded under this part for 4 or more months, and are eligible
to receive medical assistance under a State plan approved
under title XIX or the child health assistance under a State
plan approved under title XXI, the percentage who receive
such medical or child health assistance.
``(III) Child care measures.--Of the children in the State
who meet the maximum allowable Federal eligibility
requirements for benefits under the Child Care and
Development Block Grant Act of 1990, the percentage who
receive such benefits, including any such children who
receive child care benefits provided with additional State or
Federal funds, including Head Start Funds. In taking the
percentage into account for purposes of this clause, the
Secretary shall also consider (aa) the affordability of child
care subsidies by including a comparison of co-payment rates
charged to eligible families, and (bb) the proportion of
market rates paid to providers of subsidized child care as
determined by a market rate survey that was taken not more
than 2 years earlier.
``(D) Scoring of state performance; setting of performance
thresholds.--For each bonus year, the Secretary shall--
``(i) use the formula developed under subparagraph (C) for
a measure to assign a score to each eligible State with
respect to the measure for the fiscal year that immediately
precedes the bonus year; and
``(ii) prescribe a performance threshold for each such
measure 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 $278,333,333;
and
``(II) the total amount of grants to be made under this
paragraph for all bonus years equals $1,670,000,000.
``(E) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
``(i) Bonus year.--The term `bonus year' means fiscal years
2003 through 2008.
``(ii) High performing state.--The term `high performing
State' means, with respect to a measure and a bonus year, an
eligible State whose score assigned pursuant to subparagraph
(D)(i) with respect to the measure for the fiscal year
immediately preceding the bonus year equals or exceeds the
performance threshold prescribed under subparagraph (D)(ii)
with respect to the measure 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 2003 through 2008
$1,670,000,000 for grants under this paragraph.''.
(f) Elimination of Welfare-to-Work Grants.--
(1) In general.--
(A) Grants to states.--Section 403(a) (42 U.S.C. 603(a)) is
amended by striking paragraph (5).
(B) Grants to indian tribes.--Section 412(a) (42 U.S.C.
612(a)) is amended by striking paragraph (3).
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Section 413 (42 U.S.C. 613) is amended by striking
subsection (j).
(B) Section 510 (42 U.S.C. 710) is repealed.
(C) Section 404(k)(1)(C) (42 U.S.C. 604(k)(1)(C)) is
amended--
(i) by adding ``and'' at the end of clause (ii);
(ii) by striking clause (iii); and
(iii) by redesignating clause (iv) as clause (iii).
(g) 50 Percent Federal Match for State Funding in Excess of
Required Maintenance of Effort Level.--Section 403(a) (42
U.S.C. 603(a)), as amended by subsection (e)(1)(A) of this
section, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(5) Matching grants for state expenditures exceeding
required maintenance of effort level.--
``(A) In general.--Each eligible State shall be entitled to
receive from the Secretary for a fiscal year a grant in an
amount equal to the amount (if any) by which the total of the
qualified State expenditures (as defined in section
409(a)(7)(B)(i)) for the fiscal year exceeds the applicable
percentage (as defined in section 409(a)(7)(B)(ii)) of
historic State expenditures (as defined in section
409(a)(7)(B)(iii)) with respect to the fiscal year.
``(B) Appropriation.--Out of any money in the Treasury of
the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are
appropriated such sums as are necessary for grants under this
section for fiscal years 2003 through 2008.''.
(h) Contingency Fund.--
(1) In general.--Section 403(b) (42 U.S.C. 603(b)) is
amended by striking paragraphs (2) through (7) and inserting
the following:
``(2) Deposits into fund.--Out of any money in the Treasury
of the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are
appropriated for each of fiscal years 1997 through 2008 such
sums as are necessary for grants under this section for the
fiscal year.
``(3) Grants.--The Secretary shall make a grant to a needy
State, for each eligible month with respect to the State, in
an amount equal to the amount described in paragraph (6).
``(4) Needy state.--A State is a needy State for purposes
of this paragraph if--
``(A) the rate of total unemployment in the State
(seasonally adjusted) for the most recent month for which
such information is available--
``(i) is at least 5.5 percent; or
``(ii) has increased by the lesser of 50 percent, or 1.5
percentage points, over the lesser of the average rate of
total unemployment in the State (seasonally adjusted) for the
preceding fiscal year or such average rate for the 2nd
preceding fiscal year; or
``(B) the number of families participating in eligible
State programs is at least 10 percent greater than the
average monthly number of families who participated in the
programs during the 2 consecutive calendar quarters of the
then most recent 8 such quarters in which such average
monthly number was the least.
``(5) Eligible month.--In paragraph (3), the term `eligible
month' means, with respect to a State, any month for which
the State is a needy State, and each subsequent month until--
``(A) 3 months has elapsed since the end of the most recent
month in which the 3-month moving average of the rate of
total unemployment in the State (seasonally adjusted) was
less than the monthly unemployment rate in the State in the
most recent month in which the State became (or, in the
absence of paragraph (4)(B), would have become) a needy State
by reason of paragraph (4)(A); and
``(B) 4 months has elapsed since the end of the most recent
month in which the number of families participating in
eligible State programs was at least as great as the number
of families so participating in the most recent month in
which the State became (or,
[[Page H518]]
in the absence of paragraph (4)(A), would have become) a
needy State by reason of paragraph (4)(B).
``(6) Grant amount.--The amount described in this paragraph
with respect to a State is an amount equal to 110 percent
of--
``(A) 80 percent of the average total amount expended by
the State under all eligible State programs in the 2
consecutive calendar quarters of the then most recent 8 such
quarters in which the average monthly number of families
participating in the programs was the least; multiplied by
``(B) the percentage by which the monthly number of
families participating in eligible State programs has
increased over the average monthly number of families so
participating during the 2 consecutive quarters referred to
in subparagraph (A).
``(7) Eligible state program defined.--In this subsection,
the term `eligible State program' means, with respect to a
State, any program under which a State expenditure could be
considered a qualified State expenditure (as defined in
section 409(a)(7)(B)(i)).''.
(2) Easing of related maintenance of effort requirement.--
Section 409(a)(10) (42 U.S.C. 609(a)(10)) is amended by
striking ``100 percent'' and inserting ``the applicable
percentage (as defined in paragraph (7)(B)(ii) of this
subsection)''.
(i) Federal Loans for State Welfare Programs.--Section 406
(42 U.S.C. 606) is amended--
(1) in subsection (d), by striking ``10'' and inserting
``20''; and
(2) in subsection (e), by striking ``$1,700,000,000'' and
inserting ``$2,000,000,000''.
(j) Grants for Indian Tribes.--Paragraphs (1)(A) and (2)(A)
of section 412(a) (42 U.S.C. 612(a)(1)(A), (2)(A)) are each
amended by striking ``1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and
2002'' and inserting ``1997 through 2008''.
(k) Studies and Demonstrations.--Section 413(h)(1) (42
U.S.C. 613(h)(1)) is amended by striking ``2002'' and
inserting ``2008''.
(l) Study by the Census Bureau.--Section 414(b) (42 U.S.C.
614(b)) is amended by striking ``1996, 1997, 1998, 1999,
2000, 2001, and 2002'' and inserting ``1996 through 2008''.
(m) Child Care Entitlement.--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 and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(G) $5,300,333,333 for fiscal year 2003;
``(H) $5,400,333,333 for fiscal year 2004;
``(I) $5,500,333,333 for fiscal year 2005;
``(J) $5,700,333,333 for fiscal year 2006;
``(K) $5,900,333,333 for fiscal year 2007; and
``(L) $6,050,333,333 for fiscal year 2008.''.
SEC. 104. USE OF FUNDS.
(a) Elimination of Authority to Treat Interstate Immigrants
Under Rules of Former State.--Section 404 (42 U.S.C. 604) is
amended by striking subsection (c).
(b) Modifications to Individual Development Accounts.--
Section 404(h) (42 U.S.C. 604(h)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking subparagraph (C) and
redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (C);
(2) in paragraph (5)(A), by adding at the end the
following:
``(iii) An institution that offers a course of study
leading to adult literacy, in English as a second language,
or a certificate of high school equivalency.''; and
(3) in paragraph (5)(F), by striking ``and inventory'' and
inserting ``inventory, and transportation''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 404 (42 U.S.C. 404) is
amended by striking subsections (i) and (j) and redesignating
subsection (k) as subsection (i).
TITLE II--WORK REQUIREMENTS
SEC. 201. REDUCED WORK REQUIREMENT FOR PARENTS OF SCHOOL-AGE
CHILDREN WHO CANNOT FIND ADEQUATE CHILD CARE.
Section 407(c)(1)(A) (42 U.S.C. 607(c)(1)(A)) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, the maximum average
number of hours per week shall be 20 for any week in which
the recipient is the parent or caretaker relative of a child
who has attained 6 years of age and does not have meaningful
access to safe, appropriate, affordable, and quality after-
school or summer care for the child.''.
SEC. 202. CONFORMING THE NUMBER OF WEEKS TO THE UNEMPLOYMENT
INSURANCE COMPENSATION STANDARD.
Section 407(c)(2)(A)(i) (42 U.S.C. 607(c)(2)(A)(i)) is
amended by striking ``6 weeks'' and inserting ``12 weeks''.
SEC. 203. REVISION OF WORK ACTIVITIES.
(a) In General.--Section 407(d) (42 U.S.C. 607(d)) is
amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
``(4) transitional work experience leading to jobs that
provide an income of not less than 250 percent of the poverty
line;'';
(2) by striking paragraph (7) and inserting the following:
``(7) voluntary participation in a community service
program;'';
(3) in paragraph (8), by striking ``(not to exceed 12
months with respect to any individual)''; and
(4) by striking paragraphs (10) through (12) and inserting
the following:
``(10) participation in a State or Federal work-study
program under part C of title IV of the Higher Education Act
of 1965;'';
``(11) education, including not more than 6 hours of home
study per week, in the case of a recipient who is enrolled--
``(A) at an elementary or secondary school (as defined in
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965);
``(B) in a course of study leading to adult literacy,
English as a second language, or a certificate of high school
equivalency; or
``(C) at an institution of higher education (as defined in
section 102 of the Higher Education Act of 1965), regardless
of the content of the course of study;
``(12) the provision of appropriate care to a child who has
a disability or a serious health condition (as defined in
section 101(11) of the Family Medical Leave Act) or has not
attained 6 years of age, by a recipient who is a parent or
caretaker relative of the child; and
``(13) participation in treatment or an educational
activity designed to address a mental health problem,
disability, substance abuse, or domestic or sexual
violence.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 407 of such Act (42
U.S.C. 607) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b), by striking paragraph (5); and
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) in each of subparagraphs (A) and (B)(i) of paragraph
(1), by striking ``not fewer than'' and all that follows
through ``subsection (d),'';
(B) in paragraph (1)(B)(ii), by striking ``not fewer than''
and all that follows through ``subsection (d)''; and
(C) in paragraph (2), by striking subparagraph (D).
SEC. 204. PENALTIES AGAINST INDIVIDUALS FOR UNJUSTIFIED
REFUSAL TO WORK; ADDITIONAL JUSTIFICATIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 407(e) (42 U.S.C. 607(e)) is
amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, if an individual in a family receiving assistance
under the State program funded under this part refuses to
engage in work required in accordance with this section, the
State shall, subject to such good cause and other exceptions
as the State may establish, reduce the amount of assistance
otherwise payable to the family on a pro rata basis, but to
not less than the amount that would be payable to a family
with the same number of children but with no adults, with
respect to any period during a month in which the individual
so refuses.'';
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking ``Exception'' and inserting ``Child care
exception''; and
(B) by striking ``proves that the individual has a
demonstrated inability (as determined by the State)'' and
inserting ``certifies that the individual is unable''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Additional child care exceptions.--Notwithstanding
paragraph (1), a State may not reduce or terminate assistance
under the State program funded under this part based on a
refusal of an individual to engage in work required in
accordance with this section if the individual is a custodial
parent or caretaker relative caring for--
``(A) a child who has a disability or a serious health
condition (as defined in section 101(11) of the Family
Medical Leave Act), and the individual does not have
meaningful access to safe, appropriate, affordable, and
quality care for the child; or
``(B) a child who has attained 6 years of age, and the
individual does not have meaningful access to safe,
appropriate, affordable, and quality after-school or summer
care for the child.
``(4) Mental health problem, disability, substance abuse,
or domestic or sexual violence exception.--Notwithstanding
paragraph (1), a State may not reduce or terminate assistance
under the State program funded under this part based on the
failure of any individual who has a mental health problem,
disability, or substance abuse problem, or who is a victim of
sexual or domestic violence to engage in work required in
accordance with this section if--
``(A) the individual is in the process of being screened or
assessed for the mental health problem, disability, substance
abuse problem, or sexual or domestic violence situation but
the screening or assessment has not been completed;
``(B) the individual has not been offered treatment to
address the problem or disability; or
``(C) the individual cannot comply because of the need to
seek medical, legal, or other services in relation to the
mental health problem, disability, or sexual or domestic
violence situation.
``(5) Minimum wage exception.--Notwithstanding paragraph
(1), a State may not impose a sanction under the State
program funded under this part on the basis of the refusal of
an individual to accept any employment (including any
employment offered under the program), if the wage rate for
the employment does not equal or exceed the greater of--
``(A) the minimum wage rate then in effect under section 6
of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938; or
``(B) any minimum wage rate prescribed by or under the law
of the State.
``(6) Discrimination exception.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a State
may not reduce or terminate assistance under the State
program funded under this part based on the failure of any
individual to engage in work required in accordance with this
section if the individual certifies in a manner described in
subparagraph (B) that the individual has left or refused work
based on discrimination.
[[Page H519]]
``(B) Certification.--An individual may provide a
certification required by subparagraph (A) by sworn written
statement or by providing other documentation, including a
police or court record or documentation by a shelter worker,
an employee of a victim assistance program, an attorney, a
member of the clergy, or a medical or other professional from
whom the individual has sought assistance as a victim.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 409(a)(11) (42 U.S.C
609(a)(11)) is amended--
(1) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``who cannot
obtain child care for child under age 6'' and inserting
``with justified refusal to work''; and
(2) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``407(e)(2)'' and
inserting ``407(e)''.
SEC. 205. ELIMINATION OF MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
Section 407 (42 U.S.C. 607) is amended by striking
subsections (g), (h), and (i).
SEC. 206. ASSESSMENT OF INDIVIDUALS FOR JOB PREPARATION.
Section 407 (42 U.S.C. 607), as amended by section 205 of
this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(g) Assessment of Individuals for Job Preparation.--At
the option of a recipient of assistance under a State program
funded under this part, the State shall, before assigning the
recipient to a work activity under the program, perform an
individual assessment for the preparation that is needed for
the recipient to obtain and maintain a job at a monthly wage
that is at least 200 percent of the poverty line applicable
to the family of the recipient.''.
TITLE III--PROHIBITIONS; REQUIREMENTS
SEC. 301. REPLACEMENT OF REQUIREMENT TO SANCTION INDIVIDUAL
FOR NONCOOPERATION IN ESTABLISHING PATERNITY OR
OBTAINING CHILD SUPPORT WITH PROHIBITION ON
REQUIRING SUCH COOPERATION.
(a) In General.--Section 408(a)(2) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)(2)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(2) Prohibition on requiring cooperation in establishing
paternity or obtaining child support.--A State to which a
grant is made under section 403 shall not penalize an
individual under the State program funded under this part by
reason of the failure of the individual to cooperate in
establishing paternity or establishing, modifying, or
enforcing a child support order with respect to a child of
the recipient.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 454(29) (42 U.S.C.
654(29)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``the State program funded under part A,''
each place it appears; and
(2) in subparagraph (A)(i), by striking ``E,'' and
inserting ``E''.
SEC. 302. PROHIBITION ON REQUIRING ASSIGNMENT OF SUPPORT
RIGHTS TO THE STATE; RETURN OF SUPPORT RIGHTS
ASSIGNED TO THE STATE.
(a) In General.--Section 408(a)(3) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)(3)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(3) Prohibition on requiring assignment of support rights
to the state; requirement to return support rights assigned
to the state.--A State to which a grant is made under section
403 shall not penalize an individual or family under the
State program funded under this part by reason of the
failure of the individual to assign to the State any
rights any person may have (on behalf of the person or of
any other person for whom the individual has applied for
or is receiving assistance) to support from any other
person. If any person has assigned any such rights to the
State, the State shall assign such rights back to the
person.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 452 (42 U.S.C. 652) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(10)(C), by striking ``pursuant to
section 408(a)(3) or''; and
(B) in subsection (h), by striking ``or with respect to
whom an assignment pursuant to section 408(a)(3) is in
effect''.
(2) Section 454(5) (42 U.S.C. 654(5)) is amended by
striking ``(A)'' and all that follows through ``(B)''.
(3) Section 456(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 656(a)(1)) is amended by
striking ``assigned to the State pursuant to section
408(a)(3) or''.
(4) Section 464(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 664(a)(1)) is amended by
striking ``section 408(a)(3) or''.
(5) Section 466(a)(3)(B) (42 U.S.C. 666(a)(3)(B)) is
amended by striking ``section 408(a)(3) or''.
SEC. 303. ELIMINATION OF SANCTION AGAINST TEENAGE PARENTS NOT
ATTENDING HIGH SCHOOL OR OTHER EQUIVALENT
TRAINING PROGRAM.
Section 408(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)) is amended by striking
paragraph (4).
SEC. 304. REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO DISREGARD OF CHILD
SUPPORT.
(a) In General.--Section 408(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)), as
amended by section 303 of this Act, is amended by inserting
after paragraph (3) the following:
``(4) Limited disregard of child support.--In determining
the amount and type of assistance for which a family is
eligible under the State program funded under this part, a
State to which a grant is made under section 403 shall
disregard--
``(A) the first $200 (or, if the family includes 2 or more
children, $400) per month distributed to any family member by
the State under section 457; and
``(B) all child support (as defined in section 459(i)(2))
received by any family member from any other source.''.
(b) Requirement To Pass Through All Child Support.--
(1) In general.--Section 457 (42 U.S.C. 657) is amended to
read as follows:
``SEC. 457. DISTRIBUTION OF COLLECTED CHILD SUPPORT.
``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b),
all amounts collected on behalf of a family as support by a
State pursuant to a plan approved under this part shall be
distributed to the family.
``(b) Exception.--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
pursuant to the agreement.''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) 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''.
(B) Section 454B(c)(1) (42 U.S.C. 654b(c)(1)) is amended by
striking ``457(a)'' and inserting ``457''.
SEC. 305. ELIMINATION OF SANCTION AGAINST TEENAGE PARENTS NOT
LIVING IN ADULT-SUPERVISED SETTINGS.
Section 408(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)) is amended by striking
paragraph (5).
SEC. 306. PROTECTION FOR CHILDREN BORN INTO POVERTY.
Section 408(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)), as amended by section
305 of this Act, is amended by inserting after paragraph (4)
the following:
``(5) Protection for children.--A State to which a grant is
made under section 403 shall not deny or limit assistance to
a child born into a family receiving assistance under the
State program funded under this part.''.
SEC. 307. 5-YEAR TIME LIMIT.
(a) Removal of Limitations.--
(1) Elimination of limitation on hardship exception.--
Section 408(a)(7)(C) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)(7)(C)) is amended by
striking clause (ii) and redesignating clause (iii) as clause
(ii).
(2) Compliance exception.--Section 408(a)(7) (42 U.S.C.
608(a)(7)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(H) Compliance exception.--In determining the number of
months for which an individual has received assistance under
the State program funded under this part, the State shall
disregard any month throughout which the individual is in
compliance with all applicable requirements of the State
program.''.
(b) Uniform Duration of Assistance.--Section 408(a)(7)(E)
(42 U.S.C. 608(a)(7)(E)) is amended to read as follows:
``(E) Requirement to provide assistance for 5 years.--
Notwithstanding section 407(e), a State to which a grant is
made under section 403 shall not impose a limitation of fewer
than 60 months on the period for which a recipient is
eligible for assistance under the State program funded under
this part.''.
(c) Protection Against Recession.--Section 408(a)(7) (42
U.S.C. 608(a)(7)), as amended by subsection (a)(2) of this
section, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(I) Special rules relating to month in which unemployment
is high or has increased sharply over prior 2 years.--
``(i) Clock stopped for current recipients.--In determining
the number of months for which an individual has received
assistance under the State program funded under this part,
the State shall disregard any month that is a trigger month.
``(ii) Treatment of former recipients who reached time
limit.--
``(I) Notice; determination of eligibility.--On the
occurrence of a trigger month, the State shall--
``(aa) issue a public notice that a trigger month has
occurred; and
``(bb) on request of an individual who had become
ineligible for assistance under the State program funded
under this part by reason of this paragraph, determine the
eligibility of the individual for such assistance as if the
individual had received such assistance for 59 months.
``(II) Additional month of assistance for otherwise
eligible former recipients.--If the individual is so
determined to be eligible for such assistance, the State
shall, notwithstanding subparagraph (A), provide such
assistance to the individual for any month that is a
trigger month, but shall not provide such assistance to
the individual for any month that is not a trigger month.
``(iii) Trigger month.--In this subparagraph, the term
`trigger month' means, with respect to a State, any month for
which the unemployment rate of the State--
``(I) is at least 5.5 percent; or
``(II) has increased by the lesser of 50 percent, or 1.5
percentage points, over the lesser of the average rate of
total unemployment in the State (seasonally adjusted) for the
preceding fiscal year or the average unemployment rate of the
State for the 2nd preceding fiscal year.''.
SEC. 308. REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE NOTICE OF RIGHTS OF
RECIPIENTS, AND TRAIN PROGRAM PERSONNEL IN
CARRYING OUT PROGRAM CONSISTENT WITH THE
RIGHTS.
Section 408(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(12) Requirement to provide notice of rights of
recipients, and train program personnel to carry out program
consistent with the rights.--A State to which a grant is made
under section 403 shall--
``(A) notify each recipient of assistance under the program
of the rights of recipients under all laws applicable to the
activities of the State program funded under this part, and
shall provide the notice--
``(i) to a recipient when the recipient enters the program;
[[Page H520]]
``(ii) to all such recipients on a semiannual basis; and
``(iii) orally and in writing, in the native language of
the recipient and at a 6th grade level, and if the native
language is not English, a culturally competent translation
shall be provided; and
``(B) train all program personnel on a regular basis in how
to carry out the program consistent with the rights.''.
SEC. 309. REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO INDIVIDUALS
WHO ARE, OR ARE AT RISK OF BEING, SANCTIONED.
Section 408(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)) is further amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(13) State required to provide information to individual
who has been, or is at risk of being sanctioned.--A State to
which a grant is made under section 403 shall provide to any
individual who has been, or is at risk of being, sanctioned
under the State program funded under this part, orally and in
writing, at not more than a 6th grade level in the native
language of the individual (and if the native language is not
English, a culturally competent translation shall be
provided), that--
``(A) program requirements may be waived for people dealing
with a mental health, disability, substance abuse, domestic
violence, or sexual assault issue;
``(B) an individual dealing with a mental health,
disability, substance abuse, domestic violence, or sexual
assault issue may request (or if the individual has left or
been removed from the program, may return to the program and
request) to be assessed under the program for services to
address those issues, including appropriate treatment,
counseling, vocational rehabilitation, job training, or other
services; and
``(C) the State is required to keep any such information
strictly confidential.''.
SEC. 310. BAN ON COUNTING INCOME, SCHOLARSHIP, OR GIFT
RECEIVED BY DEPENDENT MINORS.
Section 408(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)) is further amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(14) Prohibition on counting income, scholarship, or gift
received by dependent minor.--In determining the eligibility
of a family for, and the amount and type of assistance to be
provided to a family under, a State program funded under this
part, the State shall disregard any income, scholarship, or
gift received by a dependent minor child in the family.''.
SEC. 311. BAN ON DIVERSION OF POTENTIAL APPLICANTS FOR
ASSISTANCE.
Section 408(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)) is further amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(15) Ban on diversion of potential applicants for
assistance.--A State may not refuse to accept, at the time of
application, an application for assistance from the State
program funded under this part, or give an individual reason
to believe that, at the time of application, the State will
not unconditionally accept such an application from any
individual.''.
SEC. 312. PROHIBITION ON REQUIRING RECIPIENTS TO RESPOND TO
SURVEYS CONDUCTED TO OBTAIN INFORMATION FOR
QUARTERLY REPORTS.
Section 408(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)) is further amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(16) Prohibition on requiring recipients to respond to
surveys conducted to obtain information for quarterly
reports.--A State to which a grant is made under section 403
shall not penalize an individual under the State program
funded under this part by reason of the failure of the
individual to respond to a survey conducted to obtain
information for use in a report required by section
411(a).''.
SEC. 313. CONFIDENTIALITY OF PROGRAM INFORMATION.
Section 408(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)) is further amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(17) Confidentiality of program information.--A State to
which a grant is made under section 403 shall ensure that any
information provided by an individual to a State officer or
employee for use by the State program funded under this part
shall not be disclosed to any other person, except to the
extent that the disclosure is necessary to administer the
program or is consented to by the individual.''.
SEC. 314. NONDISCRIMINATION.
Section 408(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(18) Nondiscrimination.--A State to which a grant is made
under section 403 shall ensure equitable treatment of needy
families in the State, and shall not discriminate among
families based on marital status or applicant or recipient
status.''.
SEC. 315. REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL
ADVERSE DECISION.
Section 408(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(19) Requirement to provide opportunity to appeal adverse
decision.--A State to which a grant is made under section 403
shall provide a recipient of assistance under the State
program funded under this part with the opportunity to appeal
any adverse decision made with respect to the recipient under
the program.''.
SEC. 316. CLARIFICATION OF PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY PLAN.
Section 408(b)(3) (42 U.S.C. 608(b)(3)) is amended by
striking ``a family that includes''.
SEC. 317. APPLICABILITY OF CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS.
Section 408(d) (42 U.S.C. 608(d)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``, or any provision of
State law relating to individuals with physical or mental
disabilities'' before the 2nd period; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.
2000e et seq.), or any provision of State law relating to
discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin,
religion, gender, sex, parental or marital status, or sexual
orientation.
``(6) The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29
U.S.C. 621-634), or any provision of State law relating to
age discrimination.
``(7) Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20
U.S.C. 1681 et seq.), or any provision of State law relating
to discrimination in education.
``(8) The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 201
et seq.), or any provision of State law relating to labor or
to a term or condition of employment.
``(9) The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29
U.S.C. 651 et seq).
``(10) The National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 151 et
seq.).
``(11) The Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 151 et seq.).
``(12) Any Federal law providing employee protections
against discrimination for union activity.
``(13) Any other provision of Federal or State law the
purpose of which is to provide or protect a civil right.''.
SEC. 318. ELIMINATION OF SPECIAL RULES RELATING TO TREATMENT
OF ALIENS.
(a) Amendments to the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.--
(1) Section 401(c)(2) of the Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C.
1611(c)(2)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B);
(B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
or''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) to any assistance provided under a State program
funded under the program of block grants to States for
temporary assistance for needy families under part A of title
IV of the Social Security Act.''.
(2)(A) Section 402(b)(3) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1612(b)(3))
is amended by striking subparagraph (A) and redesignating
subparagraphs (B) and (C) as subparagraphs (A) and (B),
respectively.
(B) Section 402(b)(2)(A)(ii) of such Act (8 U.S.C.
1612(b)(2)(A)(ii)) is amended by striking ``(C)'' and
inserting ``(B)''.
(3) Section 403(c)(2) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1613(c)(2)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(L) Assistance under a State program funded under the
program of block grants to States for temporary assistance
for needy families under part A of title IV of the Social
Security Act.''.
(4) Section 423(d) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1183a note) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(12) Assistance under a State program funded under the
program of block grants to States for temporary assistance
for needy families under part A of title IV of the Social
Security Act.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 408 (42 U.S.C. 608) is amended by striking
subsections (e) and (f) and by redesignating subsection (g)
as subsection (e).
(2) Section 409(a)(7)(B)(i)(IV) (42 U.S.C.
609(a)(7)(B)(i)(IV)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``part,'' and inserting ``part and''; and
(B) by striking ``, and families of aliens lawfully present
in the United States that would be eligible for such
assistance but for the application of title IV of the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act of 1996''.
TITLE IV--PENALTIES
SEC. 401. INCREASE IN PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO SUBMIT REQUIRED
REPORT.
Section 409(a)(2)(A) (42 U.S.C. 609(a)(2)(A)) is amended by
striking ``4'' and inserting ``5''.
SEC. 402. REPLACEMENT OF PENALTY AGAINST STATE FOR FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH PATERNITY ESTABLISHMENT AND CHILD
SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT REQUIREMENTS WITH PENALTY
FOR REQUIRING COOPERATION IN ESTABLISHING
PATERNITY OR OBTAINING CHILD SUPPORT (INCLUDING
ASSIGNING SUPPORT RIGHTS TO THE STATE) OR
FAILING TO RETURN SUPPORT RIGHTS ASSIGNED TO
THE STATE.
Section 409(a)(5) (42 U.S.C. 609(a)(5)) is amended to read
as follows:
``(5) Penalty for requiring cooperation in establishing
paternity or obtaining child support (including assigning
support rights to the state) or failing to return support
rights assigned to the state.--If the Secretary determines
that a State to which a grant is made under section 403 for a
fiscal year has violated paragraph (2) or (3) of section
408(a) 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.''.
SEC. 403. EXTENSION OF MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT REQUIREMENT.
Section 409(a)(7)(A) (42 U.S.C. 609(a)(7)(A)) is amended by
striking ``or 2003'' and inserting ``2003, 2004, 2005, 2006,
2007, or 2008''.
[[Page H521]]
SEC. 404. PENALTY FOR FAILURE OF STATE TO COMPLY WITH CHILD
SUPPORT DISREGARD REQUIREMENTS.
Section 409(a) (42 U.S.C. 609(a)) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(15) Penalty for failure to comply with child support
disregard requirements.--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)(4) 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.''.
SEC. 405. PENALTY FOR PENALIZING BIRTH OF CHILD.
Section 409(a) (42 U.S.C. 609(a)) is further amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(16) Penalty for penalizing birth of child.--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)(5) 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.''.
SEC. 406. PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO NOTIFY RECIPIENTS OF RIGHTS,
OR TRAIN PROGRAM PERSONNEL IN RESPECTING RIGHTS
OF RECIPIENTS.
Section 409(a) (42 U.S.C. 609(a)) is further amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(17) Penalty for failure to notify recipients of rights,
or train program personnel in respecting rights of
recipients.--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.''.
SEC. 407. PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO
INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE, OR ARE AT RISK OF BEING,
SANCTIONED.
Section 409(a) (42 U.S.C. 609(a)) is further amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(18) Penalty for failure to provide information to
individual who has been, or is at risk of being sanctioned.--
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.''.
SEC. 408. PENALTY FOR COUNTING INCOME, SCHOLARSHIP, OR GIFT
RECEIVED BY DEPENDENT MINOR.
Section 409(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(19) Penalty for counting income, scholarship, or gift
received by dependent minor.--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.''.
SEC. 409. PENALTY FOR DIVERTING POTENTIAL APPLICANT FOR
ASSISTANCE.
Section 409(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)) is further amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(20) Penalty for diverting potential applicant for
assistance.--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)(15) 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.''.
SEC. 410. PENALTY FOR REQUIRING RECIPIENT TO RESPOND TO
SURVEY CONDUCTED TO OBTAIN INFORMATION FOR
QUARTERLY REPORT.
Section 409(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)) is further amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(21) Penalty for requiring recipient to respond to survey
conducted to obtain information for quarterly report.--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)(16) 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.''.
SEC. 411. PENALTY FOR UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION
PROVIDED BY RECIPIENT.
Section 409(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)) is further amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(22) Penalty for unauthorized disclosure of information
provided by recipient.--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)(17) 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.''.
SEC. 412. PENALTY FOR DISCRIMINATION.
Section 409(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)) is further amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(23) Penalty for discrimination.--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)(18)
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.''.
SEC. 413. PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY TO
APPEAL ADVERSE DECISION.
Section 409(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)) is further amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(24) Penalty for failure to provide opportunity to appeal
adverse decision.--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)(19) 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.''.
SEC. 414. PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH MINIMUM BENEFIT
RULES.
Section 409(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)) is further amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(25) Penalty for failure to comply with minimum benefit
rules.--If the Secretary determines that a State to which a
grant is made under section 403 for a fiscal year has
violated section 417 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.''.
SEC. 415. PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE INDIVIDUAL CHILD
CARE ENTITLEMENT.
Section 409(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)) is further amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(26) Penalty for failure to provide individual child care
entitlement.--Effective January 1, 2005, if the Secretary
determines that a State to which a grant is made under
section 403 for a fiscal year has violated section 418(b)
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.''.
SEC. 416. FAILURE TO SUBMIT REPORT ON WELFARE ACCESS AND
OUTCOMES.
Section 409(a) (42 U.S.C. 609(a)) is further amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(27) Failure to submit report on welfare access and
outcomes.--If the Secretary determines that a State has not,
within 45 days after the end of a fiscal year, submitted the
report required by section 411(c) for 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.''.
SEC. 417. ELIMINATION OF REASONABLE CAUSE EXCEPTION.
Section 409 (42 U.S.C. 609) is amended by striking
subsection (b).
SEC. 418. MODIFICATION OF AVAILABILITY OF CORRECTIVE
COMPLIANCE PLAN OPTION.
Section 409(c)(4) (42 U.S.C. 609(c)(4)) is amended to read
as follows:
``(4) Limitation on opportunity to submit corrective
compliance plan.--The preceding provisions of this subsection
shall not apply with respect to a violation of a provision of
this part by a State if the State has violated the provision
on 2 or more prior occasions.''.
SEC. 419. REPEAL OF BAN ON ASSISTANCE FOR PERSONS CONVICTED
OF A DRUG FELONY.
Section 115 of the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 862a) is
repealed.
TITLE V--STUDIES AND REPORTS
SEC. 501. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO BE INCLUDED IN QUARTERLY
STATE REPORTS.
Section 411(a) (42 U.S.C. 611(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(A)--
(A) in each of clauses (vii) and (viii) by striking ``race'
and inserting ``race, gender,'';
(B) in clause (xi)(I), by inserting ``, broken down by
education level'';
(C) by striking clause (xvi) and redesignating clause
(xvii) and clause (xvi); and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(xvii) The amount (if any) of child support collected on
behalf of any individual in the family, the amount (if any)
of any such collected support that has been distributed to
any such individual, and the amount (if any) of such
distributed support that has been disregarded pursuant to
section 408(a)(4).
``(xviii) The number of families receiving child care
assistance under section 418.
``(xix) With respect to sanctions imposed under the
program, the following information broken down by race and
gender:
``(I) The number of families against whom a sanction is in
effect.
``(II) The number of times sanctions have been imposed.
``(III) The reasons for imposition of sanctions.
``(IV) The percentage of sanction determinations that have
been reviewed.
``(V) The percentage of reviewed sanction determinations
that have been reversed.
``(VI) The number of families leaving the program as a
result of sanctions.
[[Page H522]]
``(xx) The number of families who have returned to the
program after having left the program, and the length of the
intervening period.
``(xxi) The percentage of families who report having been
notified of the option to be assessed for and receive
services to manage a barrier to escaping poverty.''; and
(2) by redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (8) and
inserting after paragraph (6) the following:
``(7) Report on training.--The report required by paragraph
(1) for a fiscal quarter shall include a statement of the
percentage of caseworkers, supervisors, and new employees who
received training to carry out the State program funded under
this part during the quarter.''.
SEC. 502. ELIMINATION FROM SECRETARIAL REPORT TO THE CONGRESS
OF INFORMATION ON OUT-OF-WEDLOCK PREGNANCIES.
Section 411(b)(1)(B)(ii) (42 U.S.C. 611(b)(1)(B)(ii)) is
amended by striking ``out-of-wedlock pregnancies and''.
SEC. 503. 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.
``(D) The incidence of homelessness, of the use of food
pantries and soup kitchens, and of the use of shelters among
recipients of assistance from the State program funded under
this part and among individuals to whom assistance under the
State programs funded are this part has ended within the past
12 months. The information described in this subparagraph may
be provided by submitting disaggregated case record
information on a sample of families.
``(E) The number of individuals to whom assistance under
the State program funded under this part has ended during the
year, broken down by the reasons why the assistance has ended
(including employment, marriage, sanction, time limit, or
State policy.
``(F) The economic conditions of individuals to whom
assistance under the State programs funded are this part has
ended, including the types of occupations of, the duration of
employment of, the income of, the benefits provided to, the
types of job training received by, the types and levels of
educational attainment of, and the incidence of homelessness,
of the use of food pantries or soup kitchens, and of the use
of shelters among, such individuals, broken down by gender
and race.
``(G) The effects of applying the 5-year time limit to
individuals who, in the absence of the limit, would continue
to be eligible for assistance from the State program funded
under this part, including the economic and social
circumstances of the individuals, including income,
employment, homelessness, use of food pantries or soup
kitchens, and change in child custody arrangements.
``(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.''.
SEC. 504. ASSESSMENT OF REGIONAL ECONOMIES TO IDENTIFY HIGHER
ENTRY LEVEL WAGE OPPORTUNITIES IN INDUSTRIES
EXPERIENCING LABOR SHORTAGES.
Section 411 (42 U.S.C. 611) is further amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(d) Assessment of Regional Economies to Identify Higher
Entry Level Wage Opportunities in Industries Experiencing
Labor Shortages.--
``(1) In general.--An eligible State shall conduct annually
an assessment of its regional economies that are experiencing
a labor shortage and that provide higher entry-level wage
opportunities for job seekers pursuant to section 402(a)(8).
``(2) Matters to be assessed.--
``(A) Labor market.--The assessment shall--
``(i) identify industries or occupations that have or
expect to grow, that have or expect a loss of skilled
workers, or that have a need for workers;
``(ii) identify the entry-level education and skills
requirements for the industries or occupations that have or
expect a need for workers; and
``(iii) analyze the entry-level wages and benefits in
identified industries or occupations.
``(B) Job seekers.--The assessment shall create a profile
of the characteristics of the unemployed and underemployed
residents of the State, including educational attainment,
barriers to employment, geographic concentrations, self-
sufficiency needs, and access to needed support services.
``(C) Education and training infrastructure.--The
assessment shall create a profile of the education, training,
and support services in place in the State to prepare workers
for the industries or occupations identified pursuant to
subparagraph (A).
``(D) Aligning industries and job seekers.--The assessment
shall compare the characteristics of the industries or
occupations identified pursuant to subparagraph (A) to the
profile of the job seekers in the State and the profile of
the education and training infrastructure in the State.
``(3) Sharing of information with localities.--The State
shall share with the political subdivisions of the State
information obtained pursuant to this subsection regarding
higher entry-wage job opportunities in industries
experiencing labor shortages, and information regarding
opportunities for collaboration with institutions of higher
education, community-based organizations, and economic
development and welfare agencies.
``(4) Reports of assessment of regional economies.--Each
eligible state shall submit to the Secretary annually a
report hat contains the annual assessment conducted pursuant
to this subsection.''.
SEC. 505. RESEARCH, EVALUATIONS, AND NATIONAL STUDIES.
Section 413 (42 U.S.C. 613) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking the 2nd sentence;
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in the subsection heading by striking ``Welfare
Dependency'' and inserting ``Poverty''; and
(B) in paragraph (1), by striking ``welfare dependency''
and inserting ``poverty'';
(3) by striking subsections (d), (e), (g), and (j);
(4) in subsection (h)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in subparagraph (B), by striking welfare dependency''
and inserting ``poverty''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``(f)'' and inserting
``(d)''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Technical assistance in assessing regional
economies.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary may provide technical
assistance to an eligible State to enable the State to
conduct the assessments required by section 411(d).
``(B) Limitations on authorization of appropriations.--For
the cost of providing technical assistance under subparagraph
(A), there are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary
not more than $1,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2003
through 2008.'';
(5) in subsection (i)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by adding at the end the following:
``The statement shall include detailed information on the
depth of child poverty in the State.''; and
(B) in paragraph (5), by inserting ``and the depth of child
poverty'' before ``in the State''; and
(6) by redesignating subsections (f), (h), and (i) as
subsections (d) through (f), respectively.
SEC. 506. STUDY BY THE CENSUS BUREAU.
Section 414(a) (42 U.S.C. 614(a)) is amended by striking
all that follows ``low-income families'' and inserting a
period.
TITLE VI--WAIVERS
SEC. 601. WAIVERS.
Section 415(a) (42 U.S.C. 615(a)) is amended in each of
paragraphs (1)(A) and (2)(A) by striking ``(determined
without regard to any extensions)''.
TITLE VII--REPEAL OF LIMITATION ON FEDERAL AUTHORITY.
SEC. 701. REPEAL OF LIMITATION ON FEDERAL AUTHORITY.
Section 417 (42 U.S.C. 617) is repealed.
TITLE VIII--MINIMUM BENEFIT RULES
SEC. 801. MINIMUM BENEFIT RULES.
Part A of title IV (42 U.S.C. 601-619), as amended by
section 701 of this Act, is amended by inserting after
section 416 the following:
``SEC. 417. MINIMUM BENEFIT RULES.
``(a) In General.--After taking into account all costs of
living and family size in each State with a program funded
under this part, the Secretary shall, by regulation,
prescribe a minimum cash benefit in accordance with
subsection (b), which shall be payable by the State to each
recipient of assistance under the program.
``(b) Limitation.--The minimum cash benefit prescribed for
a family under subsection (a) shall be an amount that is not
less than the sum of the poverty line applicable to the
family, plus the amount (if any) by which the housing costs
of the family exceeds 30 percent of the poverty line
applicable to the family.''.
TITLE IX--CHILD CARE
SEC. 901. INDIVIDUAL ENTITLEMENT TO CHILD CARE.
Section 418 (42 U.S.C. 618) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
``(b) Use of Funds to Provide Individual Entitlement to
Child Care.--A State to
[[Page H523]]
which a grant is made under this section shall use the grant,
without fiscal year limitation, only to guarantee safe,
appropriate, affordable, and quality care for any child of
(or with respect to whom any of the following is acting as a
caretaker relative)--
``(1) any recipient of assistance under the State program
funded under this part who is employed or participating in a
work activity required pursuant to this part (except for
full-time participation in a work activity described in
section 407(d)(12)); and
``(2) any other employed individual who is a member of a
family whose income is less than 250 percent of the poverty
line and who, during the past 24 months, ceased to receive
assistance under any State program funded under this part.'';
and
(2) in subsection (c), by inserting ``, but subject to
subsection (b) of this section'' after the 1st comma.
TITLE X--DEFINITION OF POVERTY LINE
SEC. 1001. DEFINITION OF POVERTY LINE.
Section 419 (42 U.S.C. 619) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(6) 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.''.
TITLE XI--SERVICE PROVIDERS
SEC. 1101. PROTECTION FOR BENEFICIARIES.
Section 104 of the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 604a) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (e), by striking ``Rights of
Beneficiaries of Assistance'' and inserting ``Protection for
Beneficiaries''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(l) No Discrimination In Hiring With Taxpayer Dollars.--
Sections 702 and 703(e)(2) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
shall not apply to a nongovernmental organization that
receives funds under a program described in subsection (a)(2)
of this section with respect to an individual who provides,
or would provide, services funded in whole or in part under
such a program, or individuals whose employment is, or would
be, funded in whole or in part under such a program.
``(m) Beneficiary Rights.--A nongovernmental organization
that receives funds under a program funded under subsection
(a)(2) may not, in providing services funded in whole or in
part under such a program or engaging in outreach activities
for services funded in whole or in part under such a
program--
``(1) discriminate against a program beneficiary or
prospective beneficiary on the basis of religion or religious
belief; or
``(2) include sectarian worship, instruction or
proselytization in such a program, or require or coerce a
beneficiary to participate in, or be present for, sectarian
worship, instruction or proselytization.''.
TITLE XII--EFFECTIVE DATE
SEC. 1201. EFFECTIVE DATE.
Except as otherwise provided, this Act and the amendments
made by this Act shall take effect on April 1, 2003.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 69, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and a Member opposed each will
control 20 minutes.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) will
be recognized for the time in opposition and will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, today I am here to offer an amendment in the form of a
substitute to H.R. 4. I am offering the Patsy Mink Memorial TANF
Reauthorization Act with my colleagues, the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Lee), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Eddie Bernice Johnson), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald), the gentlewoman from Michigan
(Ms. Kilpatrick), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), and the
gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
Throughout her life, Patsy Mink was a dedicated advocate for women,
children and families everywhere. She was a seasoned policymaker who
targeted failings in the status quo with real solutions.
As a speaker at a conference on poverty, Patsy criticized TANF
restrictions on education saying, ``Right now we cut welfare recipients
off from education and job training after only 1 year. It is like
saying that all poor mothers are worth are minimal schooling and skills
and minimal wages.'' Patsy Mink said, ``We need to treat women on
welfare the same way we treat all women, with respect, dignity and
rights we all cherish for ourselves.''
Well, the Mink substitute does just that. It provides real
opportunities for families in poverty and backs every provision with
adequate time and funding. TANF's current work requirements tell the
poor, get a job, any job, regardless of what it pays.
The Mink substitute allows recipients to prepare themselves and earn
the qualifications so that they can get a living-wage job and
permanently move out of poverty. It ensures that recipients are
screened by trained professionals and have access to treatment for
domestic violence, substance abuse or disabilities.
The Mink substitute lifts the time limits on education and removes
State caps on the number of people pursuing education. This will mean
that people can earn a degree instead of taking a couple of classes. It
expands the definition of work to include all kinds of education. This
ensures recipients can build the qualifications they need. In the last
year, industries that have placed more than half of TANF recipients
have reduced job openings, and this is in areas like retail and service
industries, for example, by 20 percent.
Low-income women face an unemployment rate of 12.3 percent. TANF
recipients need the time and opportunity to build new skills;
otherwise, there will not be a job for them to go to.
When people find a job, they need adequate work supports so they can
continue working. The Mink substitute guarantees child care to TANF
recipients who are engaged in a work activity and for 2 years to those
who leave TANF if their income is below 250 percent of poverty. It also
provides $20 billion in mandatory child care funding which will provide
child care for an additional 2 million children. There is no reason to
support anything less than the necessary amount. If we demand that all
mothers go to work, we must provide them with the same opportunities to
do so.
Today, on the floor, I have heard a lot of my colleagues say that
TANF is successful and that it is working. I hope that for the sake of
this country my colleagues would understand that this is 2003, not
2000, and that the people of this Nation are experiencing a serious
recession.
{time} 1330
Our government from the Census Bureau to the Department of Labor has
reported increasing figures of poverty, unemployment, TANF caseloads,
and requests for emergency food and shelter for the last 2 years. We
cannot bury our heads in the sand and call it compassion.
The truth is TANF, as a safety net program, is not working. The
economy was working a few years ago; now it is not. Now we need a
safety net, and those in poverty need better opportunities. The Mink
bill recognizes this reality.
In talking about her life and legacy, Patsy Mink once said, ``My
career in politics has been a crucible of challenges and crises where
in the end the principles to which I was committed prevailed.'' It is
my hope that Patsy is right and that the principles of equality,
justice, and opportunity prevail with the passage of this legislation.
Support the Mink substitute. Celebrate her life and her purpose by
supporting the Mink substitute.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
For our colleagues who have listened to the debate today on the
reauthorization of H.R. 4, the welfare reform law, I probably do not
have to remind my colleagues that the sounds of the debate, the points
that have been made, were all made in 1996. Members on our side of the
aisle and, frankly, half the Members on the Democrat side of the aisle
who supported the 1996 welfare reform law were confident that we could
help move people from a life of dependency, despair and hopelessness to
a life where they do have hope, they do have opportunity and can move
into the mainstream of American society.
As my colleagues have seen over the course of this debate, the 1996
welfare reform law has been a tremendous success, even to the point
where the New York Times called it an obvious success.
[[Page H524]]
The substitute that is before us today undermines every major 1996
welfare reform law improvement, reversing recent historic gains in
work, independence, family flexibility and in funding. I think it hurts
our most vulnerable recipients. I think we create a costly new
entitlement with the substitute that we have before us. It undermines
work requirements and goes back and creates the same kind of dependency
that we saw prior to 1996.
Yes, work is not something that most people would prefer to do, but
the most important thing we did in 1996 was to encourage people to
work, to encourage them to put their foot on the first rung of the
economic ladder, and we agreed that we would provide assistance to help
them up that ladder, whether it was transportation, whether it was
child care, education, training to help them along while allowing them
to keep their government-paid medical insurance; and what the program
being offered here as a substitute to our bill would do would be to
create the same kind of dependency.
People would leave work and go back to welfare under the proposal
that we have before us because one of the provisions in the substitute
says that if a person is not earning at least 250 percent above the
average poverty rate, they are entitled to go back on to TANF. There
are a lot of working Americans and hard-working Americans who do not
earn 250 percent above the poverty rate.
We do not want to create the kind of dependency that we had before.
We have a great success. There is no reason to turn tail and throw in
the towel when, in fact, we have helped 9 million American families
move from welfare to work, increased their dignity and gave them the
hope of a lifetime to be in the mainstream of American society.
We should reject the substitute offered by my colleague from Ohio.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) because she understands that
the poor depend on Members of Congress to reduce poverty and reduce
unemployment.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich)
for his leadership and for his sponsorship and cosponsorship of this
amendment.
First, Mr. Chairman, let me just say today we are offering this Mink
substitute amendment not only as a tribute to our dear friend and
former colleague, Congresswoman Patsy Mink, but also as the real
comprehensive reauthorization alternative to the underlying Republican
bill before us today.
I want to first send a special hello and a thank you to Patsy Mink's
daughter Wendy who really helped craft the legislation; and I am
delighted, as I know Patsy would be, that so many of her colleagues, I
believe we have, what, close to a hundred, 105 colleagues have
cosponsored this amendment today and are here to support it.
Mr. Chairman, Patsy Mink recognized that the real way we measure the
success of welfare reform is to look at the quality of a family's life
after they have left welfare. Patsy would ask, Are the families earning
sufficient funds to really take their families out of poverty? Are they
becoming self-sufficient? Today, the answer to that question is no, but
we have the chance with this amendment to change the answer to that
question by adopting the Mink substitute. In doing so, we would provide
people on welfare the chance to get the education and the training they
need, the child care that they need, and the time that they need to
pull their families out of poverty.
Mr. Chairman, the Mink substitute provides strong poverty-alleviation
provisions that would also take the country, our country, in the right
direction in eliminating the racial and economic disparities that
plague the current system.
A recent study conducted by the National Association of Social
Workers found that black applicants were more likely than white
applicants to be subjected to preemployment tests, that 55 percent of
African American applicants were interviewed for 5 minutes or less
while white applicants had interviews of 10 minutes or longer. Former
white recipients earned significantly higher wages than African
Americans and Hispanics. So this bill puts us in the right direction to
end those outrageous economic and racial disparities.
Mr. Chairman, I have some personal experience with what we are
talking about. I know education must be counted toward the work
requirement, as this bill does. Had I been forced to drop out of
college while on public assistance, I probably would not be here today.
So I feel very responsible for protecting that same chance for other
people who are striving toward the same goal.
That is why I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.
The vital changes to the law that it contains have, really, the very
awesome power to lift many out of poverty so that they can succeed at
whatever careers they choose, even the United States Congress.
Specifically, this amendment adjusts the current block grant amount
for inflation for future years and increases the child care development
block grant by $20 billion over the next 5 years. It retains the
current work requirement at 30 hours a week while removing the 12-month
time limit for education, which is so important.
Also, the Mink amendment includes legal, mind you legal, immigrants
who currently go off and fight for our country but cannot receive these
vital benefits. That is wrong. That is wrong. We must correct that, Mr.
Chairman.
Patsy Mink said it has always been the high principle of Congress to
say families count first, the responsibilities of families to nurture
their own children. She said, We want to put them at the top, as the
emphasis of this new authorization should be, caring for children,
allowing parents to stay home to care for their small children and
giving them support to build their families' economic future through
education. Patsy said that education must count and be equivalent to
work.
I want to close by remembering our beloved Congresswoman Patsy Mink.
She had a vision and we must remember her vision today. She had a real
vision that is detailed in this legislation. This amendment does
provide a voice for the voiceless, empowerment and self-sufficiency for
the poor, and a chance at education, building strong families and a
better life. It is truly about family values, Mr. Chairman.
So I urge a ``yes'' on the Mink substitute, which is the Kucinich-
Lee-McGovern and Lantos amendment.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. English), one of the real promoters of the original
1996 welfare reform law.
Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for giving me
the time.
Today, I stand in support of H.R. 4, which is a clear and consistent
effort to improve upon the landmark welfare reform law that we enacted
when I was a freshman in 1996. As I have stood here listening to this
debate, the arguments I have heard have oddly echoed those arguments,
and yet the matter is settled. Clearly welfare reform has been
successful.
Since we overhauled this country's failed welfare system, some 3
million children have risen out of poverty. That is pro-family.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the number of American
children experiencing hunger has plummeted to half of its number in
1995. In all, 3.5 million fewer Americans live their lives in poverty
than in 1995.
This is the most successful social experiment of the 20th century,
and yet here we are today listening to the left arguing still against
welfare reform. They are attempting to turn back the clock, and I urge
my colleagues to vote against this awful amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
These critics argue that welfare reform is not responsible for the
decrease in poverty today, that instead the economy is solely
responsible for these changes. Yet they ignore the fact that in the
past the economy has risen but welfare rolls had risen before welfare
reform; and since welfare reform, despite the Clinton recession
starting in the last two quarters of that administration, welfare rolls
have continued to drop. Yet some 2 million recipients remain dependent
on welfare assistance, and many still do not participate in worker-
training programs.
[[Page H525]]
In response, we are poised today to pass a reauthorization of welfare
reform boosted by tougher work requirements and reinvigorated work
incentives for States and welfare recipients.
I want to draw my colleagues' attention to one specific provision
called ``full-check sanction.'' This provision establishes a tough,
consistent penalty for those welfare recipients who decline to
participate steadily in the workforce. Contrary to the negative
predictions of welfare reform's opponents, this provision, where it has
been tried, has worked exceptionally well.
A study by former Clinton administration economist Rebecca Blank
reveals that these States ``show consistently higher income gains among
poor children throughout the income distribution than do States with
lenient penalties.''
I am proud to note that by including this provision in today's bill
we will soon apply full-check sanctions to welfare recipients
throughout America. Full-check sanctions, marriage promotion, and other
enhancements will only make welfare reform more effective. Stronger
welfare reform means less dependence and more economic independence for
the poor of America.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield the
balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for
purposes of continuing this debate.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 10 seconds to the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), a great leader on many
issues, our ranking member on the Committee on Small Business.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate both the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Lee) on this important amendment.
I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 4. In 1996, we passed what
was wrongly termed ``landmark legislation'' that would end welfare as
we know it. Over the past several years, our Nation's poor and working
families have survived, not because of the strong safety net, but
because of a strong economy.
With the economy in recession and States facing record deficits, we
need welfare reform now more than ever.
{time} 1345
To hear the President speak, you think he would agree.
Recently the President said, ``Welfare reform, to me, means
liberation from dependency. It means we realize each person matters,
and if we can help people find work, it means dignity.'' Great
rhetoric. I do not know what proposal he has been looking at, because
today's proposal does nothing to promote dignity.
This proposal is about victimizing the poor. This bill is so bad in
so many ways I do not even know where to start: lack of funding for
child care, increased work requirements, discrimination against
immigrants. But what it is most about, unfortunately, is a lost
opportunity.
A major shortcoming of the welfare reform system is that it fails to
effectively and creatively use our number one job creator, small
business. The current system is so confusing and bureaucratic that both
small businesses and welfare recipients simply give up out of sheer
frustration. This leaves welfare recipients without jobs and small
businesses without employees.
But today's vote is also about mixed-up priorities. Just imagine if
we had taken the more than $300 billion for the Bush dividend tax cut
and instead put it towards training and tax credits for small
businesses that give welfare recipients jobs. Think of the economic
power as small businesses expand and we gain a whole new group of
consumers.
Once again, tax breaks for the wealthy is more important than dignity
for the poor. That is a real shame. Vote ``no'' on H.R. 4 and support
the Lee-Kucinich amendment.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to rise in support of
H.R. 4 and the wonderful work that has been done in welfare reform over
the past several years.
Coming from a State legislative body and working on this issue in my
State, I know how difficult it has been for us to get relief from some
of the Federal rules, and I really commend our chairmen and those who
have worked tirelessly to loosen those rules so that we can continue to
pull more children from poverty and create environments where those
children and their families can dream big dreams and have wonderful
adventures in life.
I also want to commend the chairman and the committee that has worked
on this. What we are doing in the bill we have before us is to address
the needs in alternative child care, making it easier for us to provide
child care for second- and third-shift workers so that those moms and
dads can go and work and be productive in their jobs knowing that their
children have a safe environment.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Owens), a great educator and Mr. Education, as we call him.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of what we call the Mink
substitute.
I miss the voice of Patsy Mink ringing in my ears. I used to be
reminded when she talked of the quote from Shakespeare's King Lear,
``Fool me not to bear it tamely; touch me with noble anger.'' She was
always full of anger about the great swindle of this welfare reform
bill, about the denial of education opportunities, about the insistence
that we pay the lowest rates and we allow the States to squirrel away
whatever they save.
There is a standard that compassionate America has already created.
If we look at the amount of money received per child in the survivor's
benefits program when a Social Security recipient dies and their
children receive benefits, it averages out to a child receiving $558 a
month. One child receives $558 a month, or $6,706 a year.
In the welfare programs, we have pushed it down to that of the great
model, which was Wisconsin, which was giving a family of three less
than $500 a month. A family of three was receiving less than $500 a
month. This, they say, is progress.
We are taking the children, and it is for our children, and giving
them the minimum. And I do not understand why we declare it such a
great success.
The food pantries, the soup kitchens in my district and in New York
in general are overwhelmed with the number of people who are there now.
Homelessness is greater than ever before. Half the people eligible for
food stamps are not receiving them because of the hostility in the way
the program was administered under Giuliani. In an attempt to save
money they have thrown the whole thing out of kilter. And those who
could qualify are not even bothering to try anymore.
So here we are in a situation that, despite all this emphasis on not
a welfare check, but get a job, it is a situation where the only
subsidy the U.S. approves of are farm subsidies, where a farm or
agriculture business is eligible for as much as $270,000 per year in
subsidies, which is a handout. It is a handout. Yet we want to reduce
the family of three down to less than $500 a month and then call that a
success. And then we will not allow them to get an education in order
to be able to fill the jobs that are available.
There is a nursing shortage in America. If my colleagues have not
heard about it, I do not know where they have been. There is a nursing
shortage. Many of the women whose children are on welfare, if they had
the opportunity to get the proper education, would qualify for those
jobs. But we do not allow that. We do not allow them to go to junior
college or college, and accept that as legitimate. It is an easy way,
and anybody with common sense would realize, that the easiest way to
move a person off welfare and into a decent job would be through the
education system. But that is not allowed.
Mrs. Mink said this is part of a great swindle. The governors are
able to take the money they save and put it into a slush fund, in their
petty cash drawers. We are swindling from the poor in order to take
care of the local budget-balancing problems.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
[[Page H526]]
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Georgia for yielding
me this time, and I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Boehner) in his efforts with this.
And I rise completely opposed to this amendment, which is basically a
masquerade to go back to the days of old when you could stay in school
forever. You could not take a job unless it paid just the amount you
wanted, even though many people take jobs right at the poverty line or
just above. They work hard and they pay their taxes. But, no, this bill
would enable them to stay and say, oh, I do not want that job, it does
not pay quite enough. The way an individual moves up in the workplace
is to get an entry level job and ask, how do I move to the next level,
get training to move to the next level? It is not going to college
forever; it is focused.
But I rise as chairman of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug
Policy and Human Resources of the Committee on Government Reform to
object to another provision of this. This goes back to the old days
again, where we say people who take tax dollars from hard-working
Americans, many who are struggling along the poverty line, who chose to
work rather than take welfare and follow the laws, that this bill would
say, if you are convicted of a drug crime, you are still entitled to
the money from those who have been working, from those who have been
following the laws.
We made a change, partly because countries around the world say,
America, you are not focused. They say, America, you are not really
trying to get rid of drug use in your country. You are letting it
spread around the world and cause problems elsewhere.
Here is a bill where we were making progress, just like in other
areas, and this amendment would repeal it. It would say, hard-working
taxpayers, follow the law, but you do not have to if you are on
welfare.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).
Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Kucinich
amendment in the nature of a substitute and in support of H.R. 4.
Mr. Chairman, quality of life is much more than having food and
shelter. The amendment would simply provide food and shelter. It would
provide some assistance similar to what we provide in H.R. 4; however,
it does not provide the incentive that people need, the incentive to
move from welfare to a productive and free life.
The American dream, Mr. Chairman, is that dream to be able to provide
for one's family, to be able to dream and achieve dreams of success in
the future, to raise one's children, to be able to achieve the next
step on the economic ladder. H.R. 4 provides this.
We have helped so many already. This reauthorization is necessary to
continue to help those who have been dependent. They have secured more
than the basics of life. They have been educated. They have achieved.
Children have now seen a wonderful example to move forward in the
United States and achieve a higher standard of living, that sense of
accomplishment. They have received education.
We provide in H.R. 4 more child care at different kinds of times so
that those who are working and who have that grit and want to succeed
will be assisted in doing so. It also provides them with health care
for that first year where they may not be able to get a job that
provides health care. Our goal here, Mr. Chairman, is to raise people
from poverty. We have succeeded with 3 million children already.
We need to reauthorize welfare reform, as H.R. 4 does, and reject the
Kucinich amendment.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern.)
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time, and I rise in support of the Kucinich-Lee-McGovern-Lantos
substitute and remind my colleagues that welfare reform is about
lifting people out of poverty.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kucinich-Lee-McGovern-Lantos
amendment. This amendment, dedicated to the late Congresswoman Patsy
Mink, is a strong substitute that will change the course of welfare as
we know it, and, in the process, help millions of Americans leave
welfare for good.
The 1996 welfare reform bill did what it was designed to do--trim the
welfare rolls. Low-income people who received cash assistance left
welfare because they were able to find jobs and because the economy was
good.
Others left welfare because their benefits expired. But the goal of
trimming the welfare rolls was reached, allowing some to claim welfare
reform has been fully successful.
But I believe this law should do more than just trim the welfare
rolls. The goal of the welfare program should be to help low-income
individuals achieve true self-sufficiency. Welfare should enable low-
income individuals and families to pursue the training and education
they need to get good jobs so they can leave public assistance
permanently and provide economic security for their families.
The Kucinich-Lee-McGovern-Lantos amendment will achieve this goal.
Look at the details. The extra $2 billion for child care included in
the Republican bill is simply not enough to provide for adequate child
care for parents. Our amendment would provide $20 billion more for
child care--an increase of $18 billion over the Republican proposal.
Additionally, the current work requirements would be maintained, so
people could continue to receive assistance while they train for a job
that will keep them off welfare. And under this substitute, legal
immigrants--people who pay taxes and fight in our armed forces--would
be eligible for help.
This body has the moral obligation to provide a safety net for the
people of this country who need one. We cannot forget about the low-
income people in this country, especially in this time of economic
uncertainty.
States across the country are facing record budget deficits, and in
the process are slashing programs like Medicaid and other social
services. Now, more than ever, the Federal Government must provide for
those people who need help.
Members of this body only have to look to the gentlewoman from
California, Ms. Woolsey, to see what happens when a mother on welfare
can get the child care she needs. Yesterday, Ms. Woolsey testified
before the Rules Committee.
She told the Committee that she wouldn't be here today as a member of
this House if it weren't for welfare and for her mother, who took care
of her children while she was working.
The gentlewoman from California made the point that people on
welfare--women in particular--will not be able to focus on job training
and, ultimately, self-sufficiency, if they can't find safe, affordable
places for their kids. Ms. Woolsey was able to concentrate on her job,
move off welfare and become a successful, self-sufficient woman. We can
duplicate her success story with the passage of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, nobody wants to be on welfare. People want to earn a
paycheck, not a welfare check. but we have a moral responsibility to
help people move off of welfare into productive work.
Our substitute does just that.
I urge my colleagues to support our effort to change the goal of this
program to one of self-sufficiency. It's the right thing to do.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus
and a great leader.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time, and I come in support of the substitute.
Mr. Chairman, unemployment rates are on the rise at a record level of
6 percent, and in my district, some parts, as much as 12 percent. The
Republican bill forces States to shift funds away from successful
programs that are critical to working families in order to implement
rigid new requirements under their bill. Meanwhile, there is no
evidence that these rigid requirements would increase the effectiveness
of these programs.
In my State of Maryland, we would need an additional $144 million
over 5 years to implement the work participation requirements in H.R.
4. On one hand, President Bush praises the 1996 welfare law, but on the
other hand he wants to deny States the flexibility they were provided
by that law.
The Republicans' approach to welfare reform represents a study in
contradictions. While they talk about sufficient resources, their
proposal fails to increase welfare and child care funding
[[Page H527]]
for even inflation. The administration says that it wants to help
educate people, but their proposal actually restricts the States'
discretion to provide training and education to welfare participants.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Isakson), a valued member of the Committee on Education
and the Workforce.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the chairman and commend
him on all the efforts last year and the hearings and the
investigations and the promotion that he did to bring us to this point
today, and I rise in support of H.R. 4 and in opposition to the
Kucinich substitute.
I want to make my comparison as simple as I can. H.R. 4 extends a
program that raised expectations and turned a safety net into a
springboard to independence. The unintended consequence of the
substitute of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) is to turn a
safety net into a dependency trap.
Mr. Chairman, if we listen to those arguing against the underlying
bill, H.R. 4, one would think there is no money for child care and no
money for health care, that in fact it is a cutback. In fact, this bill
recognizes that those that remain on welfare will be the hardest to
train and harder to employ, that their difficulties are they have young
children at home, that they need health care, that they need
transportation. And on each and every point: H.R. 4 provides child
care, a transition in terms of medical help when they go from going off
of Medicaid and on to work for a transition period of 1 year,
encourages education and counts education and other programs toward the
employment period work requirements.
Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple proposition. Congress passed an
overwhelming success in 1996. It changed the lives of millions of
Americans who had no expectations. For us to take a success and turn it
into a failure by verbally abusing that which has really worked would
be a shame. The consequences would be a dependency trap for millions of
Americans who now will have hope because of this extension to realize
the benefits of independence, of work, of employment and, most
important of all, of the high expectations that this great country
offers to every one of its citizens.
{time} 1400
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join in strong
support of this amendment in tribute to Patsy Mink. But more
importantly, I support this amendment because it speaks more directly
to the needs of needy families than H.R. 4, families who need
opportunities for education and training, families who need access to
jobs.
Mr. Chairman, 75 percent of all new jobs in this country are found in
areas where most people needing assistance do not live. They must have
access. We all know how effective early childhood education has been.
And yet while we have money for early childhood education, it is not
nearly enough. We need to increase that part of it so no child is left
behind. I support the Kucinich-Lee amendment.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the Bible says the poor
shall always be with us; but our job in this Congress is to help raise
the standard. I know most Republicans think that only means the rich,
but it also means the poor and the working people in this country.
What happened to ``leave no child behind''? As we all know, mothers
newly off the welfare rolls struggle every day to find affordable,
reliable, and safe care for their children while they work. The
situation is even more desperate for nearly half of the mothers getting
off welfare who can only find work in the evenings or late at night.
Yet we are faced with a Republican bill which demands that mothers
work more hours, while actually taking money away from mothers to care
for their children. Leave No Child Behind just proves that the
Republicans can come up with great slogans. This is a perfect example
of Republicans knowing how to talk the talk; but when it comes to
walking the walk, there is nothing whatsoever compassionate about this
Republican conservativeness. This Republican bill is a shameful attack
on our Nation's poorest working mothers and their children. I urge
support of the Kucinich substitute in the name of Patsy Mink.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown)
invoked the No Child Left Behind bill, the education reform plan which
aims to educate every American child. We have increased funding for
education over 200 percent over the last 5 years, including 30 percent
in the last 18 months. But the issue in education is not about more
money; it is about attitude, and it is about whether we as a Nation
want to insist that all of our children get an education.
I will tell the gentlewoman that we have worked hard to increase
funding and we are continuing to work hard to increase funding to help
make this plan real in every American school. But let us leave no doubt
about it: if money alone would solve the problems in our Nation's
schools, they would have been solved decades ago. This is not about
money. It is about whether we as a Nation are going to demand that all
of our children get a chance at a good education.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Wilson).
(Mr. WILSON of South Carolina asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of H.R. 4
and opposed to the Kucinich substitute.
Specifically, what I am concerned about in the substitute is that it
would undermine the current reduction of dependence that we have
achieved through welfare reform. Welfare reform has been a phenomenal
success beginning in 1996 and has resulted in great opportunities, jobs
created, education, training for people. And in particular, in the most
recent report by Dr. Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, he
indicates that the decrease in poverty has been greatest among black
children. The poverty rate for black children has fallen to the lowest
point in U.S. history. There are 1.2 million fewer black children in
poverty today than there were in the mid-1990s.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out who made it possible. It was
not we as Members of Congress. I have visited the DSS offices
throughout the district that I represent. I have visited the social
workers who have made a difference in people's lives, and I have
thanked them. I have been to every office to thank them for the
difference they have made helping people get jobs and create great new
opportunities.
The article referencing the aforementioned report is as follows:
[From the Heritage Foundation Backgrounder, Feb. 6, 2003]
The Continuing Good News About Welfare Reform
(By Robert Rector and Patrick F. Fagan)
Six years ago, President Bill Clinton signed legislation
overhauling part of the nation's welfare system. The Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
1996 (P.L. 104-193) replaced the failed Aid to Families with
Dependent Children (AFDC) program with a new program called
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). The reform
legislation had three goals: (1) to reduce welfare dependence
and increase employment; (2) to reduce child poverty; and (3)
to reduce illegitimacy and strengthen marriage.
At the time of its enactment, liberal groups passionately
denounced the bill, predicting that it would result in
substantial increases in poverty, hunger, and other social
ills. Contrary to these alarming forecasts, welfare reform
has been effective in meeting each of its goals.
Poverty has dropped substantially. Although liberals
predicted that welfare reform would push an additional 2.6
million persons into poverty, 3.5 million fewer people live
in poverty today than in 1995, according to Census Bureau
figures.
Some 2.9 million fewer children live in poverty today than
in 1995.
Decreases in poverty have been greatest among black
children. In fact, the poverty rate for black children has
fallen to the lowest point in U.S. history. There are 1.2
million fewer black children in poverty today than there were
in the mid-1990s.
[[Page H528]]
The poverty rate of children living with single mothers is
at the lowest point in U.S. history, having fallen
substantially since the onset of welfare reform.
The poverty rate of black children and children in single-
mothers families has continued to fall even during the
current recession. Historically, poverty among these groups
has risen sharply during recessions; the continuing decline
of child poverty among black and single-mother families is an
unprecedented departure from past poverty trends.
Hunger among children has been cut roughly in half.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in 1995,
before welfare reform was enacted, 1.3 percent of children
experienced hunger; by 2001, the number had fallen to 0.6
percent.
The AFDC/TANF caseload has been more than cut in half. The
decreases in welfare have been greatest among disadvantaged
groups with the greatest propensity for long-term
intergenerational dependence: for example, younger never-
married mothers with young children.
Employment of single mothers has increased greatly. The
largest increases in employment have been among the most
disadvantaged mothers with the greatest barriers to obtaining
work. Employment of young single mothers (ages 18 to 24) has
nearly doubled. Employment of single mothers who are high-
school dropouts has risen by two-thirds.
The explosive growth of out-of-wedlock childbearing has
come to a virtual halt. Since the beginning of the War on
Poverty, the share of births that are outside marriage had
increased relentlessly at nearly one percentage point per
year. Overall, the percentage of births that were out-of-
wedlock rose from 7.7 in 1965 to an astonishing 32.6 percent
in 1994. However, since welfare reform, the growth in
illegitimacy has slowed to a near halt. The out-of-wedlock
birth rate has remained almost flat for the past five years,
and among blacks it has actually dropped.
Marriage has been strengthened. The share of children
living in single-mother families has fallen, and the share
living in married-couple families has increased, especially
among black families.
Some incorrectly attribute these positive trends to the
strong economy in the late 1990s. Although a strong economy
contributed to some of these trends, most of the positive
changes greatly exceed shifts that occurred during prior
economic expansions. The difference is due to welfare reform.
A recent analysis by former Congressional Budget Office
Director June O'Neill finds that welfare reform has been
responsible for three-quarters of the increase in
employment of single mothers and three-quarters of the
drop in welfare caseload. By contrast, good economic
conditions were responsible for only one-quarter of the
changes in these variables. The increase in employment of
single mothers, in turn, is a major factor behind the drop
in child poverty.
The Future of Reform. Notwithstanding this record of
accomplishment, far more needs to be done. When TANF is
reauthorized this year, federal work requirements should be
strengthened to ensure that all able-bodied parents engage in
supervised job search, community service work, or skills
training as a condition of receiving aid. Even more
important, Congress must recognize that the most effective
way to reduce child poverty and increase child well-being is
to increase the number of stable, productive marriages. In
reauthorizing TANF, Congress must greatly strengthen the pro-
marriage aspects of welfare reform.
The 1996 TANF law established the formal goals of reducing
out-of-wedlock childbearing and increasing marriage; but
despite nearly $100 billion in TANF spending over the past
five years, the states have spent virtually nothing on
specific pro-marriage programs. The slowdown in the growth of
illegitimacy and the increases in marriage, noted above, have
occurred as the incidental byproduct of work-related reforms
and not as the result of positive pro-marriage initiatives.
This neglect of marriage by state welfare bureaucracies is
scandalous and deeply injurious to the well-being of
children. Current welfare policy sharply penalizes marriage
between low-income men and women. In future years, welfare's
disincentives to marriage should be significantly reduced. In
addition, at least $300 million per year in future TANF funds
should be earmarked for pro-marriage initiatives.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
Indiana (Ms. Carson), who is an expert on this subject, former director
of welfare.
Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, if Members would excuse my
arrogance, I do not think anybody in this House knows more about
running a welfare program than I do. I took over an agency that had a
$20 million deficit, and left it with $7 million in the black when I
came to Congress. We did not leave any child behind.
In order to get people out of poverty, they do not just need a hand
out; they have to get a hand up. They need an opportunity to become
self-sufficient.
Mr. Chairman, I support the Kucinich amendment because it is the
make-sense amendment that is on the floor.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
(Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4 and in
support of the Kucinich amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Welfare Reform Bill
on the floor today, and in support of the Kucinich amendment.
First I object to the process, and will object every time the
Republican leadership brings a bill to the floor without committee
hearings, mark-ups and outside of the regular order. This is an affront
not just to those of us who serve on this side of the aisle, it is a
denial of the rights of those who sent us here to represent their
interests, and it is a repudiation of the Democratic process. The
process does a disservice to all of us.
Second, I oppose it because of what it contains. I would imagine that
is why it is being forced to the floor in this manner. It could not be
brought into the daylight.
This bill forces persons out of a system that helps them to care for
themselves and their families, into an economy that has no jobs to go
to, and without the benefit of childcare or other supportive services.
Not only would this force women and children further into poverty and
all the ills that it brings, it would further tax the states who are
already feeling the pressure of Medicaid and other cuts. Why is this
body waging a war against poor folks. Where is the compassion in the
conservatism.
Why does this bill increase the work requirement. Why does it not
allow education and training to count towards this requirement. Why are
we not providing for the care of the children of the mothers who are in
training or at work. Why does this bill not provide equity for the
Americans living in the Territories.
Mr. Chairman, although the U.S. territories, Guam, Puerto Rico and my
district, the U.S. Virgin Islands are required to meet all of the TANF
requirements, they do not have access to all the tools that other
jurisdictions have to successfully move people from welfare to work.
The territories are island jurisdictions where the ability to move
from one jurisdiction to another in search of work is prohibitive and
as a consequence, in the Virgin Islands, while our welfare rolls have
been lowered, our failure to meet the work participation rates have
resulted in fines. And this in the face of the fact that we don't
receive Supplemental Grant funds even though our average dollars per
person is extremely low and we don't receive Contingency Funds even
though we have experienced economic downturns and high unemployment.
This is why Ms. Madeleine Bordallo of Guam and I have joined Mr.
Avevedo-Vila Acevedo of Puerto Rico in supporting the Democratic
Substitute which makes our territories eligible for the Supplemental,
Contingency and Child Care Block Grant programs. This funding is
available to the states and gives them more resources to move people
from welfare to work.
Again where is the compassion.
The base bill, H.R. 4 is a terrible bill, it hurts those in need and
it offers no help. This body should not pass it.
Mr. Chairman and colleagues, people who have needed the help Welfare/
TANF offers want to work and they need our help. Mr. Chairman, in honor
of the memory of Congresswoman Patsy Mink, and of her years of
distinguished service to this body and to mankind, and to really reform
Welfare so that it helps to raise people out of poverty, we need to
pass the substitute named in her honor.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 20 seconds to my colleague, the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Patsy
Mink Memorial TANF Reauthorization on the basis that the opportunity
for welfare recipients did increase in the 1990s when the Clinton
administration created an economic boom. We are now in a deficit with
an economy that is in shambles, and the divide between the rich and
poor is getting larger.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4 is the wrong way to go, the misdirected way to
go. I support this legislation because we believe in lifting all boats
of poor people around the Nation.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 20 seconds to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Watson), who is an expert in TANF reauthorization,
former Chair of the Health and Human Services Committee in California.
(Ms. WATSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I support this bill because it would
maintain current work requirements and increase the block grant by
inflation so
[[Page H529]]
its value can be retained; and it would allow States to address
barriers to work, such as domestic violence, substance abuse, and
mental illness. We must improve on a program that has already shown
success. This particular substitute would do just that.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Kucinich-
Lee substitute to H.R. 4. This substitute is almost identical to the
TANF Reauthorization Act introduced by the late Congresswoman Patsy
Mink last year. I want to thank Representatives Kucinich and Lee for
re-introducing her bill as a substitute amendment so we can all honor
and recognize the hard work Patsy Mink has done on behalf of our
nation's poor.
The Kucinich-Lee substitute would maintain current work requirements,
it would increase the block grant by inflation so its value could be
retained. These are resources essential for the states to really
address the core issues of poverty and help lift families from
dependency to self-sufficiency.
Specifically, the Kucinich-Lee substitute would allow states to
address barriers to work, such as domestic violence, substance abuse
and mental illness. States would have the resources to train
caseworkers so they can properly screen recipients. Recipients with
limited education can pursue an opportunity to earn a degree or receive
vocational training. These are the tools for self-sufficiency that
would last them a life time!
Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Kucinich-
Lee substitute and honor the contribution of our dearly missed former
colleague Patsy T. Mink.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, as we said before, the 1996 act has been a huge success
in helping 9 million American families move from welfare to work,
lifting their spirits, allowing them to participate in the mainstream
of American life.
The proposal that is before us, the substitute offered by our
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, would literally take us back
to the pre-1996 welfare reform bill that trapped people in dependency
and never really allowed them the opportunity to be all they could be.
We have the lowest African American child poverty rate in history as
a result of the 1996 changes. We believe that we will make more
advances in giving States more flexibility, more child care money,
stronger work requirements to help move more people from welfare to
work. Even though welfare rolls are down 60 percent from where they
were in 1996, the States are getting the same amount of money, so
Members can argue that they will be able to spend twice as much as they
have in helping those on the system. Let us not go back, let us move
ahead.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, we tell the poor to get a job; and as
jobs are drying up, we cut off their benefits. We call for the poor to
pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and then deny them boots.
Some of my colleagues think that God loves the poor, he made so many
of them. But we must make God's work truly our own. I urge Members to
vote for the Mink substitute.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority leader.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Boehner) for the hard work that he has performed, not just in bringing
this bill to the floor, but the work he has done over the last 6 years,
which has had meaningful impact on many Americans' lives. I also want
to congratulate the chairmen of the other committees which have
participated in this meaningful, historic legislation.
Mr. Chairman, welfare reform is a signal achievement for our House
Republican majority. It offers a striking contrast between the core
beliefs that inform our political party's appreciation for the proper
role of the Federal Government in helping people in need.
We believe that for people in need, it is the job of the Federal
Government to empower people mired in dependency to determine their own
destiny. Republicans understand that people who need a hand-up still
aspire to pursue their American dream.
But Democrats still do not trust people to make this vital transition
to independence themselves. They just do not get the downside to
dependency. They simply cannot or will not see the unintended negative
consequences flowing from programs that raise barriers to work. Instead
of requiring Americans to earn a paycheck and to discover the nobility
of work, the Democrat approach leaves them mired in perpetual
dependency with only the program to cling to.
Even now after all the reforms we put into place during 1996, and the
extraordinary successes that these reforms sparked, the vast majority
of welfare recipients still do not go to work every day, like the rest
of the country. That is really a sad, sad, sad statistic. And the
reason that is really a tragedy is because the people who have climbed
up out of welfare and stepped up into the workplace are leading fuller,
more satisfying lives. They are moving forward with lives of meaning.
Mr. Chairman, in this country we honor any type of work or vocation
which is taken seriously and done well. All work is honorable, and we
are doing all that we can to get this economy moving forward, so we
will create millions of new jobs to inspire the people who are leaving
welfare behind. These people are everyday heroes, and they are earning
our deepest respect. They are showing their own children a powerful
example of perseverance and hard work. They are unleashing their own
creativity and seizing control of their own lives to build bright and
favorable prospects for their children.
This awful substitute forgets every lesson we have learned over the
past 7 years. It would turn back the clock to a fundamentally flawed
approach that substitutes access to benefits for work. It is preaching
a lie. It is a one-size-fits-all, top-down, big-government, budget-
busting boondoggle that forgets every fundamental lesson learned over
the last 40 years. It places the institutional appetites of the welfare
bureaucracy and the political instincts of the left over the squelched
hopes and aspirations of dependent Americans.
It offers false comfort to the needy. It is a bountiful blessing to
aspiring bureaucrats.
Mr. Chairman, there is one indelible lesson that should guide all of
our actions on this subject.
{time} 1415
Democrats defend their approach with an erroneous syllogism and they
are trying to put it over on us with sophistry.
This is what they say: More money on welfare programs universally
translates to greater help for needy people. That just is not so, Mr.
Chairman.
This primitive, retrograde substitute amendment is a dangerous
summons to step back in time. Its approach is fundamentally and
inherently flawed. It did not work before. It will not work now. And,
for a host of obvious and compelling reasons, it will go down to defeat
this afternoon.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). The question is on the
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 124,
noes 300, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 27]
AYES--124
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dingell
Doyle
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Miller, George
Mollohan
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
[[Page H530]]
Payne
Pelosi
Rahall
Rangel
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanders
Schakowsky
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wynn
NOES--300
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cooper
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
English
Etheridge
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sandlin
Saxton
Schiff
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--10
Allen
Combest
Conyers
Crenshaw
Cubin
Ferguson
Gephardt
Mica
Sanchez, Loretta
Tiberi
Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (during the vote). The Chair advises Members
that 2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1436
Messrs. SHADEGG, MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida, GREENWOOD, FORD,
JANKLOW, DICKS, TOWNS, DEUTSCH, LANGEVIN, RUPPERSBERGER, Ms. McCARTHY
of Missouri, and Mrs. CAPITO changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia and Mr. TOWNS changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I accompanied President Bush to Florida to
meet with our military service personnel and business leaders in
Jacksonville, and could not vote on rollcall No. 27. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``no''.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). It is now in order to
consider amendment No. 2 printed in House Report Number 108-9.
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute No. 2 Offered by Mr. Cardin
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a
substitute that was made in order under the rule.
The CHAIRMAN 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 No. 2 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.
Sec. 108. Extension of TANF program through fiscal year 2003.
Sec. 109. Matching grants for the territories.
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. 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.
Sec. 311. Increase in funding for social services block grant.
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.
Sec. 408. Continuation of pre-welfare reform waivers.
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.
[[Page H531]]
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. Extension 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.
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 ``2004 through 2008''.
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, 2007, and 2008''; and
(3) in subparagraph (F), by striking ``$1,000,000,000'' and
inserting ``$800,000,000, and for fiscal years 2004 through
2008 $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 2004 through 2008, 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 ``2004 through 2008 $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 2004, if the State is an inadequately
poverty-funded State for fiscal year 2003; and
``(ii) for any of fiscal years 2005 through 2008, if the
State is an inadequately poverty-funded State for any prior
fiscal year after fiscal year 2003.
``(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 2004, 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
2005 through 2008, 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 2004;
``(II) $130,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
``(III) $195,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
``(IV) $260,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
``(V) $325,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.
``(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 ``2004 through 2008 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) (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.--
[[Page H532]]
``(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, 2003, and shall apply to
expenditures for fiscal years beginning with fiscal year
2004.
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 ``2004 through 2008''.
(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
``2004 through 2008''.
SEC. 108. EXTENSION OF TANF PROGRAM THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 2003.
Except as otherwise provided in this Act and the amendments
made by this Act, activities authorized by part A of title IV
of the Social Security Act, and by section 1108(b) of the
Social Security Act, shall continue through September 30,
2003, in the manner authorized, and at the level provided,
for fiscal year 2002.
SEC. 109. 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 ``2004 through
2008''.
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 2004, 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.
``(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
[[Page H533]]
``(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,
2003, 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 2004 through 2008
$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(b) (42 U.S.C. 607(b)), as
amended by section 503 of this Act, is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(5) Employment credit.--
``(A) In general.--The participation rate, determined under
paragraph (1), of a State for a fiscal year shall be
increased by the lesser of--
``(i) the number of percentage points (if any) of the
employment credit for the State for the fiscal year; or
``(ii) the number of percentage points (if any) by which
the participation rate, so determined, is less than 99
percent.
``(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 with
an adult that ceased to receive assistance under the State
program funded under this part during the preceding fiscal
year (but only if the adult did not receive such assistance
for at least 2 months after the cessation) and that was
employed during the calendar quarter immediately succeeding
the quarter in which the payments ceased; 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.
``(ii) Special rule for former recipients with higher
earnings.--In calculating the employment credit for a State
for a fiscal year, a family that, in the quarter in which the
wage was examined, earned at least 42 percent of the average
quarterly wage in the State (determined on the basis of State
unemployment data) shall be considered to be 1.5 families.
``(C) Regulations.--The Secretary may prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary to carry out this paragraph.
``(D) Reports on amount of credit.--Not later than 6 months
after the end of each calendar quarter, the Secretary shall
report to the Congress and each State the amount of the
employment credit for the State for the quarter. The
Secretary may carry out this subparagraph using funds made
available under this part for research.''.
(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(b)(5).''.
(3) Elimination of caseload reduction credit.--
(A) In general.--Section 407(b) (42 U.S.C. 607(b)) is
amended by striking paragraph (2) and redesignating
paragraphs (3) through (5) as paragraphs (2) through (4),
respectively.
(B) Conforming amendment.--Section 453(i)(5) (42 U.S.C.
653(i)(5)), as added by paragraph (2) of this subsection, is
amended by striking ``407(b)(5)'' and inserting
``407(b)(4)''.
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.''.
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. EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the
amendments made by sections 204 through 206 shall take effect
on October 1, 2004.
(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), 205, and 206 of this
Act not apply to the State program funded under part A of
title IV of the Social Security Act until October 1, 2005,
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
2005, the State shall be credited with \1/2\ of the reduction
in the rate that would otherwise result from applying section
407(b)(5) of the Social Security Act (as added by section
204(a)(1) of this Act) to the State
[[Page H534]]
for fiscal year 2005 and \1/2\ of the reduction in the rate
that would otherwise result from applying section 407(b)(2)
of such Act (as so redesignated by section 503(2)(D) of this
Act) to the State for fiscal year 2005.
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.--
(1) In general.--Section 418(a) (42 U.S.C. 618(a)) is
amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), in the matter preceding subparagraph
(A), by inserting ``and paragraph (6)'' after ``paragraph
(3)'';
(B) in paragraph (3)--
(i) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (E);
(ii) in subparagraph (F), by striking ``fiscal year 2002.''
and inserting ``each of fiscal years 2002 through 2006;
and''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(G) $3,217,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
``(H) $3,717,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.'';
(C) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
``(4) Amounts reserved for indian tribes.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall reserve 2 percent of
the aggregate amount appropriated under paragraphs (3) and
(5) for each fiscal year for payments to Indian tribes and
tribal organizations for each such fiscal year for the
purpose of providing child care assistance.
``(B) Use of funds; application of child care and
development block grant act of 1990.--Subsections (b) and (c)
shall apply to amounts received under this paragraph in the
same manner as such subsections apply to amounts received by
a State under this section.'';
(D) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (7); and
(E) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
``(5) Additional general entitlement grants.--
``(A) Appropriation.--In addition to amounts appropriated
under paragraph (3) for any fiscal year, there are
appropriated for additional grants under paragraph (1)--
``(i) $1,250,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
``(ii) $1,750,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; and
``(iii) $2,250,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006
through 2008.
``(B) Additional grant.--In addition to the grant paid to a
State under paragraph (1) for each of fiscal years 2003
through 2007, of the amount available for additional grants
under subparagraph (A) for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall
pay the State an amount equal to the same proportion of such
available amount as the proportion of the State's grant under
paragraph (1) bears to the amount appropriated under
paragraph (3) for the fiscal year.
``(6) Requirement for grant increase.--Notwithstanding
paragraphs (1), (2), and (5), the aggregate of the amounts
paid to a State under this section for each of fiscal years
2003 through 2008 may not exceed the aggregate of the amounts
paid to the State under this section for fiscal year 2002,
unless the State ensures that the level of State expenditures
for child care for the fiscal year is not less than the level
of State expenditures for child care that were matched under
a grant made to the State under paragraph (2); and that the
State expended to meet its maintenance of effort obligation
under paragraph (2) for fiscal year 2002.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 1108(a)(2) (42 U.S.C.
1308(a)(2)) is amended by striking ``or 413(f)'' and
inserting ``413(f), or 418(a)(4)(B)''.
(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 2004 and such sums as may be
necessary for fiscal years 2005 through 2008.
``(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 2004 through 2008 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 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
[[Page H535]]
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;
(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
[[Page H536]]
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 ``2004 through 2008'';
(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, 2005'';
(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 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
[[Page H537]]
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 2004 through 2008.
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 2004;
``(B) 55 percent for fiscal year 2005;
``(C) 60 percent for fiscal year 2006;
``(D) 65 percent for fiscal year 2007; and
``(E) 70 percent for fiscal year 2008 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 (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
[[Page H538]]
``(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) (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 section 1931 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) 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)''.
(h) Effective Dates.--(1) Except as provided in this
subsection, the amendments made by this section shall apply
to calendar quarters beginning on or after the date of the
enactment of this Act, without regard to whether or not final
regulations to carry out such amendments have been
promulgated by such date.
(2) 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).''.
SEC. 311. INCREASE IN FUNDING FOR SOCIAL SERVICES BLOCK
GRANT.
Section 2003(c) (42 U.S.C. 1397b(c)) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(12) $2,800,000,000 for the fiscal year 2004 and each
fiscal year thereafter.''.
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 2004, 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).''.
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.
[[Page H539]]
``(D) Appropriation.--Out of any money in the Treasury of
the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are
appropriated for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008
$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''.
SEC. 408. CONTINUATION OF PRE-WELFARE REFORM WAIVERS.
Section 415 (42 U.S.C. 615) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(c) Continuation of Waivers Approved or Submitted Before
Date of Enactment of Welfare Reform.--Notwithstanding
subsection (a), with respect to any State that is operating
under a waiver described in subsection (a) which would
otherwise expire on a date that occurs in the period that
begins on September 30, 2002, and ends on September 30, 2008,
the State may elect to continue to operate under the waiver,
on the same terms and conditions as applied to the waiver on
the day before such date, through September 30, 2008.''.
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 2004 through 2008
$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).
``(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)
[[Page H540]]
(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, 2003, 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, 2007, 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 paragraph (2);
(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 (3), (4), and (5) as
paragraphs (2), (3), and (4), 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 ``2008''.
(b) Purpose of Allotments.--For each of the fiscal years
2004 through 2008, 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 2004 through 2008, 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 2004 through 2008, 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 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 2004 through
2008.
[[Page H541]]
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, 2003.
(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, 2003, 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, 2003, and apply to benefits
furnished on or after such date.
TITLE VII--ENSURING STATE ACCOUNTABILITY
SEC. 701. EXTENSION OF MAINTENANCE-OF-EFFORT REQUIREMENT.
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, 2008, or 2009''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B)(ii)--
(A) by inserting ``preceding'' before ``fiscal year''; and
(B) by striking ``for fiscal years 1997 through 2002,''.
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 ``2008''.
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 2004 and individuals who
leave the program during fiscal year 2006, 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.
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;
[[Page H542]]
``(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 2005 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 ``2004 through 2008''.
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, 2003, 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 CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 69, the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and a Member opposed each will
control 20 minutes.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the substitute and
I yield 10 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) for
purposes of control.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentlewoman from
Washington (Ms. Dunn) will control 10 minutes, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Herger) 10 minutes, and the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Cardin) 20 minutes.
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) for joining me in offering
this substitute. I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller), and many other members of the
Democratic Caucus who helped us in bringing forward this substitute.
As I said during general debate, the underlying bill before us is the
wrong bill at the wrong time in order to help people that are currently
in the welfare system. It is time to take welfare to the next step.
Yes, we have been successful in removing individuals from the cash
assistance rolls, but we have not been as successful as getting
American families and children out of poverty. It is time to take
welfare reform to the next step and to help American families escape
not only cash assistance in welfare but poverty. There are significant
differences between the underlying bill and the substitute. The
substitute maintains State flexibility. It allows the States to provide
education and training for the people that are on welfare.
Mr. Chairman, we have made a commitment in this Congress to
education, leave no child behind. We say it is important for everyone
except for someone who is on welfare. That is wrong. Our bill maintains
and expands the flexibility to the State in education and training.
Under the majority bill, if a State has a person working 20 hours a
week in a traditional job and receiving 20 hours of job training, that
person does not qualify for TANF assistance. That is wrong. The States
should have the flexibility to tailor the program. Our bill, our
substitute, allows that to continue. If a State chooses to cover legal
immigrants, the State should have that option. There should be State
flexibility. The underlying bill does not permit it; the substitute
permits it.
The underlying bill provides for an unfunded mandate on our States,
according to the Congressional Budget Office, $11 billion of extra
expenditure by our States, and we only provide $1 billion of extra
assistance. Under the bill before us, we provide $11 billion of
additional child support to our States so they have the dollars
necessary in order to carry out this very important program.
Mr. Chairman, a lot has changed since last year. Our States are
struggling with large deficits. We should act as a partner with our
States. We should not dictate to our States how they must configure
their work requirements. We should trust the States as we did in 1996,
allow them to provide the programs necessary to get people off of
welfare, to get people in employment.
{time} 1445
Our bill provides for a meaningful work requirement for real jobs so
that American families can succeed in our economic system.
[[Page H543]]
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues, who have been bragging about the
success of the 1996 law, to build upon it. Do not destroy it. Listen to
what our governors are saying when they tell you, without this
substitute, we are moving backwards with unfunded mandates on the
States. We have a chance to correct it.
I urge Members to support the substitute.
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, when you pass major reform of a part of government as
huge, as magnificent as welfare, you need to make sure that nobody
falls through the cracks. That is the reason we are looking at this
bill once again, 6 years after our accomplishment of welfare reform. It
gives us a chance to review all the areas of the legislation and to
make mid-course corrections where we need to.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Cardin substitute and in
strong support of H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility, Work and Family
Promotion Act. This is critical legislation which builds on the great
successes of the 1996 law to move people out of poverty into self-
sufficiency. I want to thank my colleagues who worked very hard to
bring this very important legislation to the floor once again today.
In 1996, we made historic changes to the welfare program. We
transformed the welfare system from a permanent entitlement program
that tolerated an average of 13 years on government dependence to a
temporary assistance program that provided people the incentives to
start working again, provided them the opportunities to gain the
necessary skills to retain a job and provided them the great feeling of
worth that comes from becoming self-sufficient.
We have an opportunity today to build upon our successes while
improving this program to further assist individuals and families move
out of poverty.
A terribly important element of encouraging welfare recipients to
work is providing access to child care services. As a single parent who
raised two children, I understand that quality child care is not an
option, but a necessity, especially for many working mothers. Nothing
is more important than the well-being of our children.
Mr. Chairman, I am very happy that this legislation gives working
women greater access to child care services. As more parents,
especially single mothers, enter the workforce, we must ensure they can
access child care services to fit their needs.
For these reasons, our bill provides an additional $2 billion for
child care, despite the fact that the welfare rolls have declined by 60
percent and despite the fact that the welfare reform bill has more than
tripled spending on child care over the last 6 years, because we need
to help in the area of infant care, of evening and weekend care and
care for disabled children.
Our bill also gives States much greater flexibility to transfer more
TANF funds toward child care services. This means an additional $3
billion over our additional $2 billion will be available for child
care. The additional funding, along with the new flexibility options,
will help States to offer more child care services for parents and for
single mothers on the path toward a better future.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka), a distinguished member of the
Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, our Nation's economy has hit an
extraordinary low. Since January 2001, 1.7 million jobs have been lost
and unemployment stands at the highest rate in 8 years. Estimates show
that 8.6 million Americans are actively searching for work, but unable
to find it.
In my State of Wisconsin, we are experiencing a 5.4 percent
unemployment rate. Over 42,000 people from the area I represent are out
of work. In times like this, our Nation's social safety net must be
extended, not retracted. Welfare rolls may have dropped, but poverty
and hardship have not.
The success in the welfare reform bill that my Republican colleagues
point to is an illusion. Our economic landscape is much different than
it was during the welfare debate of the late 1990s. Then jobs were
plentiful; today, they are not.
Now welfare reform will be put to the test. Instead of providing poor
individuals with appropriate skills, training and education, the
Republican welfare reform bill goes in a complete opposite direction.
H.R. 4 significantly reduces the ability of States to get individuals
into innovative training and education programs. Under the bill,
welfare recipients must work 40 hours per week. The first 24 must
involve so-called direct work activities. Vocational training would be
removed from the list of core activities counting for the 24-hour
requirement. This eliminates the capability for individuals to spend
the necessary time developing skills through education. Instead, they
are forced to find jobs, if they are available, such as in fast food
restaurants, dry cleaners and custodial work. This type of work offers
no chance for advancement, no benefits and no decent wage to support a
family.
Evidence shows that an overwhelming obstacle to work for parents is
lack of affordable child care. The Republican welfare bill grossly
underestimates funds for needed child care services. If a parent must
expand the work hours, as is mandated under this legislation, the least
we can do is give them access to child care.
In comparison, the Democratic substitute addresses the reality
welfare families face in time of a recession. Our bill would allow
welfare recipients to get vocational and education training as part of
their work requirement. This includes obtaining a GED or taking English
as a second language in classes. The Democratic substitute also commits
an additional $11 billion for child care over the next 5 years.
Providing child care is the only way that parents will be able to get
work.
Mr. Chairman, what we need today is a meaningful reform bill that
will create the incentive to work and not the approach advocated by my
Republican colleagues.
I urge Members to support the Cardin substitute.
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), who, even though a junior Member, has been
very active in our work to provide additional child care money.
Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4, and bring to everyone's
attention the importance of what we are doing: We are reauthorizing
something that has worked, a government program that works.
Welfare reform has raised over 3 million children out of poverty.
Those that claim that is not true cannot support their claim with
evidence. We know what has happened in the years that welfare reform
has existed. We know that many people are now working, mothers,
fathers, supporting their children and moving up out of poverty.
We have listened to the States, we have listened to those who have
received welfare benefits in the past, those who are moving off the
rolls; and they tell us some things need to change. Those things are
adjusted in H.R. 4. One of the most important is that there is more
opportunity for men and women who are single parents to get child care
for their children while they work, while they go to school, while they
reach higher and attain the points they want to: the American dream, a
better job, a home, a better example for their children.
Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 4 because it supports the American
dream.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to yield 3\1/2\ 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. Chairman, first of all, I want to commend my
colleagues, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) as well as the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), for working to put together
what I think is an admirable and quality substitute measure.
For whatever reason, the majority party here today has a bill before
us deciding to bypass the democratic process here in the House,
bypassing the committee work, not giving an opportunity to 54 new
Members of the House of Representatives to deal with
[[Page H544]]
one of the most important pieces of legislation in the 108th Congress.
This bad process has resulted in bad policy.
Let me put this in context: The legislation before us today is the
single most important piece of legislation dealing with antipoverty
programs that this session of Congress will address and that Congress
has the opportunity to address for many years to come. But instead of
working together to produce a meaningful bill that can empower people
with real work opportunities and with empowering tools such as
education and job training, they produced a bill which, I am afraid, is
doomed to failure.
The key to implementation of this bill is getting the States to do it
well. We did a survey of the States, and they came back and said they
need basically two ingredients: Give us the flexibility, give us the
tools, and we will finish the job. But instead of receiving the
flexibility, they get a straitjacket. Instead of receiving the tools,
they get a $12 billion unfunded mandate in H.R. 4, making it impossible
for them to deal with changed economic circumstances, as well as the
flexibility to empower people to become true, meaningful participants
in our society.
Instead of rewarding States to get meaningful employment for
recipients on TANF, they are still going to receive credit for merely
reducing their caseload. That has worked over the last few years, but
many of those no longer on the caseload, we have lost. We have no idea
where they went or how well they're doing.
If anyone thinks this has a chance of succeeding by underfunding the
required child care program, they do not understand that the parent or
parents are not going to enter the workforce unless they know their
children are taken care of.
This is an experiment being offered today, Mr. Chairman, but I am
afraid it is doomed to failure. I do not know how a Member of the
Wisconsin delegation, which was a pioneer in welfare reform, can
support this bill that limits the flexibility of our State and State
agencies, and then also provides a $89 million unfunded mandate to our
State when we have serious budget difficulties already.
Furthermore, the Republican bill strips vocational education as
wanting--the work requirements; our substitute allows it because it is
the backbone to economic development programs throughout Wisconsin and
the rest of the Nation. We can't have meaningful welfare reform without
vocational education playing an important role.
We have an opportunity to still get this right, to deal with the
flexibility issue, to deal with the funding issue, to allow recipients
in TANF to get the type of skills and work qualifications that they
need to gain meaningful employment and to stay off the welfare rolls
forever. But, instead, we are falling back on an outdated program that
may have worked during the boom of the 1990s in reducing caseloads, but
I am afraid it is doomed to failure with the bad economic performance
today.
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from West
Virginia (Mrs. Capito), who has been very effective in securing $2
billion additional for child care.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I stand before you today to offer and lend
my support to H.R. 4, and most specifically because of the essential $2
billion in additional funds for child care.
As a representative of an economically distressed State, thousands of
women and men in my district are reliant upon government-assisted child
care so they can be on their road to self-sufficiency. Over 25 percent
of the children in the State of West Virginia are reliant on
government-supported child care. This increase in funding will ensure
that these families will benefit, grow and prosper and go on to new and
better lives.
People are in genuine need of quality, safe and affordable child care
for their children. H.R. 4 will not only continue to guarantee this,
but will also, with the increased $2 billion in child care, open the
program up to more and larger families.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to stand up and support the
increased funding for child care. It is desperately needed by parents
and children alike.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey), who has been one of the key architects of the
Democratic substitute.
I really congratulate her for her work on this.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time
and for his good work.
The Cardin-Woolsey-Kind substitute makes poverty reduction a core
purpose of welfare reform. It offers bonuses to States that reduce
child poverty.
The Democratic substitute gives low-income parents access to real
education, such as an AA degree, vocational training, literacy classes,
English as a second language or GED studies. Our substitute gives
families the support and services they need while they are working and
learning, like an additional $11 billion in mandatory funding for child
care over 5 years.
{time} 1500
We know that States are struggling right now to meet the demand for
child care. Twenty States currently have waiting lists for child care;
and in my State of California, only 19 percent of the children and
families on welfare received any type of child care assistance. This is
before the Republican challenge to send welfare moms to work for 40
hours a week. There is no way that their small increase in H.R. 4 for
child care funding will be able to meet this expanded need.
Nobody knows more than I do how important child care is when you are
struggling and working. I was a mother on welfare 35 years ago. I had
college education, I had great job skills, I was in the workforce, and
I needed AFDC in order to get the health care, the child care, and the
food stamps that I needed. But it was not until my mother moved from
Seattle, Washington, to California that I was able to grow in my job
and, within 6 months, I was promoted to management because I could
think about my job while I was at work and I did not have to worry
about my children.
So my story is a good story, and let that be something my colleagues
hold in their minds. My colleagues have never been there. I have.
Welfare moms can only succeed if they get the education and the
skills they need for a job that will support their family through good
economies and bad economies. The Woolsey-Kind-Cardin substitute will
break the cycle of poverty, and it will strengthen families. It is
welfare reform that meets the needs of this current economy, an economy
where jobs are scarce, where child care is scarce, and where an
education counts greater than ever before. Vote for our substitute and
against H.R. 4.
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, what the gentlewoman from California may not
know is that if she opposes H.R. 4, she will be voting against $477
million additional dollars for child care in the State of California.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico
(Mrs. Wilson), very much an advocate of child care from her background
and experience.
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from
Washington for yielding me this time. To my colleague from California I
would say that what we have in common on both sides of the aisle today
is that we are all moms. We all worry about child care for our kids,
whether it is the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), who raised
her two boys on her own, or the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs.
Capito) and her daughter and son, or my two little bugs at home. We all
care about the quality of child care where our kids are concerned.
I used to operate the child care system in New Mexico as the cabinet
Secretary for Children, and one of the things that was clear to me
under welfare reform is that we needed adequate support for child care,
for women to be able to go back to work. That means increasing the
payment rates for child care. It means having child care available at
odd hours and on weekends so people can do shift work. We needed to
increase funds. And we have, by $2 billion, in this bill, while the
number of families depending on welfare and on child care is going
down. That is a good thing.
Poverty has gone down in America because moms have been able to get
[[Page H545]]
jobs and go back to work. Now we have to focus on improving the quality
of that child care, because what we are talking about is early
education for the youngest American citizens, and a lot of it takes
place outside of Head Start, which is the Cadillac of early childhood
education in this country.
So I support this bill and I oppose the substitute, and I want to
commend the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), the gentlewoman
from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the gentlewoman from Connecticut
(Mrs. Johnson), and the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) for
their work over the last 2 years to focus on this problem of child care
and really get something done about it.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), one of the architects of the
provisions in this bill, particularly as it relates to real work
requirements.
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, the American dream is not to live in
poverty; the American dream is working, and working out of poverty.
There is a basic fact: huge numbers of women who have moved from
welfare to work remain in poverty. And this bill restricts the
flexibility of the States to tailor plans to help people move up the
ladder, whether by education or by other means.
The pivot of the rationale of the Republicans, that 58 percent of
welfare recipients are not working, those figures are indeed more than
questionable. The National Governors Association disagrees with it. And
I urge everybody to go back to their States and look at the figures,
the data behind those who are on welfare, how many have kids with
disabilities, how many have other problems, so we see what the reality
is.
Quickly, child care. I do not know how you on the majority side stand
up and say you are for adequate child care when it is only $2 billion;
CBO says it is billions inadequate. If we take into account inflation,
it is $5 billion to $6 billion inadequate. How do you say that? Mr.
Chairman, $1 billion is so inadequate that only it is mandatory and $1
billion is discretionary, if appropriated. It is a smoke screen.
And then this figure of $16,000 TANF per family. That is not only
fuzzy math, that is phony math, because it includes all the child care
for all working families, allocated or ascribed to people who are on
TANF. And also another thing it does, it takes all of the programs of
TANF that are not cash assistance and forgets about that as part of the
TANF program.
The Cardin, et al bill is a bill to help people move to work out of
poverty. That is where America wants to go and where this House should
be going. Support the Cardin bill.
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Brown-Waite), a new Member of the United States Congress,
to talk about the child care provisions in H.R. 4.
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of
H.R. 4 and against the substitute.
When I was a Florida senator, we passed welfare reform before the
Federal Government did. We certainly adopted the Federal Government's
further welfare reform; and what we found was families became families,
not welfare families; that women finally had some self-confidence, and
self-confidence enough not only to get a job, but to take advantage of
their employers' education programs, and they took advantage of their
employers' education programs. I happen to know firsthand because I
teach college, and many of the young women that I had in college, young
and middle-aged women that I had in college had been previous welfare
recipients. They were grateful. They were very grateful that we had a
situation in America where they could break that cycle. Because guess
what? Their mother and their grandmother also in many instances were on
welfare.
The bill that we have before us allocates more funding for child care
and health care for welfare families ensuring that welfare families are
cared for, and that those on welfare have access to health care while
trying to secure work. We all know that for many years people stayed on
welfare, particularly single women, stayed on welfare because of the
health care benefits. We are extending them.
I think it is very important to remember that the House and Senate
committees with jurisdiction on this issue held more than 20 hearings
reviewing this legislation during the 107th Congress and heard
testimony from more than 60 witnesses. It has been adequately reviewed,
and it enjoys the support of so many Members of this body but, more
importantly, people back home, including those people who had
previously been welfare recipients.
I would ask my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 4 to bring
the real kind of assistance to people on welfare that they actually
need. The substitute would only set welfare reform back.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat confused. I have listened to the debate
from the other side and I think they are supporting my substitute, but
then at the end they say they are not. They all say they are for child
care support, and yet we know in California alone this bill will cost
$2.8 billion, more than all of the money that has been provided in this
bill, which is only $1 billion of mandatory funding. So if you are for
child care support for the welfare recipients, I assume my colleagues
will be supporting the substitute. It is the only opportunity we are
going to have to provide the additional monies.
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to reiterate some things that we have heard talked about when
we refer to child care. This year, an additional $2 billion will be
provided for child care over and above what has been spent in the last
6 years in the welfare reform bill. The fact is that the dollars spent
for child care over that period of time have tripled.
In addition, we want to help the States with their flexibility. If
they wish, they can shift up to 50 percent of their TANF funds, $5.5
billion of which remain in State coffers right now, to child care. Why
do we do this, Mr. Chairman? We do it because we think that the 1996
welfare reform bill has been tremendously successful. Caseloads are
down by 60 percent. Nearly 3 million children have been lifted out of
poverty. More people are now on the path to independence. Employment of
single mothers has risen by 70 percent, but we know much more needs to
be done to bridge the gap between a paycheck and a government handout.
We think that if we increase the funding for child care, this will
help. It will help a lot.
So I maintain, Mr. Chairman, that we must defeat this other bill, and
we need to support H.R. 4. It is our proposal. It has worked in the
past. It will increase effectiveness in the future.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Nevada (Mr. Porter) for the sake of a colloquy.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask my distinguished colleague
from California to engage in a colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for bringing this
important bill to the floor. I represent a State that has grown more
than 75 percent since the 1990 census. As with many States, after the
9-11 catastrophe, Nevada saw an increase in the need for temporary
assistance for needy families. Without the existing supplemental TANF
program, Nevada and other growing States would not be able to meet
their commitments.
I want to thank the gentleman for reauthorizing the supplemental
grants and the contingency funds, and I would ask the chairman for his
favorable consideration in the future for measures to prevent State
population growth from outstripping available resources for needy
families.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I appreciate
the gentleman's comments. I agree it is important to continue to
provide States with the resources and flexibility necessary for them to
address the needs of the residents. The 1996 welfare reform law
included specific provisions designed to address the concerns for
growing States such as Nevada. Those provisions are retained and
extended in this bill. As we move forward, we will continue to take
every
[[Page H546]]
step to see that this legislation includes adequate resources for the
States to serve low-income families and children, including in States
with growing populations.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of our Democratic
alternative. Unfortunately, the bill that has been offered by the other
side of the aisle is a bill that is not really designed to get rid of
poverty, and that is what we are trying to do. Our bill would move
welfare recipients into real jobs and out of poverty; but more than
that, we would allow for State flexibility to tailor services to help
welfare recipients move into employment.
I am very concerned about having State flexibility because we are in
a time of high unemployment and it does not seem to be getting any
better. Those people who have been on for 5 years and they have to come
off, we are dumping them out into an economy where we do not have jobs
for them; but if the States have the flexibility to tailor the programs
based on meeting the needs of the recipients, then I think it is fair.
It is fair that not only do we have that flexibility, but we continue
to have child care, child care support, and we continue to have
fairness for our immigrant families.