Congressional Record, Volume 162 Issue 99 (Tuesday, June 21, 2016)

[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 99 (Tuesday, June 21, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H4012-H4021]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

SOCIAL IMPACT PARTNERSHIPS TO PAY FOR RESULTS ACT

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (H.R. 5170) to encourage and support partnerships between
the public and private sectors to improve our Nation's social programs,
and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 5170

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 ``Social Impact Partnerships
to Pay for Results Act''.

SEC. 2. SOCIAL IMPACT PARTNERSHIPS TO PAY FOR RESULTS ACT.

Section 403 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 603) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Social Impact Demonstration Projects.--
``(1) Purposes.--The purposes of this subsection are the
following:
``(A) To improve the lives of families and individuals in
need in the United States by funding social programs that
achieve real results.
``(B) To redirect funds away from programs that, based on
objective data, are ineffective, and into programs that
achieve demonstrable, measurable results.
``(C) To ensure Federal funds are used effectively on
social services to produce positive outcomes for both service
recipients and taxpayers.
``(D) To establish the use of social impact partnerships to
address some of our Nation's most pressing problems.
``(E) To facilitate the creation of public-private
partnerships that bundle philanthropic or other private
resources with existing public spending to scale up effective
social interventions already being implemented by private
organizations, nonprofits, charitable organizations, and
State and local governments across the country.
``(F) To bring pay-for-performance to the social sector,
allowing the United States to improve the impact and
effectiveness of vital social services programs while
redirecting inefficient or duplicative spending.
``(G) To incorporate outcomes measurement and randomized
controlled trials or other rigorous methodologies for
assessing program impact.
``(2) Social impact partnership application.--
``(A) Notice.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this subsection, the Secretary of the Treasury,
in consultation with the Federal Interagency Council on
Social Impact Partnerships, shall publish in the Federal
Register a request for proposals from States or local
government for social impact partnership projects in
accordance with this paragraph.
``(B) Required outcomes for social impact partnership
project.--To qualify as a social impact partnership project
under this subsection, a project must produce 1 or more
measurable, clearly defined outcomes that result in social
benefit and Federal savings through any of the following:
``(i) Increasing work and earnings by individuals who have
been unemployed in the United States for more than 6
consecutive months.
``(ii) Increasing employment and earnings of individuals
who have attained 16 years of age but not 25 years of age.
``(iii) Increasing employment among individuals receiving
Federal disability benefits.
``(iv) Reducing the dependence of low-income families on
Federal means-tested benefits.
``(v) Improving rates of high school graduation.
``(vi) Reducing teen and unplanned pregnancies.
``(vii) Improving birth outcomes and early childhood health
and development among low-income families and individuals.
``(viii) Reducing rates of asthma, diabetes, or other
preventable diseases among low-income families and
individuals to reduce the utilization of emergency and other
high-cost care.
``(ix) Increasing the proportion of children living in 2-
parent families.
``(x) Reducing incidences and adverse consequences of child
abuse and neglect.
``(xi) Reducing the number of youth in foster care by
increasing adoptions, permanent guardianship arrangements,
reunification, or placement with a fit and willing relative,
or by avoiding placing children in foster care by ensuring
they can be cared for safely in their own homes.
``(xii) Reducing the number of children and youth in foster
care residing in group homes, child care institutions,
agency-operated foster homes, or other non-family foster
homes, unless it is determined that it is in the interest of
the child's long-term health, safety, or psychological well-
being to not be placed in a family foster home.
``(xiii) Reducing the number of children returning to
foster care.
``(xiv) Reducing recidivism among juveniles, individuals
released from prison, or other high-risk populations.
``(xv) Reducing the rate of homelessness among our most
vulnerable populations.
``(xvi) Improving the health and well-being of those with
mental, emotional, and behavioral health needs.
``(xvii) Improving the educational outcomes of special-
needs or low-income children.
``(xviii) Improving the employment and well-being of
returning United States military members.
``(xix) Increasing the financial stability of low-income
families.
``(xx) Increasing the independence and employability of
individuals who are physically or mentally disabled.
``(xxi) Other measurable outcomes defined by the State or
local government that result in positive social outcomes and
Federal savings.
``(C) Application required.--The notice described in
subparagraph (A) shall require a State or local government to
submit an application for the social impact partnership
project that addresses the following:
``(i) The outcome goals of the project.
``(ii) A description of each intervention in the project
and anticipated outcomes of the intervention.
``(iii) Rigorous evidence demonstrating that the
intervention can be expected to produce the desired outcomes.
``(iv) The target population that will be served by the
project.
``(v) The expected social benefits to participants who
receive the intervention and others who may be impacted.
``(vi) Projected Federal, State, and local government costs
and other costs to conduct the project.
``(vii) Projected Federal, State, and local government
savings and other savings, including an estimate of the
savings to the Federal Government, on a program-by-program
basis and in the aggregate, if the project is implemented and
the outcomes are achieved.
``(viii) If savings resulting from the successful
completion of the project are estimated to accrue to the
State or local government, the likelihood of the State or
local government to realize those savings.
``(ix) A plan for delivering the intervention through a
social impact partnership model.
``(x) A description of the expertise of each service
provider that will administer the intervention, including a
summary of the experience of the service provider in
delivering the proposed intervention or a similar
intervention, or demonstrating that the service provider has
the expertise necessary to deliver the proposed intervention.
``(xi) An explanation of the experience of the State or
local government, the intermediary, or the service provider
in raising private and philanthropic capital to fund social
service investments.
``(xii) The detailed roles and responsibilities of each
entity involved in the project, including any State or local
government entity, intermediary, service provider,
independent evaluator, investor, or other stakeholder.
``(xiii) A summary of the experience of the service
provider delivering the proposed intervention or a similar
intervention, or a summary demonstrating the service provider
has the expertise necessary to deliver the proposed
intervention.
``(xiv) A summary of the unmet need in the area where the
intervention will be delivered or among the target population
who will receive the intervention.
``(xv) The proposed payment terms, the methodology used to
calculate outcome payments, the payment schedule, and
performance thresholds.
``(xvi) The project budget.
``(xvii) The project timeline.
``(xviii) The criteria used to determine the eligibility of
an individual for the project, including how selected
populations will be identified, how they will be referred to
the project, and how they will be enrolled in the project.
``(xix) The evaluation design.
``(xx) The metrics that will be used to determine whether
the outcomes have been achieved and how the metrics will be
measured.
``(xxi) An explanation of how the metrics used to determine
whether the outcomes have been achieved are independent,
objective indicators of impact and are not subject to
manipulation by the service provider, intermediary, or
investor.
``(xxii) A summary explaining the independence of the
evaluator from the other entities involved in the project and
the evaluator's experience in conducting rigorous evaluations
of program effectiveness including, where available, well-
implemented randomized controlled trials on the intervention
or similar interventions.
``(xxiii) The capacity of the service provider to deliver
the intervention to the number of participants the State or
local government proposes to serve in the project.
``(D) Project intermediary information required.--The
application described in subparagraph (C) shall also contain
the following information about any intermediary for the
social impact partnership project (whether an intermediary is
a service provider or other entity):
``(i) Experience and capacity for providing or facilitating
the provision of the type of intervention proposed.
``(ii) The mission and goals.
``(iii) Information on whether the intermediary is already
working with service providers that provide this intervention
or an

[[Page H4013]]

explanation of the capacity of the intermediary to begin
working with service providers to provide the intervention.
``(iv) Experience working in a collaborative environment
across government and nongovernmental entities.
``(v) Previous experience collaborating with public or
private entities to implement evidence-based programs.
``(vi) Ability to raise or provide funding to cover
operating costs (if applicable to the project).
``(vii) Capacity and infrastructure to track outcomes and
measure results, including--

``(I) capacity to track and analyze program performance and
assess program impact; and
``(II) experience with performance-based awards or
performance-based contracting and achieving project
milestones and targets.

``(viii) Role in delivering the intervention.
``(ix) How the intermediary would monitor program success,
including a description of the interim benchmarks and outcome
measures.
``(E) Feasibility studies funded through other sources.--
The notice described in subparagraph (A) shall permit a State
or local government to submit an application for social
impact partnership funding that contains information from a
feasibility study developed for purposes other than applying
for funding under this subsection.
``(3) Awarding social impact partnership agreements.--
``(A) Timeline in awarding agreement.--Not later than 6
months after receiving an application in accordance with
paragraph (2), the Secretary, in consultation with the
Federal Interagency Council on Social Impact Partnerships,
shall determine whether to enter into an agreement for a
social impact partnership project with a State or local
government.
``(B) Considerations in awarding agreement.--In determining
whether to enter into an agreement for a social impact
partnership project (the application for which was submitted
under paragraph (2)) the Secretary, in consultation with the
Federal Interagency Council on Social Impact Partnerships
(established by paragraph (6)) and the head of any Federal
agency administering a similar intervention or serving a
population similar to that served by the project, shall
consider each of the following:
``(i) The recommendations made by the Commission on Social
Impact Partnerships.
``(ii) The value to the Federal Government of the outcomes
expected to be achieved if the outcomes specified in the
agreement are achieved.
``(iii) The likelihood, based on evidence provided in the
application and other evidence, that the State or local
government in collaboration with the intermediary and the
service providers will achieve the outcomes.
``(iv) The savings to the Federal Government if the
outcomes specified in the agreement are achieved.
``(v) The savings to the State and local governments if the
outcomes specified in the agreement are achieved.
``(vi) The expected quality of the evaluation that would be
conducted with respect to the agreement.
``(C) Agreement authority.--
``(i) Agreement requirements.--In accordance with this
paragraph, the Secretary, in consultation with the Federal
Interagency Council on Social Impact Partnerships and the
head of any Federal agency administering a similar
intervention or serving a population similar to that served
by the project, may enter into an agreement for a social
impact partnership project with a State or local government
if the Secretary, in consultation with the Federal
Interagency Council on Social Impact Partnerships, determines
that each of the following requirements are met:

``(I) The State or local government agrees to achieve 1 or
more outcomes specified in the agreement in order to receive
payment.
``(II) The Federal payment to the State or local government
for each outcome specified is less than or equal to the value
of the outcome to the Federal Government over a period not to
exceed 10 years, as determined by the Secretary, in
consultation with the State or local government.
``(III) The duration of the project does not exceed 10
years.
``(IV) The State or local government has demonstrated,
through the application submitted under paragraph (2), that,
based on prior rigorous experimental evaluations or rigorous
quasi-experimental studies, the intervention can be expected
to achieve each outcome specified in the agreement.
``(V) The State, local government, intermediary, or service
provider has experience raising private or philanthropic
capital to fund social service investments (if applicable to
the project).
``(VI) The State or local government has shown that each
service provider has experience delivering the intervention,
a similar intervention, or has otherwise demonstrated the
expertise necessary to deliver the intervention.

``(ii) Payment.--The Secretary shall pay the State or local
government only if the independent evaluator described in
paragraph (5) determines that the social impact partnership
project has met the requirements specified in the agreement
and achieved an outcome specified in the agreement.
``(D) Notice of agreement award.--Not later than 30 days
after entering into an agreement under this paragraph, the
Secretary shall publish a notice in the Federal Register that
includes, with regard to the agreement, the following:
``(i) The outcome goals of the social impact partnership
project.
``(ii) A description of each intervention in the project.
``(iii) The target population that will be served by the
project.
``(iv) The expected social benefits to participants who
receive the intervention and others who may be impacted.
``(v) The detailed roles, responsibilities, and purposes of
each Federal, State, or local government entity,
intermediary, service provider, independent evaluator,
investor, or other stakeholder.
``(vi) The payment terms, the methodology used to calculate
outcome payments, the payment schedule, and performance
thresholds.
``(vii) The project budget.
``(viii) The project timeline.
``(ix) The project eligibility criteria.
``(x) The evaluation design.
``(xi) The metrics that will be used to determine whether
the outcomes have been achieved and how these metrics will be
measured.
``(xii) The estimate of the savings to the Federal, State,
and local government, on a program-by-program basis and in
the aggregate, if the agreement is entered into and
implemented and the outcomes are achieved.
``(E) Authority to transfer administration of agreement.--
The Secretary may transfer to the head of another Federal
agency the authority to administer (including making payments
under) an agreement entered into under subparagraph (C), and
any funds necessary to do so.
``(F) Requirement on funding used to benefit children.--Not
less than 50 percent of all Federal payments made to carry
out agreements under this paragraph shall be used for
initiatives that directly benefit children.
``(4) Feasibility study funding.--
``(A) Requests for funding for feasibility studies.--The
Secretary shall reserve a portion of the amount reserved to
carry out this subsection to assist States or local
governments in developing feasibility studies to apply for
social impact partnership funding under paragraph (2). To be
eligible to receive funding to assist with completing a
feasibility study, a State or local government shall submit
an application for feasibility study funding addressing the
following:
``(i) A description of the outcome goals of the social
impact partnership project.
``(ii) A description of the intervention, including
anticipated program design, target population, an estimate
regarding the number of individuals to be served, and setting
for the intervention.
``(iii) Evidence to support the likelihood that the
intervention will produce the desired outcomes.
``(iv) A description of the potential metrics to be used.
``(v) The expected social benefits to participants who
receive the intervention and others who may be impacted.
``(vi) Estimated costs to conduct the project.
``(vii) Estimates of Federal, State, and local government
savings and other savings if the project is implemented and
the outcomes are achieved.
``(viii) An estimated timeline for implementation and
completion of the project, which shall not exceed 10 years.
``(ix) With respect to a project for which the State or
local government selects an intermediary to operate the
project, any partnerships needed to successfully execute the
project and the ability of the intermediary to foster the
partnerships.
``(x) The expected resources needed to complete the
feasibility study for the State or local government to apply
for social impact partnership funding under paragraph (2).
``(B) Federal selection of applications for feasibility
study.--Not later than 6 months after receiving an
application for feasibility study funding under subparagraph
(A), the Secretary, in consultation with the Federal
Interagency Council on Social Impact Partnerships and the
head of any Federal agency administering a similar
intervention or serving a population similar to that served
by the project, shall select State or local government
feasibility study proposals for funding based on the
following:
``(i) The recommendations made by the Commission on Social
Impact Partnerships.
``(ii) The likelihood that the proposal will achieve the
desired outcomes.
``(iii) The value of the outcomes expected to be achieved.
``(iv) The potential savings to the Federal Government if
the social impact partnership project is successful.
``(v) The potential savings to the State and local
governments if the project is successful.
``(C) Public disclosure.--Not later than 30 days after
selecting a State or local government for feasibility study
funding under this paragraph, the Secretary shall cause to be
published on the website of the Federal Interagency Council
on Social Impact Partnerships information explaining why a
State or local government was granted feasibility study
funding.
``(D) Funding restriction.--
``(i) Feasibility study restriction.--The Secretary may not
provide feasibility study funding under this paragraph for
more than 50 percent of the estimated total cost of the

[[Page H4014]]

feasibility study reported in the State or local government
application submitted under subparagraph (A).
``(ii) Aggregate restriction.--Of the total amount reserved
to carry out this subsection, the Secretary may not use more
than $10,000,000 to provide feasibility study funding to
States or local governments under this paragraph.
``(iii) No guarantee of funding.--The Secretary shall have
the option to award no funding under this paragraph.
``(E) Submission of feasibility study required.--Not later
than 9 months after the receipt of feasibility study funding
under this paragraph, a State or local government receiving
the funding shall complete the feasibility study and submit
the study to the Federal Interagency Council on Social Impact
Partnerships.
``(F) Delegation of authority.--The Secretary may transfer
to the head of another Federal agency the authorities
provided in this paragraph and any funds necessary to
exercise the authorities.
``(5) Evaluations.--
``(A) Authority to enter into agreements.--For each State
or local government awarded a social impact partnership
project approved by the Secretary under this subsection, the
head of the relevant agency, as determined by the Federal
Interagency Council on Social Impact Partnerships, shall
enter into an agreement with the State or local government to
pay for all or part of the independent evaluation to
determine whether the State or local government project has
met an outcome specified in the agreement in order for the
State or local government to receive outcome payments under
this subsection.
``(B) Evaluator qualifications.--The head of the relevant
agency may not enter into an agreement with a State or local
government unless the head determines that the evaluator is
independent of the other parties to the agreement and has
demonstrated substantial experience in conducting rigorous
evaluations of program effectiveness including, where
available and appropriate, well-implemented randomized
controlled trials on the intervention or similar
interventions.
``(C) Methodologies to be used.--The evaluation used to
determine whether a State or local government will receive
outcome payments under this subsection shall use experimental
designs using random assignment or other reliable, evidence-
based research methodologies, as certified by the Federal
Interagency Council on Social Impact Partnerships, that allow
for the strongest possible causal inferences when random
assignment is not feasible.
``(D) Progress report.--
``(i) Submission of report.--The independent evaluator
shall--

``(I) not later than 2 years after a project has been
approved by the Secretary and biannually thereafter until the
project is concluded, submit to the head of the relevant
agency and the Federal Interagency Council on Social Impact
Partnerships a written report summarizing the progress that
has been made in achieving each outcome specified in the
agreement; and
``(II) before the scheduled time of the first outcome
payment and before the scheduled time of each subsequent
payment, submit to the head of the relevant agency and the
Federal Interagency Council on Social Impact Partnerships a
written report that includes the results of the evaluation
conducted to determine whether an outcome payment should be
made along with information on the unique factors that
contributed to achieving or failing to achieve the outcome,
the challenges faced in attempting to achieve the outcome,
and information on the improved future delivery of this or
similar interventions.

``(I) evaluate the effects of the activities undertaken
pursuant to the agreement with regard to each outcome
specified in the agreement; and
``(II) submit to the head of the relevant agency and the
Federal Interagency Council on Social Impact Partnerships a
written report that includes the results of the evaluation
and the conclusion of the evaluator as to whether the State
or local government has fulfilled each obligation of the
agreement, along with information on the unique factors that
contributed to the success or failure of the project, the
challenges faced in attempting to achieve the outcome, and
information on the improved future delivery of this or
similar interventions.

``(ii) Submission to congress.--Not later than 30 days
after receipt of the written report pursuant to clause
(i)(II), the Federal Interagency Council on Social Impact
Partnerships shall submit the report to each committee of
jurisdiction in the House of Representatives and the Senate.
``(F) Limitation on cost of evaluations.--Of the amount
reserved under this subsection for social impact partnership
projects, the Secretary may not obligate more than 15 percent
to evaluate the implementation and outcomes of the projects.
``(G) Delegation of authority.--The Secretary may transfer
to the head of another Federal agency the authorities
provided in this paragraph and any funds necessary to
exercise the authorities.
``(6) Federal interagency council on social impact
partnerships.--
``(A) Establishment.--There is established the Federal
Interagency Council on Social Impact Partnerships (in this
paragraph referred to as the `Council') to--
``(i) coordinate the efforts of social impact partnership
projects funded under this subsection;
``(ii) advise and assist the Secretary in the development
and implementation of the projects;
``(iii) advise the Secretary on specific programmatic and
policy matter related to the projects;
``(iv) provide subject-matter expertise to the Secretary
with regard to the projects;
``(v) ensure that each State or local government that has
entered into an agreement with the Secretary for a social
impact partnership project under this subsection and each
evaluator selected by the head of the relevant agency under
paragraph (5) has access to Federal administrative data to
assist the State or local government and the evaluator in
evaluating the performance and outcomes of the project;
``(vi) address issues that will influence the future of
social impact partnership projects in the United States;
``(vii) provide guidance to the executive branch on the
future of social impact partnership projects in the United
States;
``(viii) review State and local government applications for
social impact partnerships to ensure that agreements will
only be awarded under this subsection when rigorous,
independent data and reliable, evidence-based research
methodologies support the conclusion that an agreement will
yield savings to the Federal Government if the project
outcomes are achieved before the applications are approved by
the Secretary;
``(ix) certify, in the case of each approved social impact
partnership, that the project will yield a projected savings
to the Federal Government if the project outcomes are
achieved, and coordinate with the relevant Federal agency to
produce an after-action accounting once the project is
complete to determine the actual Federal savings realized,
and the extent to which actual savings aligned with projected
savings; and
``(x) provide oversight of the actions of the Secretary and
other Federal officials under this subsection and report
periodically to Congress and the public on the implementation
of this subsection.
``(B) Composition of council.--The Council shall have 11
members, as follows:
``(i) Chair.--The Chair of the Council shall be the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
``(ii) Other members.--The head of each of the following
entities shall designate 1 officer or employee of the entity
to be a Council member:

``(I) The Department of Labor.
``(II) The Department of Health and Human Services.
``(III) The Social Security Administration.
``(IV) The Department of Agriculture.
``(V) The Department of Justice.
``(VI) The Department of Housing and Urban Development.
``(VII) The Department of Education.
``(VIII) The Department of Veterans Affairs.
``(IX) The Department of the Treasury.
``(X) The Corporation for National and Community Service.

``(7) Commission on social impact partnerships.--
``(A) Establishment.--There is established the Commission
on Social Impact Partnerships (in this paragraph referred to
as the `Commission').
``(B) Duties.--The duties of the Commission shall be to--
``(i) assist the Secretary and the Federal Interagency
Council on Social Impact Partnerships in reviewing
applications for funding under this subsection;
``(ii) make recommendations to the Secretary and the
Federal Interagency Council on Social Impact Partnerships
regarding the funding of social impact partnership agreements
and feasibility studies; and
``(iii) provide other assistance and information as
requested by the Secretary or the Federal Interagency Council
on Social Impact Partnerships.
``(C) Composition.--The Commission shall be composed of 9
members, of whom--
``(i) 1 shall be appointed by the President, who will serve
as the Chair of the Commission;
``(ii) 1 shall be appointed by the Majority Leader of the
Senate;
``(iii) 1 shall be appointed by the Minority Leader of the
Senate;
``(iv) 1 shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives;
``(v) 1 shall be appointed by the Minority Leader of the
House of Representatives;
``(vi) 1 shall be appointed by the Chairman of the
Committee on Finance of the Senate;
``(vii) 1 shall be appointed by the ranking member of the
Committee on Finance of the Senate;
``(viii) 1 member shall be appointed by the Chairman of the
Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives;
and
``(ix) 1 shall be appointed by the ranking member of the
Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives.

[[Page H4015]]

``(D) Qualifications of commission members.--The members of
the Commission shall--
``(i) be experienced in finance, economics, pay for
performance, or program evaluation;
``(ii) have relevant professional or personal experience in
a field related to 1 or more of the outcomes listed in this
subsection; or
``(iii) be qualified to review applications for social
impact partnership projects to determine whether the proposed
metrics and evaluation methodologies are appropriately
rigorous and reliant upon independent data and evidence-based
research.
``(E) Timing of appointments.--The appointments of the
members of the Commission shall be made not later than 120
days after the date of the enactment of this subsection, or,
in the event of a vacancy, not later than 90 days after the
date the vacancy arises. If a member of Congress fails to
appoint a member by that date, the President may select a
member of the President's choice on behalf of the member of
Congress. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, if not all
appointments have been made to the Commission as of that
date, the Commission may operate with no fewer than 5 members
until all appointments have been made.
``(F) Term of appointments.--
``(i) In general.--The members appointed under subparagraph
(C) shall serve as follows:

``(I) 3 members shall serve for 2 years.
``(II) 3 members shall serve for 3 years.
``(III) 3 members (1 of which shall be Chair of the
Commission appointed by the President) shall serve for 4
years.

``(ii) Assignment of terms.--The Commission shall designate
the term length that each member appointed under subparagraph
(C) shall serve by unanimous agreement. In the event that
unanimous agreement cannot be reached, term lengths shall be
assigned to the members by a random process.
``(G) Vacancies.--Subject to subparagraph (E), in the event
of a vacancy in the Commission, whether due to the
resignation of a member, the expiration of a member's term,
or any other reason, the vacancy shall be filled in the
manner in which the original appointment was made and shall
not affect the powers of the Commission.
``(H) Appointment power.--Members of the Commission
appointed under subparagraph (C) shall not be subject to
confirmation by the Senate.
``(8) Limitation on use of funds.--Of the amounts reserved
to carry out this subsection, the Secretary may not use more
than $2,000,000 in any fiscal year to support the review,
approval, and oversight of social impact partnership
projects, including activities conducted by--
``(A) the Federal Interagency Council on Social Impact
Partnerships; and
``(B) any other agency consulted by the Secretary before
approving a social impact partnership project or a
feasibility study under paragraph (4).
``(9) No federal funding for credit enhancements.--No
amount reserved to carry out this subsection may be used to
provide any insurance, guarantee, or other credit enhancement
to a State or local government under which a Federal payment
would be made to a State or local government as the result of
a State or local government failing to achieve an outcome
specified in a contract.
``(10) Availability of funds.--Amounts reserved to carry
out this subsection shall remain available until 10 years
after the date of the enactment of this subsection.
``(11) Website.--The Federal Interagency Council on Social
Impact Partnerships shall establish and maintain a public
website that shall display the following:
``(A) A copy of, or method of accessing, each notice
published regarding a social impact partnership project
pursuant to this subsection.
``(B) A copy of each feasibility study funded under this
subsection.
``(C) For each State or local government that has entered
into an agreement with the Secretary for a social impact
partnership project, the website shall contain the following
information:
``(i) The outcome goals of the project.
``(ii) A description of each intervention in the project.
``(iii) The target population that will be served by the
project.
``(iv) The expected social benefits to participants who
receive the intervention and others who may be impacted.
``(v) The detailed roles, responsibilities, and purposes of
each Federal, State, or local government entity,
intermediary, service provider, independent evaluator,
investor, or other stakeholder.
``(vi) The payment terms, methodology used to calculate
outcome payments, the payment schedule, and performance
thresholds.
``(vii) The project budget.
``(viii) The project timeline.
``(ix) The project eligibility criteria.
``(x) The evaluation design.
``(xi) The metrics used to determine whether the proposed
outcomes have been achieved and how these metrics are
measured.
``(D) A copy of the progress reports and the final reports
relating to each social impact partnership project.
``(E) An estimate of the savings to the Federal, State, and
local government, on a program-by-program basis and in the
aggregate, resulting from the successful completion of the
social impact partnership project.
``(12) Regulations.--The Secretary, in consultation with
the Federal Interagency Council on Social Impact
Partnerships, may issue regulations as necessary to carry out
this subsection.
``(13) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) Agency.--The term `agency' has the meaning given that
term in section 551 of title 5, United States Code.
``(B) Intervention.--The term `intervention' means a
specific service delivered to achieve an impact through a
social impact partnership project.
``(C) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of the Treasury.
``(D) Social impact partnership project.--The term `social
impact partnership project' means a project that finances
social services using a social impact partnership model.
``(E) Social impact partnership model.--The term `social
impact partnership model' means a method of financing social
services in which--
``(i) Federal funds are awarded to a State or local
government only if a State or local government achieves
certain outcomes agreed on by the State or local government
and the Secretary; and
``(ii) the State or local government coordinates with
service providers, investors (if applicable to the project),
and (if necessary) an intermediary to identify--

``(I) an intervention expected to produce the outcome;
``(II) a service provider to deliver the intervention to
the target population; and
``(III) investors to fund the delivery of the intervention.

``(F) State.--The term `State' means each State of the
United States, the District of Columbia, each commonwealth,
territory or possession of the United States, and each
federally recognized Indian tribe.
``(14) Funding.--Of the amounts made available to carry out
subsection (b) for fiscal year 2017, the Secretary shall
reserve $100,000,000 to carry out this subsection.''.

SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF TANF PROGRAM.

(a) Family Assistance Grants.--Section 403(a)(1) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(1)) is amended in each
of subparagraphs (A) and (C), by striking ``2012'' and
inserting ``2017''.
(b) Healthy Marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood
Grants.--Section 403(a)(2)(D) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
603(a)(2)(D)) is amended by striking ``2012'' each place it
appears and inserting ``2017''.
(c) Tribal Grants.--Section 412(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
612(a)) is amended in each of paragraphs (1)(A) and (2)(A) by
striking ``2012'' and inserting ``2017''.
(d) Child Care Entitlement.--Section 418(a)(3) of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 618(a)(3)) is amended by striking ``2012'' and
inserting ``2017''.
(e) Grants to the Territories.--Section 1108(b)(2) of such
Act (42 U.S.C. 1308(b)(2)) is amended by striking ``2012''
and inserting ``2017''.

SEC. 4. STRENGTHENING WELFARE RESEARCH AND EVALUATION AND
DEVELOPMENT OF A WHAT WORKS CLEARINGHOUSE.

(a) In General.--Section 413 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 613) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 413. EVALUATION OF TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY
FAMILIES AND RELATED PROGRAMS.

``(a) Evaluation of the Impacts of TANF.--The Secretary
shall conduct research on the effect of State programs funded
under this part and any other State program funded with
qualified State expenditures (as defined in section
409(a)(7)(B)(i)) on employment, self-sufficiency, child well-
being, unmarried births, marriage, poverty, economic
mobility, and other factors as determined by the Secretary.
``(b) Evaluation of Grants to Improve Child Well-being by
Promoting Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood.--The
Secretary shall conduct research to determine the effects of
the grants made under section 403(a)(2) on child well-being,
marriage, family stability, economic mobility, poverty, and
other factors as determined by the Secretary.
``(c) Dissemination of Information.--The Secretary shall,
in consultation with States receiving funds provided under
this part, develop methods of disseminating information on
any research, evaluation, or study conducted under this
section, including facilitating the sharing of information
and best practices among States and localities.
``(d) State-initiated Evaluations.--A State shall be
eligible to receive funding to evaluate the State program
funded under this part or any other State program funded with
qualified State expenditures (as defined in section
409(a)(7)(B)(i)) if--
``(1) the State submits to the Secretary a description of
the proposed evaluation;
``(2) the Secretary determines that the design and approach
of the proposed evaluation is rigorous and is likely to yield
information that is credible and will be useful to other
States; and
``(3) unless waived by the Secretary, the State contributes
to the cost of the evaluation, from non-Federal sources, an
amount equal to at least 25 percent of the cost of the
proposed evaluation.
``(e) Census Bureau Research.--
``(1) The Bureau of the Census shall implement or enhance
household surveys of program participation, in consultation
with the Secretary and the Burueau of Labor Statistics and
made available to interested parties,

[[Page H4016]]

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 or any other State program funded with qualified State
expenditures (as defined in section 409(a)(7)(B)(i)). The
content of the surveys should include such information as may
be necessary to examine the issues of unmarried 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) To carry out the activities specified in paragraph
(1), the Bureau of the Census, the Secretary, and the Bureau
of Labor Statistics shall consider ways to improve the
surveys and data derived from the surveys to--
``(A) address underreporting of the receipt of means-tested
benefits and tax benefits for low-income individuals and
families;
``(B) increase understanding of poverty spells and long-
term poverty, including by facilitating the matching of
information to better understand intergenerational poverty;
``(C) generate a better geographical understanding of
poverty such as through State-based estimates and measures of
neighborhood poverty;
``(D) increase understanding of the effects of means-tested
benefits and tax benefits on the earnings of low-income
families; and
``(E) improve how poverty and economic well-being are
measured, including through the use of consumption measures.
``(f) Research and Evaluation Conducted Under This
Section.--Research and evaluation conducted under this
section designed to determine the effects of a program or
policy (other than research conducted under subsection (e))
shall use experimental designs using random assignment or
other reliable, evidence-based research methodologies that
allow for the strongest possible causal inferences when
random assignment is not feasible.
``(g) Development of What Works Clearinghouse of Proven and
Promising Approaches to Move Welfare Recipients Into Work.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Secretary of Labor, shall develop a database (which shall be
referred to as the `What Works Clearinghouse of Proven and
Promising Projects to Move Welfare Recipients into Work') of
the projects that used a proven approach or a promising
approach in moving welfare recipients into work, based on
independent, rigorous evaluations of the projects. The
database shall include a separate listing of projects that
used a developmental approach in delivering services and a
further separate listing of the projects with no or negative
effects. The Secretary shall add to the What Works
Clearinghouse of Proven and Promising Projects to Move
Welfare Recipients into Work data about the projects that,
based on an independent, well-conducted experimental
evaluation of a program or project, using random assignment
or other research methodologies that allow for the strongest
possible causal inferences, have shown they are proven,
promising, developmental, or ineffective approaches.
``(2) Criteria for evidence of effectiveness of approach.--
The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor
and organizations with experience in evaluating research on
the effectiveness of various approaches in delivering
services to move welfare recipients into work, shall--
``(A) establish criteria for evidence of effectiveness; and
``(B) ensure that the process for establishing the
criteria--
``(i) is transparent;
``(ii) is consistent across agencies;
``(iii) provides opportunity for public comment; and
``(iv) takes into account efforts of Federal agencies to
identify and publicize effective interventions, including
efforts at the Department of Health and Human Services, the
Department of Education, and the Department of Justice.
``(3) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) Approach.--The term `approach' means a process,
product, strategy, or practice that is--
``(i) research-based, based on the results of 1 or more
empirical studies, and linked to program-determined outcomes;
and
``(ii) evaluated using rigorous research designs.
``(B) Proven approach.--The term `proven approach' means an
approach that--
``(i) meets the requirements of a promising approach; and
``(ii) has demonstrated significant positive outcomes at
more than 1 site in terms of increasing work and earnings of
participants, reducing poverty and dependence, or
strengthening families.
``(C) Promising approach.--The term `promising approach'
means an approach--
``(i) that meets the requirements of subparagraph (D)(i);
``(ii) that has been evaluated using well-designed and
rigorous randomized controlled or quasi-experimental research
designs;
``(iii) that has demonstrated significant positive outcomes
at only 1 site in terms of increasing work and earnings of
participants, reducing poverty and dependence, or
strengthening families; and
``(iv) under which the benefits of the positive outcomes
have exceeded the costs of achieving the outcomes.
``(D) Developmental approach.--The term `developmental
approach' means an approach that--
``(i) is research-based, grounded in relevant empirically-
based knowledge, and linked to program-determined outcomes;
``(ii) is evaluated using rigorous research designs; and
``(iii) has yet to demonstrate a significant positive
outcome in terms of increasing work and earnings of
participants in a cost-effective way.
``(h) Appropriation.--
``(1) In general.--Of the amount appropriated by section
403(a)(1) for each fiscal year, 0.33 percent shall be
available for research and evaluation under this section.
``(2) Allocation.--Of the amount made available under
paragraph (1) for each fiscal year, the Secretary shall make
available $10,000,000 plus such additional amount as the
Secretary deems necessary and appropriate, to carry out
subsection (e).''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 403(a)(1)(B) of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 603(a)(1)(B)) is amended by inserting ``, reduced
by the percentage specified in section 413(h) with respect to
the fiscal year,'' before ``as the amount''.

SEC. 5. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO DATA EXCHANGE STANDARDS TO
IMPROVE PROGRAM COORDINATION.

(a) In General.--Section 411(d) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 611(d)) is amended to read as follows:
``(d) Data Exchange Standards for Improved
Interoperability.--
``(1) Designation.--The Secretary shall, in consultation
with an interagency work group established by the Office of
Management and Budget and considering State government
perspectives, by rule, designate data exchange standards to
govern, under this part--
``(A) necessary categories of information that State
agencies operating programs under State plans approved under
this part are required under applicable Federal law to
electronically exchange with another State agency; and
``(B) Federal reporting and data exchange required under
applicable Federal law.
``(2) Requirements.--The data exchange standards required
by paragraph (1) shall, to the extent practicable--
``(A) incorporate a widely accepted, non-proprietary,
searchable, computer-readable format, such as the eXtensible
Markup Language;
``(B) contain interoperable standards developed and
maintained by intergovernmental partnerships, such as the
National Information Exchange Model;
``(C) incorporate interoperable standards developed and
maintained by Federal entities with authority over
contracting and financial assistance;
``(D) be consistent with and implement applicable
accounting principles;
``(E) be implemented in a manner that is cost-effective and
improves program efficiency and effectiveness; and
``(F) be capable of being continually upgraded as
necessary.
``(3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection
shall be construed to require a change to existing data
exchange standards found to be effective and efficient.''.
(b) Effective Date.--Not later than the date that is 24
months after the date of the enactment of this section, the
Secretary of Health and Human Services shall issue a proposed
rule that--
(1) identifies federally required data exchanges, include
specification and timing of exchanges to be standardized, and
address the factors used in determining whether and when to
standardize data exchanges; and
(2) specifies State implementation options and describes
future milestones.

SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendments made by this Act shall take effect on
October 1, 2016.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.

General Leave

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
to include any extraneous material on H.R. 5170, currently under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Indiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
For all our best intentions, we too often see government programs
fail both the constituencies they are intended to help and the
taxpayers who fund them.
Thousands of families across this country continue to be trapped,
generation after generation, in programs that were well intended but
are now ineffective or outdated. Our social safety net has instead
become a poverty trap

[[Page H4017]]

and not the springboard to prosperity we once envisioned.
Our constituents, all Americans, deserve better. They need their
Federal Government working together with their communities to focus on
how we can help members of our society successfully climb that ladder
out of poverty, not just check them off as another individual served.
By changing the Federal Government's definition of success in Federal
social programs, from inputs to actual outcomes, we can help our fellow
Americans overcome the root causes of poverty and seize economic
opportunities to work and provide for our families. It is this shift in
focus, this focus from inputs to outcomes, that could substantially
transform our safety net to better serve our most vulnerable.
The Social Impact Partnerships to Pay for Results Act does just that.
It empowers States, local governments, nonprofits, and the private
sector to scale up evidence-based interventions that address our
Nation's most pressing social challenges.
This legislation would foster the creation of public-private
partnerships that harness philanthropic and other private-sector
investments so we can expand and replicate scientifically proven social
and public health programs. Because social impact partnerships are
focused on achieving real results, government dollars are paid out only
when desired outcomes are met.
Furthermore, this legislation would reauthorize the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families program at current spending levels for 1
year as well as build evidence on our efforts to help our most needy
families find jobs and achieve self-sufficiency by cataloging the best
evidence-based approaches.
The What Works Clearinghouse would make it easier for States to know
which approaches have been tested using independent, rigorous
evaluations and, based on those results, an understanding of their
effectiveness in achieving positive results for individuals and
families.
By cataloging the different approaches States are taking in helping
welfare recipients move into work, we can help empower well-intentioned
policymakers across all levels of government to improve lives through
evidence-based policymaking.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF,
program expires at the end of September. We need to extend this
program, and this legislation accomplishes that goal; but we have so
much more to do.
Once TANF is temporarily extended, our committee and this Congress
should work toward a more comprehensive review and reauthorization of
the program. We need to make sure that spending under TANF is focused
on the core missions of helping needy families and promoting work. We
need to further open opportunities to education and training so that
TANF recipients can prepare for and find good jobs. And we need to
ensure that adequate child care and other supports are available for
low-income parents in the workforce.
Of course, if we are serious about reducing poverty, improving TANF
must be part of a broader agenda that seeks to help Americans
endeavoring to help themselves. We should substantially increase the
minimum wage for hardworking Americans, expanding the earned income tax
credit to childless workers, and expanding access to affordable
housing. By the way, those are inputs that relate to outputs and
outcomes. And we should be building on successful programs like the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the Social Services Block
Grant, and the Affordable Care Act.
Instead, the agenda we have seen from the Republican leadership of
this House is to block meaningful improvements or, even worse, to gut
programs that now provide opportunities for Americans. Eliminating the
Social Services Block Grant, as Republicans propose, will make child
care less available, making it harder for low-income parents to go to
work. Cutting funding for education and training, as the Republican
budget suggests, would have the same effect of blocking a path to work.
And repealing the Affordable Care Act, as Republicans have voted
repeatedly to do, would make it harder for people to move into work and
to move between jobs. Republicans say they support work, but time and
time again, they oppose work supports.
The programs that arose out of the war on poverty reduced poverty by
over 40 percent, despite erroneous claims to the contrary by some of
our Republican colleagues. However, at the same time, we still have 47
million Americans who live in poverty. These struggling families
deserve real action, not more of the same old failed policies and empty
rhetoric that we have heard in the report from the Republican House
Poverty Task Force several weeks ago. And they certainly deserve better
than huge cuts to programs they depend on.
Mr. Speaker, I support this bill because it extends the TANF program,
a necessary program for low-income families. The bill also includes a
1-year allocation to test social impact partnerships in which the
private, nonprofit, and government sectors attempt to come together to
address certain social problems.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I ask unanimous
consent that the balance of my time be managed by the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett), ranking member of the Ways and Means Subcommittee
on Human Resources.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Reed).
Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation.
As someone who was raised by a single mother when my father passed when
I was 2 years old, and having 11 older brothers and sisters, poverty is
something that I know firsthand and that we have seen firsthand in our
household.
As we go forward and we deal with extending TANF cash welfare for 1
year, I think what Mr. Young of Indiana has done is try to put forward
innovative ideas that change the dialogue, that change the debate when
it comes to our antipoverty measures out of Washington, D.C.
Mr. Speaker, no longer should we measure the success of a program
just by the amount of money we spend on that program, but measure it by
the lives that are positively changed.

{time} 1745

That is what this social impact bonding legislation is all about. It
is rewarding and standing with people who are moving out of poverty,
standing on their own two feet.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in support of this
critical legislation as we care for those young men and women, as well
as those adults who live in poverty, and break that cycle once and for
all.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The bill which Mr. Young brings to the floor this afternoon concerns
five-tenths of 1 percent of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
program. I want to talk about the other 99.5 percent, and I will
address the 0.5 percent--the five-tenths--a little later.
Overall, this legislation perpetuates the myth of compassionate
conservatism that was originally spun by George W. Bush. It involves a
Republican strategy that we have seen over the last few weeks to block
every single Democratic proposal that would reform welfare to work, or
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families as it is formally known.
I favor full reform of TANF, to pursue the original objectives of the
1996 welfare reform that I supported to end generational poverty and
help poor Americans who are not physically able to work. TANF would
permit them to climb up the economic ladder into the middle class while
supporting those who are unable to work.
Instead, what we are presented is one modest, unproven social
experiment paid for at the expense of poor children. Over the last 20
years, the total resources that are available to get people from
welfare to work have steadily declined. Today's legislation is just one
more small cut to those resources.
Republicans previously terminated one major part of TANF that helped
States with poor populations, like Texas, whacking out $319 million
from

[[Page H4018]]

the program. What we have left with TANF today is about one-third of
the purchasing power that it had 20 years ago when we adopted the
reform. In Texas, about 1 in 20 children receive assistance from TANF.
Folks who need a life vest are instead given an anchor.
While it may have had some initial positive impact, the 1996 welfare
law has become an example of a failed Federal block grant program.
Through the years, the States have diverted more and more moneys that
were intended to support poor mothers finding the education and
training that they needed and the childcare and placement services they
needed to go out and have the dignity of a livable wage, long-term job,
and now the States are spending, on average, 8 cents of every dollar on
work and another 16 cents on child care.
To the extent that President Johnson's War on Poverty has not been
fully won, much of the responsibility goes to those who refuse to
fight, who surrendered at the first obstacle, who engaged in passive
resistance, and, in places like Texas, who just abandoned the field of
battle when it came to protecting their poorest citizens. Clearly, the
social safety net that TANF was supposed to be has become mostly hole
and little net.
If this is a poverty trap, as we have heard, it is because our
Republican colleagues have shut the door on any efforts to unlock it
with the exception of this one bill. Now with their recently announced
poverty plan, they want to take the same kind of thinking--these failed
block grants--and apply it to the national school lunch program, apply
it to Medicaid, and according to one of their exhibits, to everything
from Pell grants to cervical cancer, blocking it all together, and then
putting the victims on the chopping block.
Beginning last summer, I encouraged now-Speaker Ryan and other
Republicans to support a reform, basically saying to them: I know you
are not going to give another dime to help the poor, but at least ask
the States to use the moneys that they already have from the Federal
Government to accomplish the law's original objectives and stop
diverting this money to plug budget loopholes. Unfortunately, TANF is
still a welfare program, but it is Republican Governors, largely, who
are on the dole, who take this Federal money and don't use it for the
purposes for which it was originally intended.
Last year, even Speaker Ryan recognized that existing TANF
limitations impair the ability of the poor to get the educational
opportunities that they need to get good jobs. Five Republicans,
including a couple from our committee, offered the Preparing More
Welfare Recipients for Work Act, which doubled the time that was
permitted for educational training to count as a work activity, and as
one of them--our colleague, Mr. Tiberi--said, these commonsense reforms
streamline and simplify complicated work requirements, leading to
higher enrollment in work or job training programs. It was common sense
then, but as soon as it was attacked by rightwing ideologues, they ran
away from it.
Republicans could join us in reforming TANF to make it a true pathway
to work and into the middle class, but they have declined to do that.
Instead of offering a reauthorization, they split TANF up into six
pieces that did not continue it. Part of the same package that hasn't
been brought to the floor this afternoon are two other bills.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record our dissenting views to those
bills.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, May 17, 2016.

Dissenting Views for H.R. 2959

What began as a legislative step forward has become a step
backward. What did some modest good, now does harm. As
introduced, the TANF Accountability and Integrity Improvement
Act (H.R. 2959) would have closed a loophole that a few
states have created and exploited to avoid providing their
state match for the federal TANF block grant. This loophole
unfairly misapplies third-party spending as if it were state
spending.
The non-partisan General Accountability Office (GAO) has
criticized this wrongful approach, which shortchanges poor
children and their parents. I fully support the bill's
complete closure of this loophole that only a few states
exploit to avoid providing their fair share of support for
moving their impoverished residents from welfare to work.
Unfortunately, only hours prior to the Committee markup,
this bill was amended to do the opposite of what it
originally would have accomplished. As amended, it legalizes
this unfair loophole by grandfathering in current offenders.
Now it does little more than prevent other states from
following the leadership of a few pioneers in abuse. Why
reward those states who balance their books on the backs of
those least able to bear the burden?
According to the GAO, Georgia is the chief offender, with
nearly 60 percent of its TANF contributions coming from
private entities. Not only is it not making its proper match
to access federal funds, but Georgia also consistently
ignores the needs of its poorest citizens. For every TANF
dollar, Georgia uses 80 cents for in ways that ignore the
core purposes of TANF--work, direct assistance and child
care.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) should
have already initiated action to close this unjustified
loophole. As amended, the bill would now prevent HHS from
collecting this abuse. It should be rejected.
Lloyd Doggett.
Jim McDermott.
____

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, May 27, 2016.

Dissenting Views for H.R. 2952

The Committee has considered multiple bills regarding
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) without
actually extending TANF, which expires in four months. The
reason for so many different TANF bills and a refusal to
consider an extension in Committee is to block Members from
offering genuine reforms of TANF designed to make it function
more effectively, to avoid state diversion of TANF funds away
from core TANF purposes, and to do more to help TANF
recipients move into good, sustainable jobs. This is
accomplished through a maneuver claiming that any significant
reform that any member proposes is not germane to any of the
narrow bills in question. Indeed, the Committee refused to
consider an amendment that would simply have extended the
expiring TANF program for another fiscal year on grounds that
it was not germane.
This particular part of the Republican TANF package
concerns data on wages and employment status, but
unfortunately a belated amendment to it would make that data
a less accurate measure of the effectiveness of State efforts
to move people into work. The revised bill manipulates
numbers, creating the misimpression that those who cannot
work because of age or disability refuse to work.
Furthermore, this bill does not provide a measure of the
percentage of those leaving TANF who have found work. It
would be insightful to learn whether a state has simply
forced an individual off TANF or actually helped them to
secure a job through which they can support their family.
We strongly support an accurate employment outcomes measure
that can offer insight regarding whether state programs are
really malcing a difference in moving people from welfare to
real, wage-paying, longterm employment and providing
opportunity for individuals to work their way out of poverty.
This bill's flaws undercut that goal, and unfortunately the
Majority rejected an amendment that would have corrected
these shortcomings.
Representatives Sander Levin, Charles B. Rangel, John
Lewis, Xavier Becerra, Bill Pascrell, Jr., Lloyd
Doggett, Jim McDermott, Richard E. Neal, Earl
Blumenauer, John B. Larson, Ron Kind, Danny Davis, Mike
Thompson, Joseph Crowley, Linda Sanchez.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I would say that what we have here is an
attempt to also add by amendment the very reauthorization that I sought
to offer in committee that was blocked then. I guess today will be the
first time even our Republican colleagues learn what has been done with
this authorization.
Overall, what we have had is a Republican roadblock to real welfare
reform and poverty reduction that this Congress should be focused on,
and it obviously will take a new President and a new Congress to do it.
Like the compassionate conservatism of George W. Bush, Republicans are
offering us a slogan, not a solution.
The same day that they rejected our efforts to deal with this issue,
they were all about more tax breaks. Their poverty agenda is a
collection of retreads that offer little hope for change. It only
demonstrates that their approach to poverty is indeed impoverished.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold).
Mr. DOLD. Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to thank my good friend from
Indiana for yielding and for his work on this important legislation. I
also want to thank my good friend from Maryland, who has also put a lot
of work into what I think is really a unique piece of legislation. I
want to make sure that I rise in support of the Social

[[Page H4019]]

Impact Partnerships to Pay for Results Act.
This reform-minded legislation, Mr. Speaker, is so important because
it offers a fresh approach for the way that the Federal Government
assists those who are truly in need. It focuses our efforts on
evidence-based reforms.
How refreshing is that?
We spend a tremendous amount of money, Mr. Speaker, trying to make
sure that we are giving people an opportunity to get out from being
impoverished. We have too many people today, Mr. Speaker, around the
country who are fighting poverty. This actually brings entrepreneurs,
nonprofits, and the government together to actually solve these
problems.
The Social Impact Partnerships to Pay for Results Act is a bipartisan
solution that rewards and promotes programs that actually help
individuals achieve positive outcomes. It actually helps and relieves
the taxpayers a tremendous burden. No longer are the taxpayers on the
hook for failed programs. This actually is providing the opportunity
for entrepreneurs and those who are in the nonprofit sector to also
play a role in trying to actually come up with unique solutions in very
different ways in State-by-State outcomes. This innovative piece of
legislation will give the States more flexibility to be creative with
TANF dollars and establish approaches that will uniquely address the
problems facing local communities.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation will also serve as an extension of the
TANF program to make sure that we continue to provide necessary
assistance to individuals looking to achieve self-sufficiency through
job training and education.
The challenges we face in fighting poverty are clearly steep. We know
that in the War on Poverty, we have spent over $22 trillion to move the
needle from 15 percent in poverty to 14.6 percent in poverty. We need
to start thinking creatively about how can we focus on outcomes, how
can we get more people off of the unemployment rolls, how can we get
more people off the TANF rolls, off the welfare rolls. This is a
program, this is an idea, a bipartisan reform that is going to focus on
outcomes and will help start solving the problem. It does require
meaningful action.
I believe that the American Dream revolves around the idea that each
and every one of us has something positive to contribute to our great
Nation. This legislation is a step in the right direction in helping
individuals reach their full potential, and gives States flexibility.
Again, I want to go back and I want to thank my good friend from
Maryland for his work on this and my friend from Indiana for, again,
working in a bipartisan way to start thinking outside of the box. The
government doesn't always have the solution, and we need to leverage
nonprofits. We need to leverage those who are working out there and
bringing unique ideas to the fold.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Delaney), a leading advocate for social impact financing
and, I know, a partner of Mr. Young.
Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend and
colleague from Texas for yielding me this time, and I want to express
my support for his comments and associate myself with his comments. He
has been a singular champion of the TANF program and the goals that it
represents. I appreciate his work and the opportunity to work with him
on this bill.
I also want to thank my good friend and colleague from Indiana. We
have spent a considerable amount of time working on this piece of
legislation together, talking to groups, and he has been a wonderful
champion and it has been a real pleasure to work with him on this
concept.
Mr. Speaker, prior to coming to Congress, I spent my whole career as
an entrepreneur in the private sector building businesses. The one
thing I would observe from that experience whenever I would travel
around the United States, or around the world for that matter, whenever
you saw good economic outcomes and broad-based prosperity for the
citizens, you always found a situation where the government, the
nonprofit sector, and the private sector worked well together to solve
the problems in society, and it is that spirit that animates the social
impact partnership that we are here to discuss this evening.
If you think about what is going on in the world today, Mr. Speaker,
and the changes that are playing out in our economy based on
technological innovation and global interconnection, you realize that
it has helped many of our citizens and it has helped billions of people
around the world, but it has also hurt many of our citizens. It
happened too fast; we weren't quite prepared for it; and chronic and
vexing issues like poverty, educational disparities, income and
opportunity disparities have only grown based on these trends.
To make a difference against these problems, Mr. Speaker, we need to
do several things. First, we need to invest. You cannot definitionally
make transformative changes, whether it be in the private sector or the
public sector, unless you make investments.
The second thing we need, Mr. Speaker, is we need innovation. We need
the best ideas to be applied against some of these very difficult
challenges that we have.
Mr. Speaker, we also need a new sense and spirit of collaboration and
cooperation among all the stakeholders because the government right now
has three significant problems when it tries to tackle these issues.
The first problem it has is a funding problem. Whether it is the
condition of the Federal budget or the State budget, it is very
difficult for the government to make investments.
The second issue the government has is an innovation problem. Mr.
Speaker, I think we all know that the government has never been the
incubator necessarily of great innovation. It has been good at
investing, but we find more innovation often outside of government.
Right now that gap is growing. So the government has an innovation
problem.
The third problem the government has is a transparency problem. I
used to say in business that if you can't measure it, you can't manage
it. And we are not getting enough data in terms of a positive feedback
loop to look at some of these issues and see what works and what
doesn't work. That is why Pay for Success frameworks and social impact
partnerships can make such a big difference because it solves those
problems, it creates pathways for more capital, more investments to
flow from the nonprofit sector or the private sector against issues
that have traditionally been funded by the government.

{time} 1800

It creates pathways for innovation and best ideas and new ideas to
flow into the government sector, and it creates a pathway and a
framework for more transparency and more metrics as it relates to what
the results are.
Whether it is supplied against early childhood education, recidivism
issues, chronic healthcare issues like asthma, whatever the framework
can be, this approach can create an opportunity for more investment,
which we need; more innovation, which we need; greater metrics and
transparency, which we need; and a renewed spirit of cooperation
between the government, the private sector, and the nonprofit sector to
make a difference against these problems, which is why I am very
supportive of the social impact partnership framework, the Pay for
Success framework.
I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, but I also encourage
my colleagues to think seriously about what my colleague from Texas
said about the larger TANF program, because there is so much more to be
done.
I do believe launching the social impact partnership framework can
lead to transformative changes against these very, very difficult
issues and create a situation where prosperity is shared more broadly
and there is more opportunity for Americans, particularly our American
colleagues who have been so affected negatively by some of the larger
changes that are going on in the world.
I encourage adoption of the bill.
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. MacArthur), my colleague.
Mr. MacARTHUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to
support the Social Impact Partnerships to Pay for Results Act.

[[Page H4020]]

As founding co-chair of the bipartisan Congressional Social
Investment Taskforce, I believe that we can harness the power of market
forces and private capital to solve local problems, benefit American
taxpayers, and uplift communities. This bill will encourage the private
sector to invest in some of the most pressing challenges we face as a
nation.
I believe in the power of government to be a force for good, but
after 30 years in business, I tremendously believe in the untapped
potential of the private market to solve problems. The goal of this
bill is to unleash that power of the private sector to work with local
governments and communities.
This bill is based on the pay for results model, in which Federal
funds are only spent when measurable results have been achieved.
Instead of simply creating more government programs, this saves
taxpayer dollars by ensuring funds are only spent on successful
programs.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Representative Todd Young and my fellow
co-chair of the taskforce, Representative John Delaney, for introducing
this important legislation.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I salute and appreciate the commitment of Mr. Young and Mr. Delaney
to seek new ways to try to combat some old problems. We need creativity
to address these challenges. There is no one single approach that will
solve all these problems. Where I disagree with them is over how they
choose to fund this initiative--a choice that I think they probably
personally did not make--and the lack of safeguards to assure their
very laudable objectives.
This bill takes money that has always been dedicated to benefit
vulnerable children away from the Department of Health and Human
Services and authorized its expenditure for other purposes that may be
very well intentioned, but that have absolutely nothing to do with
vulnerable children.
Now is not the time to further reduce this funding for needy children
just because it happens to be an easy place to take money from. It is
only $100 million, only five-tenths of a percent of the total TANF
budget, but I can tell you that it is hard to come by $100 million to
do anything to try to help vulnerable children, and it is a loss to
have that money taken away.
It is true that President Obama finally, after almost 8 years of his
administration, proposed that the contingency fund be repurposed and
that money be added to family assistance grants and require the States
to use more of the resources they get from TANF for the purposes of
TANF to prevent two-generational poverty. The President's approach was
to use the TANF contingency fund for a pathway to jobs initiative and a
generational poverty initiative, not to take it out for other purposes.
Today, this contingency fund is simply viewed as the easiest place to
get money for what is not an evidence-based approach, but may still
have merit.
In committee, I sought to protect at least some of these moneys for
children. I appreciate the fact that Mr. Young and Mr. Delaney have
been receptive and have incorporated in the amended version today a
measure that will assure that at least half of the money taken away
from TANF is allocated for children, with the focus being on helping
those poor children who would otherwise have benefited from the money
had it stayed with TANF.
Social impact financing offers the potential of greater private
investment and resources to tackle some of the serious social ills that
our country confronts. Without approving any new legislation, there is
no restriction right now on any of our States from going out and using
TANF money for social impact financing, so long as they focus on the
statutory purposes of TANF. If these laboratories of democracy can do
it already, then I think that is probably sufficient.
I do know that there are a number of young entrepreneurs with a
social conscience--a number of them I have talked with in Austin,
Texas--who want to apply their talents to resolve ills that they see
around them. There are a number of feasibility studies already underway
in Austin concerning some of the problems that we have in Texas.
But not everyone who applies for these funds will have the outlook of
Mr. Young, Mr. Delaney, some of our colleagues who have come to the
floor, and some of these young entrepreneurs because, unfortunately,
with the starving of our social service and educational sector, one
community after another is so desperate for funds to fight child abuse
or neglect that they are willing to do almost anything that they might
be sold upon.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will include in the Record a list of
safeguards that I hope the gentlemen will consider as this bill
proceeds to the Senate.
In designing a new program with $100 million in taxpayer funds, which
is designed to ultimately attract many additional taxpayer funds, to an
initiative that is not evidence-based, we need to ensure that those
dollars are not squandered. And after the Wall Street bailouts, many
Americans question whether Wall Street is the place to turn to address
social challenges. We have to consider the possibility of the
unscrupulous offering false hope to a desperate local community.
In Committee, I raised a list of questions about the lack of adequate
safeguards. A state or locality may encounter substantial costs in
administering the programs, between fees owed to intermediaries,
service providers, evaluators and the like. This bill caps the amount
that may be expended on feasibility studies to evaluate a social impact
financing proposal, but it places no cap on underwriting costs, which
Wall Street firms can charge. The bill puts no limit on the returns an
investor can gain in one of these projects. It has no limit on who can
determine what ``success'' is in one of these proposals. This bill
fails to require a clear cost/benefit analysis that includes as a cost
the cost of any related feasibility study.
Even without proper safeguards, it is far from certain how many
proposals will actually qualify for funding under this bill. Indeed,
the Congressional Budget Office notes that ``because there is
uncertainty as to the extent states conducting the projects will
achieve the measurable outcomes required for federal reimbursement, CBO
estimates that not all of the funds reserved for the program will be
spent.
House Republicans have been so eager to gain approval of any new idea
they can claim responds to poverty and related social needs that this
proposal has emerged without careful evaluation. Hopefully, the Senate
in its legislative process can correct some of these shortcomings, and
the Treasury and the Office of Management and Budget can include
additional safeguards in implementing this measure.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
This bipartisan, bicameral bill was developed over the course of 2
years, incorporating feedback from a variety of stakeholders, ranging
from State and local governments to child welfare organizations.
I want to thank these stakeholders, as well as give very special
recognition to my colleague, Congressman Delaney, my Democratic
colleague from Maryland, for his leadership and partnership with me on
this initiative.
I would also be remiss if I didn't acknowledge the substantial and
impressive efforts of members of our staff, from the Ways and Means
committee staff, Ryan Martin, to my own personal office staff, Jaymi
Light, who literally authored this legislation--we went through about
50 different versions until we got it right--to Xan Fishman of
Congressman Delaney's staff, for his hard work. This was a team effort.
This is the sort of big idea, bipartisan teamwork we need more of in
Washington, D.C. All of you have helped make it happen here today.
I want to thank my fellow Ways and Means colleagues who are
cosponsors of this legislation for their leadership and continued
support.
Social impact partnerships address our moral responsibilities to
ensure that social programs actually improve recipients' lives, and do
so in a fiscally prudent manner. But they also respond to the
imperative of improving our economic health by harnessing the
capabilities of every able-bodied citizen. Our safety net must reflect
our country's belief that, without exception, Americans aren't
liabilities to be written off but, instead, assets to be realized.
I urge all of my colleagues to support the Social Impact Partnerships
to Pay for Results Act.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H4021]]

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, H.R. 5170, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________