[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 20]
[House]
[Pages 29507-29541]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                       FATHERS COUNT ACT OF 1999

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 367 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. 3073.

                              {time}  1220


                     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. 3073) to amend part A of title IV of the Social Security Act to 
provide for grants for

[[Page 29508]]

projects designed to promote responsible fatherhood, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. Shimkus 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 gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) each will control 30 minutes, 
and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Clay) each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first let me thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Cardin), my colleague and ranking member, and his tireless, able staff 
for their good work in developing both the programmatic language of 
this bill and its funding provisions.
  Mr. Cardin has indeed been a fine partner, both for his substantive 
knowledge and frank and cooperative working style. I also want to thank 
my friends on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, especially 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) and the gentleman 
from California (Mr. McKeon) for their excellent work on this bill and 
for their spirit of cooperation in working out a compromise between the 
bills written by our two committees.
  Finally, let me thank my chief of staff of the Subcommittee on Human 
Resources, Dr. Ron Haskins, who has an extraordinary knowledge of 
problems, programs, the law, and the possibilities.
  Mr. Chairman, the major provision of this legislation is the Fathers 
Count Act of 1996. This legislation will fund projects directed at 
helping poor fathers meet their responsibilities by promoting marriage, 
improving their parenting skills, and developing their earning power.
  Welfare reform stimulated the development of far better services for 
welfare-dependent mothers; services that could help her identify her 
skills, provide her with the knowledge that could help her succeed in 
the workplace, find a job, work, and progress.
  This bill is an attempt to provide the same support and opportunity 
to the poor fathers of children on welfare. Our goal is to help them 
find steadier employment and develop their careers so they can provide 
the economic support so crucial to their child's well-being.
  Our second goal is to help them develop a better relationship with 
their child and with the child's mother. Why? Because kids need dads. 
Dads count, just like moms count.
  Research unequivocally shows that the great majority of children born 
outside of marriage do not realize their potential. They are much more 
likely to live on welfare, fail in school, be arrested, quit school, 
use drugs and go on welfare themselves as adults.
  Two decades of careful research now decisively shows that we are 
neglecting the interests of a very specific group of kids, the children 
born of unmarried parents by neglecting the concerns of their parents 
and making no effort to build an emotional support structure, as well 
as an economic support structure, around them.
  Welfare reform addressed many of the concerns of their mothers 
constructively with help finding a job, subsidized day care and so 
forth. Now we need to help their dads find better jobs, learn to 
parent, gain the knowledge to develop a good relationship with the mom, 
and marry if they both desire.
  We must, in sum, help those mostly young adults create a more stable 
environment economically and emotionally for their children so their 
children will enjoy the opportunity kids should have in America.
  Mr. Chairman, surprisingly and encouragingly, a recent study by 
renowned researcher Sara McLanahan of Princeton University shows that 
at the time of nonmarital births, over half of the parents are 
cohabiting and about 80 percent say they are in an exclusive 
relationship that they hope will lead to marriage or at least become 
permanent.
  It seems reasonable to us that if we develop ways to support these 
young couples when they are still exclusively committed to each other 
and to their child, they may be able to maintain their adult 
relationship and develop their parenting relationship.
  Thus, our bill will provides a modest amount of money, $150 million 
over 6 years, to encourage community-based organizations and 
governmental organizations to conduct projects to help these young 
parents. Projects will be awarded on a competitive basis. Not only will 
the projects aim to help couples develop healthy relationships 
including marriage, but they would also provide the educational 
opportunities and other supports through which good parenting and 
relational skills can be honed and the earning power of the father 
developed.
  Even if the parents remain separate, the projects help fathers play 
an important role in their family through both the payment of child 
support and through good parenting of the child and open communication 
with the other parent.
  Because these fathers have often have low job skills and weak 
attachment to the labor force, the projects will help fathers find 
jobs, improve their skills and experience so they can get better jobs. 
One of our major goals is to ensure that fathers, whether they live 
with their children or not, are able to provide financial support to 
their families. But an equally important goal is to assure that 
fathers, whether they live with their children or not, can provide 
appropriate emotional support to their child and be part of an adult 
partnership providing security, guidance and love to the children.
  Mr. Chairman, funding these projects does not remove any money from 
the various programs Congress has put in place to support single 
mothers. Cash welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, housing benefits and many 
types of education and training programs remain available to mothers at 
their current level or higher levels of funding. So too do the programs 
that support low-income working single parents, particularly the earned 
income credit.
  Thus, without detracting in any way from Federal programs designed 
primarily to help single, poor mothers we create this modest new 
program designed primarily to help single, poor fathers.
  A word is in order about the background of this legislation. The 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), my accomplished colleague, 
introduced the first version of this bill nearly 2 years ago. Since 
that time we have held three public hearings and received numerous 
written and oral comments on the legislation and at our most recent 
hearing, enabled the public to comment directly on the draft version of 
our current bill. On the basis of testimony at the hearing, as well as 
many meetings and written comments, we have made more than 50 changes 
in the legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill has now been passed as amended by both the 
Subcommittee on Human Resources and the full Committee on Ways and 
Means. Both votes were voice votes; thus our legislation originated and 
written on a bipartisan basis continues to enjoy the strong support 
from both sides of the aisle it deserves. The Clinton administration, 
with which we have worked closely in developing and amending the 
legislation, also supports the bill.
  Finally, numerous organizations across the political spectrum, 
including the National Fatherhood Initiative, the Center on Budget and 
Policy Priorities, the Center on Law and Social Policy, the Children's 
Defense Fund, and the Empowerment Network have also endorsed the bill.
  In addition to the important fatherhood program in this bill, the 
bill also contains several other first rate measures that Members 
should know about. Here is a brief summary:
  First, the bill fixes a major problem in the welfare-to-work program 
which was specifically structured to reach women who had been on 
welfare many years and would need significant education and training to 
move into the workforce to become self-sufficient.

[[Page 29509]]



                              {time}  1230

  Unfortunately, while focused on a significant problem, the original 
bill was drawn too narrowly and literally could not serve the people it 
was intended to serve. We correct that problem by adjusting the 
criteria realistically to identify long-term recipients with low skills 
and eliminate the discrimination against equally poor, struggling 
single moms who do not receive welfare and providing job placement 
services.
  We have worked with the Committee on Education and the Workforce and 
the administration and have prepared constructive changes all can 
support.
  Second, we fix a problem in our Nation's increasingly effective child 
support program by creating a new penalty procedure for States that 
have failed to meet the deadline for building a statewide computerized 
child support payment system. Rather than completely ending child 
support funding for eight States, we impose a fair and more realistic 
set of penalties on these States, allowing those that can comply in 6 
months to do so penalty free.
  Third, we authorize use of a child support enforcement data base to 
recover delinquent student loans and overpayments in the Unemployment 
Compensation program. This provision will lead directly to a reduction 
of $154 million in State unemployment taxes over the next decade.
  Fourth, the bill provides needed funds for the largest and most 
important evaluation of the 1996 welfare reform law.
  Fifth, we provide new money to train judges and other court personnel 
in the child protection system.
  Sixth, as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) will explain in 
more detail, we fix a problem in the child support program by allowing 
the Immigration and Naturalization Service to suspend the passports of 
noncitizens who owe child support to American citizens.
  Finally, let me point out that this bill is fully financed by fraud 
reduction and program terminations. In addition, businesses will save 
$154 million in Unemployment Compensation taxes. We know there is no 
such thing as a free lunch, but the Nation will receive the very 
considerable benefits of this legislation without paying one extra 
penny in taxes and without increasing the national debt.
  In the long run, it will reduce public spending by strengthening 
families and increasing child support payments and providing children 
with greater economic and emotional support.
  I urge the support of this fine legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Wynn), who has been a strong supporter of the fatherhood 
initiatives.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Fathers Count Act. For 
a long time, we have had our head in the sand with respect to the 
problem of children born out of wedlock. We have ignored the problem. 
We have assumed high-minded piety. We have condemned impoverished young 
people, but we have not really helped them.
  This bill is an enlightened form of welfare reform that addresses 
some of the real problems faced by unwed parents and specifically 
fathers.
  This bill is critical because it provides resources, not condemnation 
to unwed fathers. It provides counseling. It provides job support. It 
provides the resources that they will need to become effective and 
productive fathers. When we have productive and effective fathers, we 
have better children.
  This is a very good bill in that it also encourages States to take an 
aggressive role in enforcing child support payments, and that is very 
essential because it is at the State level where we have the issue of 
child support enforcement.
  By having States implement aggressive enforcement policies, we will 
collect more child support. Again, when we collect more child support, 
we are at a better position to help these children of unwed parents.
  For too long this Congress and this society has ignored this problem 
or, as I said, has taken a head-in-the-sand approach. It is high time 
that, as a society, we address the problem, we accept responsibility, 
and we, more importantly, enable these young fathers to accept 
responsibility.
  To the extent that these fathers become better fathers, become better 
husbands, they will contribute to our society by producing young people 
that are more stable, less prone to crime, and more able to be 
productive citizens.
  This is a bipartisan piece of legislation, the result of a lot of 
hard work. I think it is an excellent idea. I am very pleased to 
support it.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), a member of the Subcommittee on 
Human Resources.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise as a cosponsor of the Fathers Count Act of 1999, 
and I want to thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Chairman Johnson) 
and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the ranking member, for 
their hard work and their good effort in this area.
  Since we passed welfare reform in 1996, we have made remarkable 
progress in getting families off the welfare rolls and improving their 
lives, but we still have a lot of work to do. This legislation 
represents an important step in welfare reform.
  Many studies have suggested that unmarried, poor fathers have higher 
unemployment and incarceration rates than other fathers. These problems 
make it difficult for them to marry and form two-parent families and to 
play a positive role in the rearing of their children. Because the 
father fails to play a prominent family role, a vicious cycle ensues. 
Their children repeat the cycle of school failure, delinquency, crime, 
unemployment, and nonmarital births.
  These are not the only disturbing facts about single parent homes. 
Our committee has heard testimony that children with absent fathers are 
five times more likely to live in poverty, more likely to bring weapons 
and drugs into the classroom, twice as likely to commit crime, twice as 
likely to drop out of school, twice as likely to be abused, more likely 
to commit suicide, more than twice as likely to abuse alcohol or drugs, 
and more likely to become pregnant as teenagers.
  The Fathers Count Act of 1999 is designed to prevent the unfortunate 
cycle of children being reared in fatherless families by supporting 
projects that help fathers meet their responsibilities as husbands, 
parents, and providers.
  I think a particularly good highlight of this bill is the charitable 
choice provisions which really allow faith-based organizations to 
compete for contracts whenever a State chooses to use private sector 
services or providers for delivering welfare services to the poor.
  The charitable choice provision represents a historic shift in the 
way social services are delivered, away from big government programs to 
small, effective community faith-based providers. This provision allows 
the Secretary of HHS to choose a faith-based provider, and does not 
require the Secretary to do so.
  The reasons this is so important is the goals of faith-based 
organizations are not just to provide services, but to change lives. 
Many of the fathers that the Fathers Count legislation is intended to 
reach need much more than services. They need what only faith-based 
organizations can deliver, and that is a belief that change is 
possible.
  This bill is aimed at promoting marriage among parents. It will also 
work to help poor and low-income fathers establish positive 
relationships with their children and their children's mothers.
  I urge a yes vote on this important legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first, let me acknowledge that when we work together,

[[Page 29510]]

Democrats and Republicans, we can get a lot accomplished.
  I commend the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources, for her steadfast 
willingness to make sure that this legislation was considered and 
negotiated and marked up in a very bipartisan way.
  I also want to compliment her on the hearings that we held on this 
bill. I thought they were very helpful. We heard from a lot of 
different groups, and they made many suggestions which are incorporated 
in the final legislation that was brought forward.
  The system worked. The process worked. As a result, the Fathers Count 
Act, H.R. 3073, is a bill that will help low-income parents in carrying 
out their responsibility, both custodial and noncustodial, both mothers 
and fathers. It is a good bill, and I encourage my colleagues to 
support this legislation.
  It does not include every provision that the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) or I would like to have seen in the 
legislation. It is a product of compromise, and it is a good bill that 
moves us forward in helping low-income parents.
  This endeavor is important for three reasons. First, it is simply 
unfair to expect low-income mothers to bear all the responsibility for 
raising their children. It is a moral and legal obligation of both 
parents to provide care for their sons and daughters.
  Second, some noncustodial fathers want to help their families, but 
they lack regular employment, and it prevents them from meeting their 
commitments. These are dead-broke dads, not deadbeat dads. They need 
assistance in finding and retaining employment, and they need 
encouragement to cooperate with their child support system, which they 
view in many cases as being very hostile.
  Third, and most importantly, children are simply better off when both 
of their parents have a committed and caring relationship with them, as 
the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) has pointed out. This 
is in the best interest of a child to have both parents involved in 
their upbringing.
  Under the Fathers Count Act, $140 million dollars in competitive 
grants will be made available for communities to encourage fathers to 
become a consistent and productive presence in the lives of their 
children, whether through marriage or through increased visitation and 
the payment of child support.
  These new grant funds can be used for a wide array of specific 
services, including counseling, vocational education, job search, and 
retention services, and even subsidized employment. The legislation 
includes resources to carefully evaluate the impact of these grants on 
marriage, parenting, employment, earnings, and the payment of child 
support.
  Mr. Chairman, in addition, the grant program would encourage States 
and communities to implement innovative policies to assist and 
encourage noncustodial parents to pay child support.
  For example, preference would be given to grant applications which 
contain an agreement from the State to pass through more child support 
payments to low-income families rather than recoup the money for prior 
welfare costs. Mr. Chairman, I can tell my colleagues that will 
encourage more involvement financially by noncustodial parents with 
their child. It is a good provision. Some States have done it, but not 
enough States have done this. This bill will encourage that action.
  The legislation would make one very important change to help both 
custodial and noncustodial parents support their children. It would 
expand eligibility for the current Welfare to Work program. This 
initiative was originally passed as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 
1997. It has proven to be a useful tool to help long-term welfare 
recipients and noncustodial parents of children on public assistance 
gain employment.
  However, the criteria to access these funds are too restrictive. We 
know that. We are not able to get the money out where it is desperately 
needed. Therefore, the Fathers Count Act would broaden eligibility and 
local flexibility under the Welfare to Work program, an improvement, I 
might add, that has been requested by our National Governors' 
Association and by the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the Department of 
Labor. I hope that the House will build on this effort by passing a 
broader reauthorization of the Welfare to Work program. The Clinton 
administration has submitted such a request, and I hope that this will 
be the first step in reauthorizing that program.
  Finally, I should point out that H.R. 3073 contains three provisions 
that would improve the administration of several different human 
resource programs. First, the bill would establish a more realistic 
penalty for the States that have failed to establish a State 
Disbursement Unit for their child support enforcement system.
  Second, the legislation would provide Federal reimbursement for State 
and local efforts to train judges and other court personnel involved in 
child abuse cases.
  Lastly, the measure would provide additional funding to improve 
ongoing effort by the Census Bureau to study the impact of welfare 
reform on low-income families.
  Mr. Chairman, the underlying premise of the Fathers Count Act is 
children are better off emotionally and financially when both of their 
parents are productive parts of their life. We achieve these goals by 
promoting marriage, particularly among recent parents. However, we 
recognize that marriage is not always possible or even desirable, 
especially when there is an obvious threat of domestic violence. In 
those circumstances, we still expect fathers to accept financial 
responsibility for their children.
  This bill, therefore, seeks to help low-income fathers gain 
employment needed to pay child support. Without such an effort, we are 
condemning custodial mothers near the poverty level to bear the entire 
burden of raising their children.
  In conclusion, let me say that we are going to have some debates on 
some of the amendments, and we will talk about that a little bit later, 
but the underlying bill is a good bill. It is supported by the 
administration. It is supported by many of the advocates and groups on 
behalf of our children. I urge my colleagues to support the 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), who introduced the first fatherhood 
bill and who has been a real leader on this subject. It is a pleasure 
to have him on the floor with us today.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I compliment the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Mrs. Johnson) for her work as well as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Cardin).
  I would have to agree wholeheartedly with my Democrat friend that, 
when we do work together as Republicans and Democrats, we can do some 
great things and solve some tremendous problems in this country.
  One-third of the children born today are born to single moms, one-
third. I would wager that most of them, most of those children were 
fathered by a father that grew up without a father in the home.
  It is hard for many of us to think of growing up without two parents. 
Experience shows us that the father shows up for the delivery, hands 
out cigars, and then, all too often, is never seen again. Oh, one may 
see him hanging out on the street corner, but he has been left behind.

                              {time}  1245

  We have done great things in this country with welfare reform, but it 
has created an imbalance that has to be addressed, and this legislation 
is a great first step in addressing the balance.
  We are training the moms to become breadwinners, and we have done 
some wonderful things; and the children now look up to their moms as 
role models, but there is still that great vacancy in the home because 
there is not a father, and all too often the father is anything but a 
role model. In our society, today, we cannot afford to leave large 
masses of people behind.

[[Page 29511]]

  We have to work with all the people in our population and not give up 
on any of them, and that is what this legislation addresses; and this 
is what it comes down to. It teaches fathers to be fathers. As 
ridiculous as that may sound, if a young boy grows up and is never in a 
home where there is a father and his neighbors do not have fathers 
either, he may very well not have a clue as to what it is to be a 
father, the responsibility, and also the love that is possible and can 
be generated just by getting in and having some bonding between human 
beings.
  We know that these kids that grow up without fathers are much more 
likely to get in trouble with the law, they do poorly in school, in 
most cases, and they will have problems for the rest of their lives. 
And then they will grow up and they will have children out of wedlock, 
and this cycle goes on and on. We have to break this cycle.
  This is great legislation. It is a pilot program, admittedly, but it 
is one whose time has come; and I am very, very pleased to see that we 
are joining together on both sides of this House and bringing forth 
this tremendous legislation. It is going to save a lot of human beings, 
and it is going to be great for today's kids.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very interesting piece 
of legislation, and I know that the people who have put it together 
have the best of intentions and really want to see some progress made 
with this very serious problem. It is unfortunate that some of the 
amendments that were offered have not been made in order by the rule; 
however, there are a number of amendments that have been made in order 
and, if those amendments pass, I think this legislation may actually 
have some opportunity to be successful.
  There are some things, however, that we are overlooking as we promote 
this legislation. Perhaps one of the most salient features here of this 
bill, one of the most important things that it does, is it brings to 
the fore the direct connection between income and problems of 
parenting, particularly problems of fatherhood. This bill directly 
targets its provisions at those people who are 150 percent below the 
poverty level.
  Why does it do that? Because either consciously or unconsciously it 
recognizes that poor parenting and poverty go hand in hand. So why are 
we not dealing with the problem of poverty? That is the question that 
every Member of this House ought to be asking themselves. The problem 
of poverty is fundamental to dealing with this issue.
  One of the things we ought to do is bring to the floor here a bill to 
increase the minimum wage. We have allowed the minimum wage in our 
country to fall far below that level where it ought to be. If the 
minimum wage had been allowed to rise at its standard level, its normal 
level throughout the decade of the 1980s and the early 1990s, it would 
today be about $7.50 an hour. That is much closer to the level where a 
father can support a family.
  Bringing out the minimum wage is the most important thing that we 
could do. The other body passed a minimum wage bill, but extends it 
over a period of 3 years, drags it out, increases it only by $1, from 
$5.15 to $6.15 over a period of 3 years, leaving it woefully behind 
where it ought to be. Let us bring the minimum wage bill out here to 
the floor, let us pass a real minimum wage bill, let us bring the 
minimum wage to where it ought to be, $7.00, $7.50, $8.00 an hour. Then 
we will have fathers who can support their families.
  Let us pass legislation which will provide for national health 
insurance, so that all of the children of these fathers will have 
health insurance, so that they can have their health needs taken care 
of, and so that fathers can feel proud of being able to take care of 
their children; bringing them into immunization clinics, making sure 
they see a doctor and get proper health care. Those are the things we 
ought to be doing.
  If we are really serious about improving parenting, if we are really 
serious about improving the quality of fatherhood and motherhood in our 
country, let us do something about the minimum wage. Let us bring out a 
bill that will give us national health insurance. Let us really do 
something for parents so that they can be strong, competent, capable 
parents, raising their children in competent and capable ways. That is 
the real answer to this problem.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I would just say to the gentleman, the preceding speaker, that we are 
dead serious. We are dead serious about poverty as well as about 
parenting. And as a result of welfare reform, poverty in America has 
declined 26 percent in the last 4 years. It is unprecedented for 
poverty to decline in consecutive years, and especially among poor 
children.
  But in addition under this bill, we do not just provide parenting 
education and help with relational skills, these men are going to get 
help with job placement, with career advancement, with getting the 
skills that are necessary for higher paying jobs. I am a big supporter 
of the minimum wage. I do not disagree that raising the minimum wage is 
important, but nobody working at minimum wage is really going to be 
able to provide a child real economic security.
  The goal of this bill is not only to help men get into more stable 
jobs in the work force but help them to enhance their careers, their 
skills, move up and earn a higher wage. In sum, this is a direct attack 
on the problem of poverty among poor men.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. English).
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her path-
breaking work on this issue, and let me add for the sake of the 
gentleman from New York who has now left the floor, it is probably 
worth noting that neither a minimum wage increase nor health care 
reform nor welfare reform came to the floor the last time his party was 
in the majority. But that is beside the point this morning.
  We have gathered today on a bipartisan basis in support of the 
Fathers Count Act, a real social reform that I think will add greatly 
to the quality of life in this country. This legislation takes welfare 
reform to the next level. It recognizes that since the 1960s, the 
family unit has been under siege from an intrusive and wayward welfare 
state. We have seen the breakup of low-income families and a breakup 
that has led to the rise of a large underclass.
  This legislation builds on the success of the welfare reform that we 
passed in 1996 and moves in the direction of reknitting family bonds. 
This legislation builds support infrastructure to strengthen the 
institution of fatherhood and provides support for new innovative local 
community-based programs that address this problem. These are programs 
that would counsel and mentor low-income fathers; that would promote 
good parenting practices; that stress the importance of honoring child 
support obligations and point the way for fathers to become effective 
providers through meaningful participation in the workforce.
  Let me say that, in my view, this may be one of the most important 
social reforms that we consider during my term in Congress, and it is 
one that complements welfare-to-work; that strengthens family and 
promotes necessary innovation and social policy. I urge all of my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle who are concerned about poverty 
in America to join me in supporting this legislation.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I take the time now to explain why I will be offering 
an amendment when we get to the amendment section.
  The amendment that I am offering was actually in the Ways and Means 
reported version of the Fathers Count legislation. It deals with 
changes in the welfare-to-work with custodial parents who are below the 
poverty level, not receiving TANF funds, being eligible for welfare-to-
work funds. The difficulty is that the bill that is on the floor today 
would restrict that to no more than 30 percent of the funds available. 
The problem is that there

[[Page 29512]]

are other programs that fit into that 30 percent, including children 
aging out of foster care that we want to make sure the States have 
maximum flexibility.
  I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment to give the 
States maximum flexibility in how they manage the resources available 
to not only get people off of welfare but to keep people off of welfare 
and having good jobs and not being in poverty.
  So I would hope my colleagues would support this amendment when it is 
offered during the amendment stage of debate.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Edwards), who will be offering an amendment dealing with the charitable 
choice provisions.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and, Mr. Chairman, I will be offering an amendment in a few 
minutes that I hope all Members on both sides of the aisle will 
consider very carefully.
  The amendment is very simple, but the principle behind that amendment 
is, I believe, as profound as the meaning of the establishment clause 
in the first amendment of our Constitution. What our amendment does is 
simply say that monies, the $150 million that will be funded through 
this bill, shall not go to pervasively sectarian organizations. The 
Supreme Court has decided this, specifically in a decision in 1988 in 
Bowen vs Kendrick, saying that pervasively sectarian organizations, or 
organizations such as churches, synagogues, mosques, houses of worship, 
where religion is fundamentally thoroughly the reason for its 
existence.
  Why do I offer this amendment? Well, there are a couple of basic 
reasons. First of all, the Founding Fathers made it very clear, and not 
just in putting it in the Bill of Rights, but putting in the first 10 
words of the Bill of Rights this principle: that the best way to have 
religious freedom and respect in America is to build a firewall between 
government regulations and religion. And that separation, that wall of 
separation between church and State, has for 200 years worked 
extraordinarily well.
  We are the envy of the world when it comes to religious tolerance and 
religious freedom. Why in the world, in a 20-minute debate over an 
amendment on the floor today in this House, should we, in effect, tear 
down that wall of separation between church and state and put at risk 
the independence and freedom of religious organizations and 
institutions all across this country?
  The second reason I would say we need to pass the Edwards amendment 
is that without that amendment we need to look at the language this 
bill refers to in the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, which not more than a 
handful of Members were even aware of. This bill, without my amendment, 
could literally let churches and houses of worship take Federal dollars 
and, in using those dollars to run secular or social programs, they can 
hold out that money and actually use it to pay for a sign that they 
could put on the front of their church saying that no Jews need apply 
for this job, no Protestants need apply for this federally funded job, 
no Catholics, no Hindus. Whatever religions they do not like, they can 
use Federal dollars to literally discriminate in job hiring decisions 
based on no other reason than the religion of that American citizen.
  I find that to be repugnant to the concept of the freedoms enshrined 
in the Bill of Rights. And I know that no sponsor of this legislation 
would intentionally want to do that, but I would urge them to take a 
look at the impact of this language and the underlying language that it 
builds on from the 1996 Welfare Reform Act.
  I appreciate deeply the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the 
Democratic sponsor of this bill, and his strong support of my 
amendment. I think he and I would agree that if we believe in this 
legislation, we ought to vote for the Edwards amendment simply to make 
it constitutional, if for no other reason than that practical but yet 
important reason.

                              {time}  1300

  I think it is time for this House to take a stand in saying that we 
are not going to compromise the meaning of the establishment clause, 
the first 10 words of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, not 
out of disrespect to religion, but out of total reverence to religion.
  To my Republican colleagues and conservative Members on both sides of 
the aisle, those of them who constantly come to this floor and express 
grievous reservations about government regulation of our public schools 
and they do not even want the Federal Government involved in governing 
our local schools and they are greatly concerned about Federal 
regulations and agencies overseeing businesses in America, why in the 
world through this legislation would they want to extend government 
regulation into our churches, our synagogues, and our houses of 
worship?
  The way this bill is written and using the underlying language of the 
1996 Welfare Reform Act, they basically are going to invite government 
regulators to come into virtually any synagogue, church, or house of 
worship that receives money under this program and allow those 
government regulators to ask where they got their money, how they spend 
their money, and the purposes for it.
  Please, my colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, vote for the Edwards 
amendment.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment on the Edwards amendment that 
will come up later on.
  The charitable choice provisions in the Welfare Reform bill are 
provisions that have been affirmed in three consecutive Congresses in 
votes on the floor. The reason that they have been affirmed is that, 
within the charitable choice provision in the law, there is a firewall. 
Church grant recipients cannot proselytize with federal funds and there 
must be a secular alternative service provider available. While the 
money can flow to a church, a church is not allowed to discriminate 
amongst children that they serve according to the child's religion 
affiliation.
  Now, it is also true that it allows a Catholic day-care center that 
is run by nuns to have only nuns run it. But even that center could not 
discriminate on the basis of faith amongst children applying to be in 
that day-care center. So there is a very clear firewall.
  In the years that this has been in the law, 6 years now, no body of 
examples of problems has developed. We have had a couple of cases in 
which the law has been enforced and, therefore, has been demonstrated 
to be enforceable and people have lost grants because they have used 
the money to proselytize. So there is a firewall in the law.
  But I want to get to a more human point here. In many of the 
neighborhoods where there are the highest number of single moms on 
welfare and unmarried dads, there are very few institutions left; and 
often in these neighborhoods, in some of the cities of our Nation, 
there is still a small church. It is the last of the community 
organizations that lives there.
  If we can get money to that small church for something like a 
fatherhood program, we must do it. Because they can reach those 
fathers. They cannot only help fathers do all the things that this bill 
fosters, but they can also pair with the Workforce Investment Board so 
that they get fathers into the job stream more effectively. They can 
deal with the parenting issues and the relational issues. But most 
importantly, when the Federal money runs out, they will still be there.
  One of the terrible failings of social service programs funded by the 
Federal Government is that, when we stop the funding, the program goes 
away.
  One of the reasons we wanted to get faith-based institutions into the 
business of service is because they provide an ongoing support system 
for people who need support. All of us need support after either the 
program is gone or the person no longer needs the program and does not 
qualify.
  So if a father moves up that economic ladder and no longer qualifies 
economically, he still has the support system available to him that 
helped him make that progress. Because, in

[[Page 29513]]

fact, many of the faith-based organizations believe that their goal is 
not just to help temporarily but to change lives. And furthermore, they 
believe that they can change their life. Very few government funded 
programs really believe that in their gut.
  Now, are they bureaucratic? Absolutely. We have not had the 
outpouring of applications from the faith-based community because they 
cannot do business with the Federal Government without quite a lot of 
accountability, and that is paperwork.
  So the charitable choice provisions have not created quite the 
response we had hoped for, but they have brought new providers in. They 
do reach into these troubled communities. And it is those very 
communities where often the church is the last remaining organized 
institution that we do want to reach into.
  So we do it through the charitable choice mechanism, but we have a 
firewall within that law; and that firewall, to this time, has worked.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the Edwards amendment does not repeal charitable 
choice. It recognizes the need for faith-based institutions to help us 
carry out the fatherhood initiative.
  We recognize that also in the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 that we want 
faith-based institutions to help us in getting people off of welfare to 
work and we want faith-based institutions to help us in our Fatherhood 
Counts Act.
  The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) pointed out, and 
correctly so, that what we have done in this bill is referenced the 
1996 Act. We referenced the Welfare Reform Act; and she states quite 
correctly that, under that Act, no funds provided directly to 
institutions or organizations to provide services and administrative 
programs shall be expended for sectarian worship, instruction, or 
proselytization. That is in the 1997 law and, by reference, is 
incorporated into the fatherhood initiative.
  But there is another section to that law of 1997 which is referenced, 
and it says that the programs must be implemented consistent with the 
establishment clause of the United States Constitution. That is in the 
1997 Act and, by reference, is incorporated in Fathers Count.
  What the Edwards amendment does is make that section consistent with 
the Kendrick decision, which is a Supreme Court decision that 
interpreted that to mean that the entity cannot be pervasively 
sectarian. So the Edwards amendment is clarifying the 1997 statute to 
make it absolutely clear that we want faith-based institutions but it 
must be within the constitutional framework.
  I think it is a clarifying amendment. Quite frankly, I do not think 
it should be a controversial amendment. I think that it should be 
accepted as clarifying what we all agree, that we want faith-based 
institutions participating, but it must be in compliance with the 
Constitution of the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the point of the gentleman is an important one; and I 
appreciate the legitimate controversy around this issue.
  I would point out two facts. There is no definition of these two 
words ``pervasively sectarian.'' And since the Kendrick decision of 
1993, the Supreme Court has indicated and is, as we speak, reviewing 
decisions that will enlarge on that 1993 decision and slightly alter 
it. Even this administration has been for the clarification that would 
clearly allow technology assistance to parochial schools.
  So we are at a point in our history where we are trying to work out 
precisely what this division between church and state should look like 
on the ground running. And by putting into statute a 1993 Supreme Court 
decision, we limit the ability of that division to develop in the years 
ahead and for that line to be more clearly defined.
  Now, that is one problem. The second problem is that, in the wording 
of his amendment, as he tries to translate what he believes to be the 
Supreme Court decision into current law, Representative Edwards says, 
``notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds shall not be 
provided to any faith-based institution that is pervasively 
sectarian.''
  Well, of course, the church is pervasively sectarian. The program 
that is going to use the funds is not. But if they do not allow this, 
say, small black church in a poor neighborhood to be a receiver of the 
funds, even though they must be spent on this program in compliance 
with the charitable choice statute, then they will not be eligible to 
receive the funds.
  I think, if we pass the Edwards amendment here today, it will have a 
very chilling effect on both the Federal Government's and the State 
Government's willingness to include faith-based organizations in their 
network of service providers because we will have confused the issue as 
to who actually is defined as the ``pervasively sectarian'' entity.
  Certainly, the church is a pervasively sectarian entity. Its day-care 
center cannot be if it is going to receive funds under this law.
  So I would just say that I think putting into statute Supreme Court 
language from a 1993 decision, when we are at this very time seeing the 
Supreme Court take more cases in this area in order to give clearer 
definition to the delicate balance between the church and state in our 
democracy, would be unwise. Therefore, I will oppose the amendment when 
the time comes.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) 
is misreading the Kendrick decision.
  The Kendrick decision dealt with the program management, not the 
sponsoring entity, in that they can be a sectarian institution that 
carries out a program that is not pervasively sectarian in the way that 
it is managed.
  In fact, we have found that in the management of TANF funds that 
religious institutions have been able to comply with this standard. And 
the reason why we think it is important to include it in statute is to 
make it clear that we want to make sure that the Constitution is in 
fact adhered to, the establishment clause.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to some of the points made by 
the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
  First of all, she talked about a chilling effect. Quite frankly, to 
be honest, I do want to put a chilling effect, as Mr. Madison and Mr. 
Jefferson wanted to in writing the Bill of Rights and drafting it and 
supporting it, that we ought not to have Federal dollars going directly 
to houses of worship. They were adamant, they were profoundly committed 
to that concept. And, yes, I do want to put a chilling effect on that 
kind of flow of dollars, for all the reasons that I have mentioned.
  But my amendment is clear that it allows dollars, under this program, 
to go to other faith-based organizations. I think that is one reason 
why a number of religious organizations are supporting my amendment.
  Let me just mention a few: The American Jewish Committee, the Baptist 
Joint Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, actually the American 
Federation of State and County and Municipal Employees, the National 
Council of Jewish Women, the American Civil Liberties Union, the 
American Jewish Committee, Religious Action Center, America United for 
Separation of Church and State, the Council on Religious Freedom.
  This is not going to stop faith-based organizations from 
participating in social programs. What it is going to do is make this 
bill consistent with Bowen v. Kendrick in 1988 in the Supreme Court 
decision.

[[Page 29514]]

  Let me read from what Justice Rehnquist actually wrote in the 
majority position. He said, the reason for this concern, and he is 
referring to Federal dollars going to pervasively sectarian churches to 
be run in secular programs, ``The reason for this is that there is a 
risk that direct government funding, even if it is designated for 
specific secular purposes, may nonetheless advance the pervasively 
sectarian institution's religious mission.''

                              {time}  1315

  I do not understand why any sponsor of this legislation would want to 
write a bill knowing it is specifically in contrast to a clear 
constitutional decision written by Mr. Rehnquist and supported by a 
majority of the Supreme Court on a very similar case.
  Secondly, on some other points, she talked about, well, under this 
bill you will not be able to discriminate against people wanting the 
services. That still does not deny the fact that it will allow you to 
use Federal dollars to discriminate against people, in hiring people 
for running and managing these programs based simply on their religion. 
There are logical reasons why we let church and synagogues hire people 
of their own faith using their own dollars. But this is plowing new 
ground, beginning with the welfare reform bill of just 3 years ago, 
that has not been well implemented yet, in allowing dollars to go 
directly to churches and synagogues and houses of worship. I think that 
is profoundly risky and dangerous and threatens the very purpose and 
commitment of the Bill of Rights.
  The gentlewoman mentioned, quote, there are no problems over the last 
6 years. Let me point out that the welfare reform bill was only passed 
in 1996. It has only been in place 3 years, not 6 years, and in fact it 
is now being mired down in constitutional debate and court cases over 
the very point we are making today. Why burden this legislation with 
the burden that the welfare reform act is going through?
  Finally, I think the point is just simply this: For 200 years, we 
have had separation of church and State for very basic reasons. We do 
not want government regulation of religious institutions. I would 
suggest without the Edwards amendment, that is exactly what we are 
going to get. Even when a church defends its efforts as not being 
proselytizing or sectarian, that will require itself court cases where 
it will allow plaintiffs to go in and file lawsuits against churches 
and houses of worship. I would suggest it is that constitutional 
question, it is that legal fear that has caused many churches, 
religions and houses of worship not to want to participate in direct 
Federal funding under the welfare reform bill.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  The bottom line here is, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) 
said it very clearly, you do not want churches getting the money. I do 
want churches getting the money. That is the bottom line. I think there 
is a role in America for churches being part of the social service 
delivery system because they have the ability to support people at a 
level of faith that government cannot offer, and they are there after 
you outgrow the program, they are there after the funding expires. It 
gives to the person not only a hand up but a permanent supportive 
community.
  I do not want Federal money to go to churches that is not accountable 
and for programs that are not open to everyone who needs them. So, yes, 
there will be red tape. Churches who choose to receive Federal money 
will be regulated. If they do not like it, I cannot help it. If there 
are Federal dollars, you are accountable. If there are Federal dollars, 
you cannot discriminate against people needing the service. In 
addition, the community must make a secular alternative available and 
so on. The fire wall in the charitable choice language is extremely 
important and effective. But your fire wall would take effect above 
that and cut churches out of the service-providing social service 
network in America. I think that would be a tragedy.
  Why did our Founding Fathers not oppose this? Because they never 
envisioned that the Federal Government would be providing the level of 
service, job placement, parenting education, not in their wildest 
dreams. Since we are doing that, we do have to do that in a way that is 
respectful of our Constitution and I believe the charitable choice 
provisions allow that.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the Members would read the bill and 
read the Edwards amendment before they vote on it, because I understand 
there are deep philosophical differences among Members as to what we 
would like to see in regards to the use of faith-based institutions in 
carrying out programs sponsored by the Federal Government. But that is 
not what really is involved in the Edwards amendment. The Edwards 
amendment is very simple. It says that we use faith-based institutions 
but they must comply with the constitutional standard in regards to 
establishment of religion.
  Let me, if I might, just quote from CRS because I think that really 
summarizes it best. It says: If the organization's secular functions 
are separable, government can directly subsidize those functions. 
However, if the entity is so permeated by a religious purpose and 
character that its secular functions and religious functions are 
``inextricably intertwined,'' that is, the entity is ``pervasively 
sectarian,'' the Court has construed the establishment clause generally 
to forbid direct public assistance.
  That is what the Edwards amendment is saying. It is not trying to 
take sides quite frankly on whether it is a good public policy or a bad 
public policy to get our faith-based institutions involved in the 
fatherhood initiative. What it is saying is, let us adhere to the 
establishment clause, let us give guidance to the grantees to make sure 
that they comply with the constitutional standards. That makes sense. I 
would hope that everyone would say that we should comply with the 
Constitution. It is not taking sides on the underlying issue.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing, this is one of the amendments, but let us 
not lose sight of the bill that is an extremely important bill. It is 
supported by the administration. By letter dated today, the 
administration urges a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 3073. It is supported by 
the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, by the Center for Law and 
Social Policy, by the Children's Defense Fund. This is a very important 
bill. I would hope my colleagues will support it when we have a chance 
to vote on it a little bit later.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my 
time to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) and thank her for 
her good work on this subcommittee over the years.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Washington is recognized for 1 
minute.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I want to add my voice to those who 
enthusiastically support H.R. 3073. I want to thank the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) for her commitment to helping encourage 
fathers to be involved in their families. The best hope for our 
children is the daily involvement of both parents in their lives. For 
too long, we have tolerated the unfortunate trend of fatherless homes 
to the detriment of our youth. Too many children are being born out of 
wedlock. A recent census study found that the number of babies born to 
unwed parents has increased fivefold since the 1930s. Both mothers and 
fathers are important to raising children and helping them achieve 
their full potential. Too often, fathers who are not custodial parents 
have difficulty meeting their financial obligations to their children, 
or have trouble spending time with them.
  We have got to encourage efforts that help men get more involved in 
the lives of their children, especially when they are not around on a 
day-to-day basis. This Congress has rightfully promoted improving the 
lives of families through attempts to lower the historic tax burden 
they shoulder. Now it is time to help men who may not be a part of the

[[Page 29515]]

home but who are struggling to be a part of the family.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Goodling) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) each will control 
15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I first want to commend the gentlewoman from Connecticut for her 
efforts to bring attention to the needs of noncustodial fathers who are 
working to fulfill their responsibilities.
  The Fathers Count Act of 1999, as amended by the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut's substitute, also includes important changes to the 
welfare-to-work program incorporated from H.R. 3172, the Welfare-to-
Work Amendments of 1999, which passed in the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce on November 3. The major focus of these changes is to 
provide more flexibility to States and localities in administering the 
welfare-to-work program.
  This program, authorized under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, 
provides assistance to welfare recipients who face significant barriers 
to employment. In an effort to target assistance to those individuals 
most in need, strict eligibility criteria were established for the 
program. However, as we have since learned from both States and 
localities responsible for administering this program, the eligibility 
has been so strict as to prevent serving individuals clearly in need of 
these services.
  In fact, a report compiled after passage of this program found that 
most of the funds were aiding only 10 percent of welfare recipients. 
Largely because of this, States and localities have simply been unable 
to expend these funds. To date, of the $3 billion available for the 
program, only $283 million has been spent.
  To address this issue, this legislation loosens the eligibility 
criteria to allow more individuals in need of these services to benefit 
from the program. This legislation also includes an amendment offered 
by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) providing even 
greater local flexibility for the targeting of these funds, and 
streamlines the current burdensome paperwork requirements necessary for 
verification of program eligibility.
  However, it should be made clear the intent of this bill is not to 
encourage these programs to ignore the significant needs of those 
welfare recipients who truly have tremendous barriers to achieving 
self-sufficiency, but rather to provide more flexibility for locals in 
identifying these individuals.
  I also want to highlight several other important provisions under 
this legislation which I believe will improve the welfare-to-work 
program.
  First, it addresses the importance of providing services to 
noncustodial parents. Although these parents were eligible under the 
current program, the criteria for receiving services has been loosened. 
In addition, provisions adopted from a bill supported by the 
administration will ensure that noncustodial parents served under this 
program will work toward fully meeting their responsibilities with 
respect to their noncustodial child or children.
  Secondly, this bill eliminates the current reporting requirements 
under the welfare-to-work program. It has come to our attention that 
these reporting requirements are too extensive, complex and cost too 
much for entities conducting programs to meet. Thus, this bill repeals 
these requirements and directs the Secretary of Labor, in consultation 
with the Secretaries of HHS and State and local government, to develop 
a new and more reasonable and affordable data reporting system.
  By increasing the ability to share information, this legislation also 
promotes increased and improved coordination between human services 
agencies which administer welfare programs and the workforce 
development system which administers the welfare-to-work program.
  Finally, this legislation also expands local flexibility by allowing 
funds to be used to support up to 6 months of vocational education job 
training. Although we view this program as a work program as opposed to 
a job training or education program, this provision strikes a 
compromise between those who believe that no limitation should be put 
on education and training requirements and those who point out the 
failure of this program's predecessor, the Job Opportunity and Basic 
Skills Act.
  By allowing for limited vocational education and training, it is our 
hope that local providers will establish programs that stress the need 
for employment first, backed up with additional skills training to 
provide the support necessary for these individuals to move up the 
career ladder and become self-sufficient.
  I am pleased this legislation has bipartisan support and has received 
the endorsement from several State and local organizations as well as 
the administration. I urge my colleagues to join in support of this 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the welfare-to-work provisions 
only that are included in H.R. 3073, the Fathers Count Act. These 
provisions broaden the eligibility requirements for the program so that 
tens of thousands of low-income families will receive job search and 
training assistance to improve their ability to secure gainful 
employment.
  The welfare-to-work program was enacted as part of the 1997 budget 
agreement to help families transition from welfare to work by providing 
them meaningful education and job training assistance. Forty-seven 
States currently participate in the program and 76,000 recipients have 
received services.
  This bill contains a number of improvements necessary to ensure the 
program's future success. Most notably, Mr. Chairman, the bill expands 
current eligibility requirements which are so narrow in current law 
that many deserving welfare recipients cannot qualify. Both the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce and the Committee on Ways and 
Means reported bills that would ease the rules so that more individuals 
can be assisted.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. Chairman, there are others issues that were not solved in 
committee. The substitute, in my opinion, should reauthorize the 
Welfare to Work program in future years. The 2.6 million individuals 
who remain on welfare is a hard-to-serve population that will require 
extensive and intensive assistance to successfully move off of welfare. 
This program will be needed for many more years to come.
  Also, H.R. 3073 only covers six months of education and job training 
assistance. This is far too short. I regret also that the Committee on 
Rules did not make in order the amendment of the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey) to extend training to one year. I support 
amendments to be offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) 
which would change the fatherhood program to the parenthood program. I 
share her concern that both parents need support and should be treated 
equally.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support these amendments and to 
support the welfare-to-work operations of the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield what time he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the subcommittee chair.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3073, the 
Fathers Count Act. Not only does it focus on the need to help 
noncustodial fathers gain employment in order to pay child support, it 
also includes important changes to the Welfare to Work program.
  These changes are reflected in the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 3073 offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Mrs. Johnson). This substitute includes important provisions passed in 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce under H.R. 3172, the 
Welfare-to-Work amendments of 1999, and reflect bipartisan consensus 
among Members from

[[Page 29516]]

both our committee and the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Just over a month ago, my Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education, 
Training and Lifelong Learning held a hearing on the issue of welfare 
reform and, in particular, on the Welfare to Work program. I was 
encouraged by a report presented at that hearing by the General 
Accounting Office which found the Welfare to Work program to be 
providing an incentive for greater collaboration between welfare 
agencies and the job training system. This is an issue I believe is 
critical if these Federal programs are to be cost-effective, efficient, 
and avoid duplication.
  This hearing also highlighted the frustration of many States and 
localities regarding several aspects of the Welfare to Work program. 
Specifically, they noted the State eligibility requirements that have 
limited their ability to serve individuals clearly in need of services, 
but who simply do not meet the program's targeted criteria.
  I am pleased the Johnson substitute includes relief to these agencies 
by providing more flexibility in designing local programs to address 
the significant barriers to employment facing those who are still on 
welfare today.
  In addition, this legislation includes several other important 
provisions which, taken together, expand flexibility for how these 
funds are used and which cut down on burdensome red tape requirements 
that have hampered the program's effectiveness.
  It is my hope that we ensure States and locals are able to use these 
funds effectively as part of an ongoing successful strategy to forever 
change the nature of welfare.
  Indeed, these strategies are beginning to show some very encouraging 
news. The Department of Health and Human Services recently completed 
its annual review of welfare reform and provided clear evidence of this 
success.
  Specifically, the number of families relying on public assistance has 
fallen tremendously. Income among those leaving welfare has increased. 
Employment rates among single parent mothers have increased, while 
poverty rates have fallen. These are all indeed reasons to be 
encouraged by welfare reform.
  However, welfare reform will not continue to be the success that it 
is today if there is not a focus on the unique needs of those 
individuals who have far greater barriers to employment than those who 
have already left public assistance. We know from the experience of 
States such as Wisconsin that these individuals can and are making a 
successful transition into employment and towards self-sufficiency.
  However, it takes hard work, dedication, high expectation, and the 
types of assistance provided through the Welfare to Work program for 
this to happen. The changes we are making to this program today will 
help ensure these funds are an effective tool in these efforts to 
assist these individuals.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this important 
legislation.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Martinez).
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support for those 
provisions in H.R. 3073, the Fathers Count Act, that will make 
important changes to the Welfare to Work program.
  As my colleagues know, the Welfare to Work program was created when 
President Clinton insisted that $3 billion be included in the Balanced 
Budget Act of 1997 to help States move their welfare recipients into 
the work force and comply with the ambitious work requirements 
established in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
Reconciliation Act. I am pleased to say that that program has been 
largely successful.
  Over the last 5 years, the welfare rolls have decreased by over 40 
percent, reaching their lowest level since 1969. Conversely, the number 
of welfare recipients with jobs has quadrupled during that same time 
period.
  In August, President Clinton announced that every State and the 
District of Columbia had met the work requirements set forth in the 
Personal Responsibility Act of 1998, and just as important, the annual 
income earned by those welfare recipients for those jobs has increased 
by an average of $650 per year.
  However, as several of my colleagues have mentioned, one flaw is 
keeping the Welfare to Work program from realizing its full potential, 
overly restrictive eligibility requirements.
  Therefore, I support the provisions in this bill that will expand the 
eligibility requirements of the program. This will help States 
enormously in their efforts to move their remaining welfare recipients 
to work.
  However, while the new eligibility requirements will allow the States 
to access previously inaccessible money and provide services to 
previously unservable welfare recipients, that money will be expended 
quickly, leaving the hardest to serve individuals without resources.
  During the Committee on Education and the Workforce markup of H.R. 
3172, the companion bill to H.R. 3073, I offered an amendment to 
reauthorize the Welfare to Work program at the President's request of 
$1 billion for fiscal year 2000, which would have allowed the program 
to service an additional 200,000 individuals. Given the 2.6 million 
families remaining on welfare, I think that that is the least we can 
do.
  In a recent letter from the administration, Alexis Herman states, 
``We view H.R. 3172 as a complement to a complete reauthorization of 
the Welfare to Work program.''
  Additional resources are essential to addressing the continuing needs 
to promote long-term economic self-sufficiency among the hardest to 
employ welfare recipients and to assist noncustodial parents in making 
meaningful contributions to their the well-being of their children.
  Although, in the spirit of bipartisanship I withdrew my amendment, I 
agree with the administration and hope that the Congress will also 
consider legislation to reauthorize and provide additional resources 
for the Welfare to Work program in the near future. We have made too 
much progress to abandon our efforts now.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for 
yielding me this time.
  The Parents Count amendment that I am going to offer later, which 
attempts to correct what I think is a difficulty with the fatherhood 
section, and the debate seems to have been exclusively on that portion 
of the bill, I think we should really be spending time on the portion 
that has to do with Welfare-to-Work, which is an extremely important 
amendment that has been put together with this bill which is referred 
to as the Fathers Count legislation.
  Beginning on title III of this legislation, Welfare to Work program 
eligibility, which was reported out favorably by the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce, is a bill which attempts to correct a very 
serious problem with the original welfare reform legislation. In that 
legislation we attempted to be so strict in defining the eligibility of 
people who could qualify for Welfare-to-Work, and in setting up the 
requirements, virtually eliminated 90 percent of the people who might 
otherwise have been able to participate.
  I say that very liberally, because in talking to the Department of 
Labor that administers this program, they are saying that only about 10 
percent of the funds have been utilized. Looking at the figures 
programs in May and June of this year, they are saying that hopefully 
it has risen to about 13 to 15 percent, which suggests to me that this 
legislation which we reported out of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce is an absolutely essential correction.
  In my own State, and I have talked to the people there, and they say 
the one thing that eliminates almost all of the custodial parents from 
participating is the restriction that says you must not have a high 
school diploma or a GED, and almost all of the people on welfare or the 
parents on welfare have their high school diplomas in my State, and so 
they are automatically disqualified.
  So this correction which we are making, eliminating these very strict 
requirements, is essential if we expect to

[[Page 29517]]

take this Welfare-to-Work opportunity to the people that really need 
it.
  The second point I want to make is that the current law, even the 
current law which has all of these defects, opens up opportunity for 
Welfare-to-Work opportunities and assistance and other kinds of 
programs to both custodial parents and noncustodial parents. It is 
opened up completely to both aspects. In fact, to make sure that the 
noncustodial parent has an opportunity, there were restrictions of 
funding, 70 percent in one area, 30 percent in another. It is an 
important point to realize that the Welfare Reform Act, in creating 
Welfare-to-Work, established opportunities for both mothers and 
fathers.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder), a member of the committee.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to briefly talk again about the 
Edwards amendment on whether or not we are going to have a pervasively 
sectarian standard that basically, for all of the rhetoric, will 
eliminate faith-based organizations from being eligible for grants 
because States and others would be scared away from including faith-
based, because there is no definition of what constitutes pervasively 
sectarian. The Supreme Court has been evolving this definition.
  But rather than just talk about Vice President Gore, Governor Bush 
and others in this House and in the Senate in signed law that has 
passed three times with this clause, let me read a little bit from the 
Brookings Institution, once again where it separates kind of the far 
left of the Democratic Party from the moderate part of the Democratic 
Party, where they are talking about the reason to change the 
``pervasively sectarian standard which they say has constituted a 
genuine, though more subtle establishment of religion, because it 
supports one type of religious world view, while penalizing holistic 
beliefs.''
  Now, what did the Brookings Institution mean by holistic beliefs. 
They say, ``Holistic faith-based agencies operate on the belief that no 
area of a person's life, whether psychological, physical, social or 
economic, can be adequately considered in isolation from the 
spiritual.'' In other words, that is what we see in many of the grass-
roots organizations around the country.
  This bill would not allow them to teach religion; it would not allow 
them to have the bulk of this program, to discriminate against people 
who are not in that church, but it would say that if you are a faith-
based organization, you can have standards on your staff, you can have 
it be part of your ministry, because in fact, the holistic approach 
says that it is not just the mechanical parts of this, but it is also 
the character that matters.
  That is why many, if not most, although we have many secular 
organizations that had an impact; but many, if not most in the highest 
risk areas of the effective organizations have dealt with matters of 
the soul in addition to kind of the just mechanical execution, whether 
that is in homelessness, whether it is in juvenile delinquency, or 
whether it is as in this case, fatherhood, as this bill addresses.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise very reluctantly actually against this bill, 
because I know that a lot of hard work was done on the bill. There are 
many things that make a lot of sense about it, and yet, my struggle 
quite simply is this.
  As I read through the idea of establishing a grant program to foster 
responsible fatherhood, I struggle with that as a conservative. The 
reason I do is, is that really the role of the Federal government? To 
me that would seem to be the role of the local priest or the local 
rabbi or my preacher back home, or my uncle or my granddad, but 
somebody in my local community not tied to a grant from Washington, 
D.C., but somebody who actually lives there, who, because they care 
about me as a person, want to make an impact in my life in how I might 
be as a father, rather than being fostered through some grant out of 
Washington.
  I would secondly say it is an extra $140 million, not a lot of money 
in a $1.7 million billion budget, but nonetheless, is this the highest 
and best use of that money?
  Finally, again, this is an odd juxtaposition on where I stand on 
this, but does it grow or shrink government? Again, from my vantage 
point, it is something that grows government into a realm that we 
traditionally have not gone. I do not like the idea of the Federal 
government defining what a good father is. Is that really the role of 
the Federal government?
  So I simply raise those concerns very reluctantly, but nonetheless 
raise them.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle), the subcommittee chair.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support title III of the welfare-
to-work program and the expansion of eligibility amendment thereto.
  The welfare-to-work program was established in 1997 as a separate 
funding stream to States and localities to provide targeted assistance 
to moving the hardest to employ welfare recipients to work and self-
sufficiency.
  But what we have found is that the welfare-to-work program, while 
well-developed, requires greater flexibility in order to serve a 
greater population of the hardest to place welfare recipients.
  To date, States have only spent $283 million of the total $3 billion 
available, but face multiple barriers to expanding their ability to 
serve more clients.
  In Delaware, although $2.7 million was available this year, only 
$4,000 has been spent, with only about 40 clients being served. By 
relaxing the criteria as we are doing today, perhaps up to 1,000 others 
could be served.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not ordinarily complain about a lack of State 
funding on Federal assistance, but in this case, there is a large 
population of hard to place recipients that otherwise could greatly 
benefit from relaxed eligibility criteria and more flexibility in who 
may be served under the program.
  States like Delaware are clearly having difficulty in finding welfare 
recipients who qualify for assistance under this program. The 
transitional assistance to needy families funds have the flexibility to 
serve a greater population. Now it is time to expand the welfare-to-
work eligibility criteria, thereby allowing us to spread the safety net 
and package services in a more seamless way.
  By expanding the eligibility criteria for the welfare-to-work 
program, we retain, we dedicate, and strengthen the Federal commitment 
to serving the hardest to place welfare recipients. Not until adequate 
resources are targeted to the welfare-to-work recipients in a more 
realistic way and these recipients are helped off of welfare can we 
truly say that the historic Welfare Reform Act was a complete and 
unmitigated success.
  Expanding the eligibility of welfare-to-work recipients is an 
excellent idea whose time has come. I am proud to support the expansion 
of eligibility for the hardest to serve welfare recipients.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Isakson), a member of the committee.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding time to 
me, and I commend him for his hard work on this legislation, as well as 
the subcommittee chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to raise two points. I think at this time it is 
fortunate that we are dealing with legislation to expand welfare-to-
work and to truly reach those that we have failed to reach as of yet.
  Secondly, I want to point out, in reply to the comment of the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford) a few minutes ago with 
regard to whether or not it was the Federal Government's role to deal 
with the fatherhood programs, when welfare started, the

[[Page 29518]]

Federal government determined that aid to families of dependent 
children was predicated upon a single mother and dependent children. 
Fatherhood was not even an issue.
  Today we want to promote families and fathers, and to expand in title 
III the accessibility to reach out in terms of eligibility for welfare-
to-work programs. It means that this Congress and this country are 
addressing now those that are the most disadvantaged and those that are 
the last to not realize the success of welfare-to-work as passed by 
this Congress a number of years ago.
  It is only right and proper that the Federal government recognize in 
this program fatherhood and the promotion of it. It is only right in 
this program we expand eligibility so as to reach all Americans who 
deserve the opportunity for the education, the training, and the 
background, so they can truly become employed and be a contributing 
member of this society.
  I commend my chairman, I commend the committee, and I rise in full 
support of the bill.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that 
what is so remarkable about this bill, and I appreciate the concern of 
some of my colleagues about a new program, is that it reaches out to 
the young men with the very same services that we have been providing 
to women, and that we have developed so dramatically under the welfare-
to-work, the welfare reform bill.
  It just helps them get the job, develop their skills, become 
successful, proud breadwinners, and at the same time we help them 
develop the discipline, parenting skills, and personal development that 
is essential if they are going to have good relationships with their 
children and good relationships with the mother of the children.
  If we do not do this, we leave these children isolated, growing up 
without the economic or emotional support they need to take advantage 
of the remarkable opportunity free America offers.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment offered by Representative Mink. This amendment would strike 
Title I of the Fathers Count Act and replace it with a gender neutral 
Parents Count Act.
  This language is preferable because it would allow mothers to be 
eligible to receive the same benefits as fathers. As offered, the Act 
without this amendment offers programs to fathers only, programs that 
are also needed by mothers.
  The new title would make the eligibility of poor women for parenting 
education programs, job training and other types of counseling equal to 
that of non-custodial fathers. It would further give preference to 
applicants that consult with domestic violence prevention and 
intervention organizations.
  This is preferable over the original bill which provides for marriage 
counseling which expresses a preference for keeping married couples 
together despite the fact that many women and children suffer from 
domestic violence as a result of being locked into these marriages.
  The Mink Amendment is important also to ensure that the bill does not 
violate the Constitution. As written, the bill expresses a gender 
preference for receipt of these benefits, which is contrary to the 
equal protection clause in the Constitution. By making the bill gender 
neutral, this provision removes any question of constitutionality.
  My concern is that programs that encourage fatherhood--active 
involvement in the life of children, often overlook the importance of 
the entire family as a unit. We certainly need to encourage more men to 
get involved in their families, and I support any effort that makes 
special efforts to do so.
  However, I do not encourage such efforts when they diminish the 
importance of the mother and the entire family unit in raising and 
caring for a child. A child needs the support of an entire family--
mother, father, grandparents, the entire extended family. The Mink 
Amendment addresses this concern by making the bill gender neutral, but 
also by encouraging the reunification of the family, the entire family.
  I urge my Colleagues to support this amendment because it is pro-
family. If we are a Congress committed to the idea of supporting the 
American family, then this should be a welcome change.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  In lieu of the amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and 
Means printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an 
original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the Congressional 
Record and numbered 1, modified by the amendment printed in Part A of 
House Report 106-463. That amendment in the nature of a substitute 
shall be considered as read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, 
is as follows:

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Fathers 
     Count Act of 1999''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

                   TITLE I--FATHERHOOD GRANT PROGRAM

Sec. 101. Fatherhood grants.

         TITLE II--FATHERHOOD PROJECTS OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE

Sec. 201. Fatherhood projects of national significance.

             TITLE III--WELFARE-TO-WORK PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY

Sec. 301. Flexibility in eligibility for participation in welfare-to-
              work program.
Sec. 302. Limited vocational educational and job training included as 
              allowable activity.
Sec. 303. Certain grantees authorized to provide employment services 
              directly.
Sec. 304. Simplification and coordination of reporting requirements.
Sec. 305. Use of State information to aid administration of welfare-to-
              work formula grant funds.

TITLE IV--ALTERNATIVE PENALTY PROCEDURE RELATING TO STATE DISBURSEMENT 
                                 UNITS

Sec. 401. Alternative penalty procedure relating to State disbursement 
              units.

                     TITLE V--FINANCING PROVISIONS

Sec. 501. Use of new hire information to assist in collection of 
              defaulted student loans and grants.
Sec. 502. Elimination of set-aside of portion of welfare-to-work funds 
              for successful performance bonus.

                        TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 601. Change dates for evaluation.
Sec. 602. Report on undistributed child support payments.
Sec. 603. Sense of the Congress.
Sec. 604. Additional funding for welfare evaluation study.
Sec. 605. Training in child abuse and neglect proceedings.
Sec. 606. Use of new hire information to assist in administration of 
              unemployment compensation programs.
Sec. 607. Immigration provisions.

                   TITLE I--FATHERHOOD GRANT PROGRAM

     SEC. 101. FATHERHOOD GRANTS.

       (a) In General.--Part A of title IV of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 601-679b) is amended by inserting after 
     section 403 the following:

     ``SEC. 403A. FATHERHOOD PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to make 
     grants available to public and private entities for projects 
     designed to--
       ``(1) promote marriage through counseling, mentoring, 
     disseminating information about the advantages of marriage, 
     enhancing relationship skills, teaching how to control 
     aggressive behavior, and other methods;
       ``(2) promote successful parenting through counseling, 
     mentoring, disseminating information about good parenting 
     practices including prepregnancy family planning, training 
     parents in money management, encouraging child support 
     payments, encouraging regular visitation between fathers and 
     their children, and other methods; and
       ``(3) help fathers and their families avoid or leave cash 
     welfare provided by the program under part A and improve 
     their economic status by providing work first services, job 
     search, job training, subsidized employment, career-advancing 
     education, job retention, job enhancement, and other methods.
       ``(b) Fatherhood Grants.--
       ``(1) Applications.--An entity desiring a grant to carry 
     out a project described in subsection (a) may submit to the 
     Secretary an application that contains the following:
       ``(A) A description of the project and how the project will 
     be carried out.
       ``(B) A description of how the project will address all 3 
     of the purposes of this section.
       ``(C) A written commitment by the entity that the project 
     will allow an individual to participate in the project only 
     if the individual is--

[[Page 29519]]

       ``(i) a father of a child who is, or within the past 24 
     months has been, a recipient of assistance or services under 
     a State program funded under this part;
       ``(ii) a father, including an expectant or married father, 
     whose income (net of court-ordered child support) is less 
     than 150 percent of the poverty line (as defined 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); or
       ``(iii) a parent referred to in paragraph (3)(A)(iii).
       ``(D) A written commitment by the entity that the entity 
     will provide for the project, from funds obtained from non-
     Federal sources, amounts (including in-kind contributions) 
     equal in value to--
       ``(i) 20 percent of the amount of any grant made to the 
     entity under this subsection; or
       ``(ii) such lesser percentage as the Secretary deems 
     appropriate (which shall be not less than 10 percent) of such 
     amount, if the application demonstrates that there are 
     circumstances that limit the ability of the entity to raise 
     funds or obtain resources.
       ``(2) Consideration of applications by interagency 
     panels.--
       ``(A) First panel.--
       ``(i) Establishment.--There is established a panel to be 
     known as the `Fatherhood Grants Recommendations Panel' (in 
     this subparagraph referred to as the `Panel').
       ``(ii) Membership.--

       ``(I) In general.--The Panel shall be composed of 10 
     members, as follows:

       ``(aa) 2 members of the Panel shall be appointed by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(bb) 2 members of the Panel shall be appointed by the 
     Secretary of Labor.
       ``(cc) 2 members of the Panel shall be appointed by the 
     Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
     Representatives.
       ``(dd) 1 member of the Panel shall be appointed by the 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means of 
     the House of Representatives.
       ``(ee) 2 members of the Panel shall be appointed by the 
     Chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate.
       ``(ff) 1 member of the Panel shall be appointed by the 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Finance of the 
     Senate.

       ``(II) Conflicts of interest.--An individual shall not be 
     eligible to serve on the Panel if such service would pose a 
     conflict of interest for the individual.
       ``(III) Timing of appointments.--The appointment of members 
     to the Panel shall be completed not later than March 1, 2000.

       ``(iii) Duties.--

       ``(I) Review and make recommendations on project 
     applications.--The Panel shall review all applications 
     submitted pursuant to paragraph (1), and make recommendations 
     to the Secretary regarding which applicants should be awarded 
     grants under this subsection, with due regard for the 
     provisions of paragraph (3), but shall not recommend that a 
     project be awarded such a grant if the application describing 
     the project does not attempt to meet the requirement of 
     paragraph (1)(B).
       ``(II) Timing.--The Panel shall make such recommendations 
     not later than September 1, 2000.

       ``(iv) Term of office.--Each member appointed to the Panel 
     shall serve for the life of the Panel.
       ``(v) Prohibition on compensation.--Members of the Panel 
     may not receive pay, allowances, or benefits by reason of 
     their service on the Panel.
       ``(vi) Travel expenses.--Each member of the Panel shall 
     receive travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, in accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of 
     title 5, United States Code.
       ``(vii) Meetings.--The Panel shall meet as often as is 
     necessary to complete the business of the Panel.
       ``(viii) Chairperson.--The Chairperson of the Panel shall 
     be designated by the Secretary at the time of appointment.
       ``(ix) Staff of federal agencies.--The Secretary may detail 
     any personnel of the Department of Health and Human Services 
     and the Secretary of Labor may detail any personnel of the 
     Department of Labor to the Panel to assist the Panel in 
     carrying out its duties under this subparagraph.
       ``(x) Obtaining official data.--The Panel may secure 
     directly from any department or agency of the United States 
     information necessary to enable it to carry out this 
     subparagraph. On request of the Chairperson of the Panel, the 
     head of the department or agency shall furnish that 
     information to the Panel.
       ``(xi) Mails.--The Panel may use the United States mails in 
     the same manner and under the same conditions as other 
     departments and agencies of the United States.
       ``(xii) Termination.--The Panel shall terminate on 
     September 1, 2000.
       ``(B) Second panel.--
       ``(i) Establishment.--Effective January 1, 2001, there is 
     established a panel to be known as the `Fatherhood Grants 
     Recommendations Panel' (in this subparagraph referred to as 
     the `Panel').
       ``(ii) Membership.--

       ``(I) In general.--The Panel shall be composed of 10 
     members, as follows:

       ``(aa) 2 members of the Panel shall be appointed by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(bb) 2 members of the Panel shall be appointed by the 
     Secretary of Labor.
       ``(cc) 2 members of the Panel shall be appointed by the 
     Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
     Representatives.
       ``(dd) 1 member of the Panel shall be appointed by the 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means of 
     the House of Representatives.
       ``(ee) 2 members of the Panel shall be appointed by the 
     Chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate.
       ``(ff) 1 member of the Panel shall be appointed by the 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Finance of the 
     Senate.

       ``(II) Conflicts of interest.--An individual shall not be 
     eligible to serve on the Panel if such service would pose a 
     conflict of interest for the individual.
       ``(III) Timing of appointments.--The appointment of members 
     to the Panel shall be completed not later than March 1, 2001.

       ``(iii) Duties.--

       ``(I) Review and make recommendations on project 
     applications.--The Panel shall review all applications 
     submitted pursuant to paragraph (1), and make recommendations 
     to the Secretary regarding which applicants should be awarded 
     grants under this subsection, with due regard for the 
     provisions of paragraph (3), but shall not recommend that a 
     project be awarded such a grant if the application describing 
     the project does not attempt to meet the requirement of 
     paragraph (1)(B).
       ``(II) Timing.--The Panel shall make such recommendations 
     not later than September 1, 2001.

       ``(iv) Term of office.--Each member appointed to the Panel 
     shall serve for the life of the Panel.
       ``(v) Prohibition on compensation.--Members of the Panel 
     may not receive pay, allowances, or benefits by reason of 
     their service on the Panel.
       ``(vi) Travel expenses.--Each member of the Panel shall 
     receive travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, in accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of 
     title 5, United States Code.
       ``(vii) Meetings.--The Panel shall meet as often as is 
     necessary to complete the business of the Panel.
       ``(viii) Chairperson.--The Chairperson of the Panel shall 
     be designated by the Secretary at the time of appointment.
       ``(ix) Staff of federal agencies.--The Secretary may detail 
     any personnel of the Department of Health and Human Services 
     and the Secretary of Labor may detail any personnel of the 
     Department of Labor to the Panel to assist the Panel in 
     carrying out its duties under this subparagraph.
       ``(x) Obtaining official data.--The Panel may secure 
     directly from any department or agency of the United States 
     information necessary to enable it to carry out this 
     subparagraph. On request of the Chairperson of the Panel, the 
     head of the department or agency shall furnish that 
     information to the Panel.
       ``(xi) Mails.--The Panel may use the United States mails in 
     the same manner and under the same conditions as other 
     departments and agencies of the United States.
       ``(xii) Termination.--The Panel shall terminate on 
     September 1, 2001.
       ``(3) Matching grants.--
       ``(A) Grant awards.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall award matching 
     grants, on a competitive basis, among entities submitting 
     applications therefor which meet the requirements of 
     paragraph (1), in amounts that take into account the written 
     commitments referred to in paragraph (1)(D).
       ``(ii) Timing.--

       ``(I) First round.--On October 1, 2000, the Secretary shall 
     award not more than $70,000,000 in matching grants after 
     considering the recommendations submitted pursuant to 
     paragraph (2)(A)(iii)(I).
       ``(II) Second round.--On October 1, 2001, the Secretary 
     shall award not more than $70,000,000 in matching grants 
     after considering the recommendations submitted pursuant to 
     paragraph (2)(B)(iii)(I).

       ``(iii) Nondiscrimination.--The provisions of this section 
     shall be applied and administered so as to ensure that 
     mothers, expectant mothers, and married mothers are eligible 
     for benefits and services under projects awarded grants under 
     this section on the same basis as fathers, expectant fathers, 
     and married fathers.
       ``(B) Preferences.--In determining which entities to which 
     to award grants under this subsection, the Secretary shall 
     give preference to an entity--
       ``(i) to the extent that the application submitted by the 
     entity describes actions that the entity will take that are 
     designed to encourage or facilitate the payment of child 
     support, including but not limited to--

       ``(I) obtaining agreements with the State in which the 
     project will be carried out under which the State will 
     exercise its authority under the last sentence of section 
     457(a)(2)(B)(iv) in every case in which such authority may be 
     exercised;
       ``(II) obtaining a written commitment by the agency 
     responsible for administering the State plan approved under 
     part D for the State in which the project is to be carried 
     out that the State will voluntarily cancel child support 
     arrearages owed to the State

[[Page 29520]]

     by the father as a result of the father providing various 
     supports to the family such as maintaining a regular child 
     support payment schedule or living with his children; and
       ``(III) obtaining a written commitment by the entity that 
     the entity will help participating fathers who cooperate with 
     the agency in improving their credit rating;

       ``(ii) to the extent that the application includes written 
     agreements of cooperation with other private and governmental 
     agencies, including the State or local program funded under 
     this part, the local Workforce Investment Board, the State or 
     local program funded under part D, and the State or local 
     program funded under part E, which should include a 
     description of the services each such agency will provide to 
     fathers participating in the project described in the 
     application;
       ``(iii) to the extent that the application describes a 
     project that will enroll a high percentage of project 
     participants within 6 months before or after the birth of the 
     child; or
       ``(iv) to the extent that the application sets forth clear 
     and practical methods by which fathers will be recruited to 
     participate in the project.
       ``(C) Minimum percentage of recipients of grant funds to be 
     nongovernmental (including faith-based) organizations.--Not 
     less than 75 percent of the entities awarded grants under 
     this subsection in each fiscal year (other than entities 
     awarded such grants pursuant to the preferences required by 
     subparagraph (B)) shall be awarded to--
       ``(i) nongovernmental (including faith-based) 
     organizations; or
       ``(ii) governmental organizations that pass through to 
     organizations referred to in clause (i) at least 50 percent 
     of the amount of the grant.
       ``(D) Diversity of projects.--
       ``(i) In general.--In determining which entities to which 
     to award grants under this subsection, the Secretary shall 
     attempt to achieve a balance among entities of differing 
     sizes, entities in differing geographic areas, entities in 
     urban versus rural areas, and entities employing differing 
     methods of achieving the purposes of this section.
       ``(ii) Report to the congress.--Within 90 days after each 
     award of grants under subclause (I) or (II) of subparagraph 
     (A)(ii), the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Ways 
     and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
     on Finance of the Senate a brief report on the diversity of 
     projectes selected to receive funds under the grant program. 
     The report shall include a comparison of funding for projects 
     located in urban areas, projects located in suburban areas, 
     and projects located in rural areas.
       ``(E) Payment of grant in 4 equal annual installments.--
     During the fiscal year in which a grant is awarded under this 
     subsection and each of the succeeding 3 fiscal years, the 
     Secretary shall provide to the entity awarded the grant an 
     amount equal to \1/4\ of the amount of the grant.
       ``(4) Use of funds.--
       ``(A) In general.--Each entity to which a grant is made 
     under this subsection shall use grant funds provided under 
     this subsection in accordance with the application requesting 
     the grant, the requirements of this subsection, and the 
     regulations prescribed under this subsection, and may use the 
     grant funds to support community-wide initiatives to address 
     the purposes of this section.
       ``(B) Nondisplacement.--
       ``(i) In general.--An adult in a work activity described in 
     section 407(d) which is funded, in whole or in part, by funds 
     provided under this section shall not be employed or 
     assigned--

       ``(I) when any other individual is on layoff from the same 
     or any substantially equivalent job; or
       ``(II) if the employer has terminated the employment of any 
     regular employee or otherwise caused an involuntary reduction 
     of its workforce in order to fill the vacancy so created with 
     such an adult.

       ``(ii) Grievance procedure.--

       ``(I) In general.--Complaints alleging violations of clause 
     (i) in a State may be resolved--

       ``(aa) if the State has established a grievance procedure 
     under section 403(a)(5)(J)(iv), pursuant to the grievance 
     procedure; or
       ``(bb) otherwise, pursuant to the grievance procedure 
     established by the State under section 407(f)(3).

       ``(II) Forfeiture of grant if grievance procedure not 
     available.--If a complaint referred to in subclause (I) is 
     made against an entity to which a grant has been made under 
     this section with respect to a project, and the complaint 
     cannot be brought to, or cannot be resolved within 90 days 
     after being brought, by a grievance procedure referred to in 
     subclause (I), then the entity shall immediately return to 
     the Secretary all funds provided to the entity under this 
     section for the project, and the Secretary shall immediately 
     rescind the grant.

       ``(C) Rule of construction.--This section shall not be 
     construed to require the participation of a father in a 
     project funded under this section to be discontinued by the 
     project on the basis of changed economic circumstances of the 
     father.
       ``(D) Rule of construction on marriage.--This section shall 
     not be construed to authorize the Secretary to define 
     marriage for purposes of this section.
       ``(E) Penalty for misuse of grant funds.--If the Secretary 
     determines that an entity to which a grant is made under this 
     subsection has used any amount of the grant in violation of 
     subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall require the entity to 
     remit to the Secretary an amount equal to the amount so used, 
     plus all remaining grant funds, and the entity shall 
     thereafter be ineligible for any grant under this subsection.
       ``(F) Remittance of unused grant funds.--Each entity to 
     which a grant is awarded under this subsection shall remit to 
     the Secretary all funds paid under the grant that remain at 
     the end of the 5th fiscal year ending after the initial grant 
     award.
       ``(5) Authority of agencies to exchange information.--Each 
     agency administering a program funded under this part or a 
     State plan approved under part D may share the name, address, 
     telephone number, and identifying case number information in 
     the State program funded under this part, of fathers for 
     purposes of assisting in determining the eligibility of 
     fathers to participate in projects receiving grants under 
     this section, and in contacting fathers potentially eligible 
     to participate in the projects, subject to all applicable 
     privacy laws.
       ``(6) Evaluation.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Labor, shall, directly or by grant, contract, or 
     interagency agreement, conduct an evaluation of projects 
     funded under this section (other than under subsection 
     (c)(1)). The evaluation shall assess, among other outcomes 
     selected by the Secretary, effects of the projects on 
     marriage, parenting, employment, earnings, and payment of 
     child support. In selecting projects for the evaluation, the 
     Secretary should include projects that, in the Secretary's 
     judgment, are most likely to impact the matters described in 
     the purposes of this section. In conducting the evaluation, 
     random assignment should be used wherever possible.
       ``(7) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such 
     regulations as may be necessary to carry out this subsection.
       ``(8) Limitation on applicability of other provisions of 
     this part.--Sections 404 through 410 shall not apply to this 
     section or to amounts paid under this section, and shall not 
     be applied to an entity solely by reason of receipt of funds 
     pursuant to this section. A project shall not be considered a 
     State program funded under this part solely by reason of 
     receipt of funds paid under this section.
       ``(9) Funding.--
       ``(A) In general.--
       ``(i) Interagency panels.--Of the amounts made available 
     pursuant to section 403(a)(1)(E) to carry out this section 
     for fiscal years 2000 and 2001, a total of $150,000 shall be 
     made available for the interagency panels established by 
     paragraph (2) of this subsection.
       ``(ii) Grants.--Of the amounts made available pursuant to 
     section 403(a)(1)(E) to carry out this section, there shall 
     be made available for grants under this subsection--

       ``(I) $17,500,000 for fiscal year 2001;
       ``(II) $35,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2002 through 
     2004; and
       ``(III) $17,500,000 for fiscal year 2005.

       ``(iii) Evaluation.--Of the amounts made available pursuant 
     to section 403(a)(1)(E) to carry out this section for fiscal 
     years 2000 through 2006, a total of $6,000,000 shall be made 
     available for the evaluation required by paragraph (6) of 
     this subsection.
       ``(B) Availability.--
       ``(i) Grant funds.--The amounts made available pursuant to 
     subparagraph (A)(ii) shall remain available until the end of 
     fiscal year 2005.
       ``(ii) Evaluation funds.--The amounts made available 
     pursuant to subparagraph (A)(iii) shall remain available 
     until the end of fiscal year 2007.''.
       (b) Funding.--Section 403(a)(1)(E) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     603(a)(1)(E)) is amended by inserting ``, and for fiscal 
     years 2000 through 2006, such sums as are necessary to carry 
     out section 403A'' before the period.
       (c) Authority to States To Pass Through Child Support 
     Arrearages Collected Through Tax Refund Intercept to Families 
     Who Have Ceased To Receive Cash Assistance; Federal 
     Reimbursement of State Share of Such Passed Through 
     Arrearages.--Section 457(a)(2)(B)(iv) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     657(a)(2)(B)(iv)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(except the last sentence of this 
     clause)'' after ``this section''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following: ``Notwithstanding 
     the preceding sentences of this clause, if the amount is 
     collected on behalf of a family that includes a child of a 
     participant in a project funded under section 403A and that 
     has ceased to receive cash payments under a State program 
     funded under section 403, then the State may distribute the 
     amount collected pursuant to section 464 to the family, and 
     the aggregate of the amounts otherwise required by this 
     section to be paid by the State to the Federal government 
     shall be reduced by an amount equal to the State share of the 
     amount collected pursuant to section 464 that would otherwise 
     be retained as reimbursement for assistance paid to the 
     family.''.
       (d) Applicability of Charitable Choice Provisions of 
     Welfare Reform.--Section

[[Page 29521]]

     104 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
     Reconciliation Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 604a) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(l) Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this 
     section, this section shall apply to any entity to which 
     funds have been provided under section 403A of the Social 
     Security Act in the same manner in which this section applies 
     to States, and, for purposes of this section, any project for 
     which such funds are so provided shall be considered a 
     program described in subsection (a)(2).''.

         TITLE II--FATHERHOOD PROJECTS OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE

     SEC. 201. FATHERHOOD PROJECTS OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE.

       Section 403A of the Social Security Act, as added by title 
     I of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Fatherhood Projects of National Significance.--
       ``(1) National clearinghouse.--The Secretary shall award a 
     $5,000,000 grant to a nationally recognized, nonprofit 
     fatherhood promotion organization with at least 4 years of 
     experience in designing and disseminating a national public 
     education campaign, including the production and successful 
     placement of television, radio, and print public service 
     announcements which promote the importance of responsible 
     fatherhood, and with at least 4 years experience providing 
     consultation and training to community-based organizations 
     interested in implementing fatherhood outreach, support, or 
     skill development programs with an emphasis on promoting 
     married fatherhood as the ideal, to--
       ``(A) develop, promote, and distribute to interested 
     States, local governments, public agencies, and private 
     nonprofit organizations, including charitable and religious 
     organizations, a media campaign that encourages the 
     appropriate involvement of both parents in the life of any 
     child of the parents, and encourages such organizations to 
     develop or sponsor programs that specifically address the 
     issue of responsible fatherhood and the advantages conferred 
     on children by marriage;
       ``(B) develop a national clearinghouse to assist States, 
     communities, and private entities in efforts to promote and 
     support marriage and responsible fatherhood by collecting, 
     evaluating, and making available (through the Internet and by 
     other means) to all interested parties, information regarding 
     media campaigns and fatherhood programs;
       ``(C) develop and distribute materials that are for use by 
     entities described in subparagraph (A) or (B) and that help 
     young adults manage their money, develop the knowledge and 
     skills needed to promote successful marriages, plan for 
     future expenditures and investments, and plan for retirement;
       ``(D) develop and distribute materials that are for use by 
     entities described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) and that list 
     all the sources of public support for education and training 
     that are available to young adults, including government 
     spending programs as well as benefits under Federal and State 
     tax laws.
       ``(2) Multicity fatherhood projects.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall award a $5,000,000 
     grant to each of 2 nationally recognized nonprofit fatherhood 
     promotion organizations which meet the requirements of 
     subparagraph (B), at least 1 of which organizations meets the 
     requirement of subparagraph (C).
       ``(B) Requirements.--The requirements of this subparagraph 
     are the following:
       ``(i) The organization must have several years of 
     experience in designing and conducting programs that meet the 
     purposes described in paragraph (1).
       ``(ii) The organization must have experience in 
     simultaneously conducting such programs in more than 1 major 
     metropolitan area and in coordinating such programs with 
     local government agencies and private, nonprofit agencies, 
     including State or local agencies responsible for conducting 
     the program under part D and Workforce Investment Boards.
       ``(iii) The organization must submit to the Secretary an 
     application that meets all the conditions applicable to the 
     organization under this section and that provides for 
     projects to be conducted in 3 major metropolitan areas.
       ``(C) Use of married couples to deliver services in the 
     inner city.--The requirement of this subparagraph is that the 
     organization has extensive experience in using married 
     couples to deliver program services in the inner city.
       ``(3) Payment of grants in 4 equal annual installments.--
     During each of fiscal years 2002 through 2005, the Secretary 
     shall provide to each entity awarded a grant under this 
     subsection an amount equal to \1/4\ of the amount of the 
     grant.
       ``(4) Funding.--
       ``(A) In general.--Of the amounts made available pursuant 
     to section 403(a)(1)(E) to carry out this section, $3,750,000 
     shall be made available for grants under this subsection for 
     each of fiscal years 2002 through 2005.
       ``(B) Availability.--The amounts made available pursuant to 
     subparagraph (A) shall remain available until the end of 
     fiscal year 2005.''.

             TITLE III--WELFARE-TO-WORK PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY

     SEC. 301. FLEXIBILITY IN ELIGIBILITY FOR PARTICIPATION IN 
                   WELFARE-TO-WORK PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Section 403(a)(5)(C)(ii) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(5)(C)(ii)) is amended as 
     follows:
       ``(ii) General eligibility.--An entity that operates a 
     project with funds provided under this paragraph may expend 
     funds provided to the project for the benefit of recipients 
     of assistance under the program funded under this part of the 
     State in which the entity is located who--
       ``(I) has received assistance under the State program 
     funded under this part (whether in effect before or after the 
     amendments made by section 103 of the Personal Responsibility 
     and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 first apply 
     to the State) for at least 30 months (whether or not 
     consecutive); or
       ``(II) within 12 months, will become ineligible for 
     assistance under the State program funded under this part by 
     reason of a durational limit on such assistance, without 
     regard to any exemption provided pursuant to section 
     408(a)(7)(C) that may apply to the individual.''.
       (b) Noncustodial Parents.--
       (1) In general.--Section 403(a)(5)(C) of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 603(a)(5)(C)) is amended--
       (A) by redesignating clauses (iii) through (viii) as 
     clauses (iv) through (ix), respectively; and
       (B) by inserting after clause (ii) the following:
       ``(iii) Noncustodial parents.--An entity that operates a 
     project with funds provided under this paragraph may use the 
     funds to provide services in a form described in clause (i) 
     to noncustodial parents with respect to whom the requirements 
     of the following subclauses are met:

       ``(I) The noncustodial parent is unemployed, underemployed, 
     or having difficulty in paying child support obligations.

       ``(II) At least 1 of the following applies to a minor child 
     of the noncustodial parent (with preference in the 
     determination of the noncustodial parents to be provided 
     services under this paragraph to be provided by the entity to 
     those noncustodial parents with minor children who meet, or 
     who have custodial parents who meet, the requirements of item 
     (aa)):

       ``(aa) The minor child or the custodial parent of the minor 
     child meets the requirements of subclause (I) or (II) of 
     clause (ii).
       ``(bb) The minor child is eligible for, or is receiving, 
     benefits under the program funded under this part.
       ``(cc) The minor child received benefits under the program 
     funded under this part in the 12-month period preceding the 
     date of the determination but no longer receives such 
     benefits.
       ``(dd) The minor child is eligible for, or is receiving, 
     assistance under the Food Stamp Act of 1977, benefits under 
     the supplemental security income program under title XVI of 
     this Act, medical assistance under title XIX of this Act, or 
     child health assistance under title XXI of this Act.

       ``(III) In the case of a noncustodial parent who becomes 
     enrolled in the project on or after the date of the enactment 
     of this clause, the noncustodial parent is in compliance with 
     the terms of an oral or written personal responsibility 
     contract entered into among the noncustodial parent, the 
     entity, and (unless the entity demonstrates to the Secretary 
     that the entity is not capable of coordinating with such 
     agency) the agency responsible for administering the State 
     plan under part D, which was developed taking into account 
     the employment and child support status of the noncustodial 
     parent, which was entered into not later than 30 (or, at the 
     option of the entity, not later than 90) days after the 
     noncustodial parent was enrolled in the project, and which, 
     at a minimum, includes the following:

       ``(aa) A commitment by the noncustodial parent to 
     cooperate, at the earliest opportunity, in the establishment 
     of the paternity of the minor child, through voluntary 
     acknowledgement or other procedures, and in the establishment 
     of a child support order.
       ``(bb) A commitment by the noncustodial parent to cooperate 
     in the payment of child support for the minor child, which 
     may include a modification of an existing support order to 
     take into account the ability of the noncustodial parent to 
     pay such support and the participation of such parent in the 
     project.
       ``(cc) A commitment by the noncustodial parent to 
     participate in employment or related activities that will 
     enable the noncustodial parent to make regular child support 
     payments, and if the noncustodial parent has not attained 20 
     years of age, such related activities may include completion 
     of high school, a general equivalency degree, or other 
     education directly related to employment.
       ``(dd) A description of the services to be provided under 
     this paragraph, and a commitment by the noncustodial parent 
     to participate in such services, that are designed to assist 
     the noncustodial parent obtain and retain employment, 
     increase earnings, and enhance the financial and emotional 
     contributions to the well-being of the minor child.


[[Page 29522]]



     In order to protect custodial parents and children who may be 
     at risk of domestic violence, the preceding provisions of 
     this subclause shall not be construed to affect any other 
     provision of law requiring a custodial parent to cooperate in 
     establishing the paternity of a child or establishing or 
     enforcing a support order with respect to a child, or 
     entitling a custodial parent to refuse, for good cause, to 
     provide such cooperation as a condition of assistance or 
     benefit under any program, shall not be construed to require 
     such cooperation by the custodial parent as a condition of 
     participation of either parent in the program authorized 
     under this paragraph, and shall not be construed to require a 
     custodial parent to cooperate with or participate in any 
     activity under this clause. The entity operating a project 
     under this clause with funds provided under this paragraph 
     shall consult with domestic violence prevention and 
     intervention organizations in the development of the 
     project.''.

       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 412(a)(3)(C)(ii) of such 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 612(a)(3)(C)(ii)) is amended by striking 
     ``(vii)'' and inserting ``(viii)''.
       (c) Recipients With Characteristics of Long-Term 
     Dependency; Children Aging Out of Foster Care.--
       (1) In general.--Section 403(a)(5)(C)(iv) of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 603(a)(5)(C)(iv)), as so redesignated by subsection 
     (b)(1)(A) of this section, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of subclause (I); and
       (B) by striking subclause (II) and inserting the following:

       ``(II) to children--

       ``(aa) who have attained 18 years of age but not 25 years 
     of age; and
       ``(bb) who, before attaining 18 years of age, were 
     recipients of foster care maintenance payments (as defined in 
     section 475(4)) under part E or were in foster care under the 
     responsibility of a State.

       ``(III) to recipients of assistance under the State program 
     funded under this part, determined to have significant 
     barriers to self-sufficiency, pursuant to criteria 
     established by the local private industry council; or
       ``(IV) to custodial parents with incomes below 100 percent 
     of the poverty line (as defined 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).''.

       (2) Conforming amendments.--Section 403(a)(5)(C)(iv) of 
     such Act (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(5)(C)(iv)), as so redesignated by 
     subsection (b)(1)(A) of this section, is amended--
       (A) in the heading by inserting ``hard to employ'' before 
     ``individuals''; and
       (B) in the last sentence by striking ``clause (ii)'' and 
     inserting ``clauses (ii) and (iii) and, as appropriate, 
     clause (v)''.
       (d) Conforming Amendment.--Section 404(k)(1)(C)(iii) of 
     such Act (42 U.S.C. 604(k)(1)(C)(iii)) is amended by striking 
     ``item (aa) or (bb) of section 403(a)(5)(C)(ii)(II)'' and 
     inserting ``section 403(a)(5)(C)(iii)''.

     SEC. 302. LIMITED VOCATIONAL EDUCATIONAL AND JOB TRAINING 
                   INCLUDED AS ALLOWABLE ACTIVITY.

       Section 403(a)(5)(C)(i) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 603(a)(5)(C)(i)) is amended by inserting after 
     subclause (VI) the following:

       ``(VII) Not more than 6 months of vocational educational or 
     job training.''.

     SEC. 303. CERTAIN GRANTEES AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE EMPLOYMENT 
                   SERVICES DIRECTLY.

       Section 403(a)(5)(C)(i)(IV) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 603(a)(5)(C)(i)(IV)) is amended by inserting ``, or if 
     the entity is not a private industry council or workforce 
     investment board, the direct provision of such services'' 
     before the period.

     SEC. 304. SIMPLIFICATION AND COORDINATION OF REPORTING 
                   REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Elimination of Current Requirements.--Section 
     411(a)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     611(a)(1)(A)) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding clause (i), by inserting 
     ``(except for information relating to activities carried out 
     under section 403(a)(5))'' after ``part''; and
       (2) by striking clause (xviii).
       (b) Establishment of Reporting Requirement.--Section 
     403(a)(5)(C) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     603(a)(5)(C)), as amended by section 301(b)(1) of this Act, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(x) Reporting requirements.--The Secretary of Labor, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, 
     States, and organizations that represent State or local 
     governments, shall establish requirements for the collection 
     and maintenance of financial and participant information and 
     the reporting of such information by entities carrying out 
     activities under this paragraph.''.

     SEC. 305. USE OF STATE INFORMATION TO AID ADMINISTRATION OF 
                   WELFARE-TO-WORK GRANT FUNDS.

       (a) Authority of State Agencies To Disclose to Private 
     Industry Councils the Names, Addresses, and Telephone Numbers 
     of Potential Welfare-to-Work Program Participants.--
       (1) State iv-d agencies.--Section 454A(f) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 654a(f)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(5) Private industry councils receiving welfare-to-work 
     grants.--Disclosing to a private industry council (as defined 
     in section 403(a)(5)(D)(ii)) to which funds are provided 
     under section 403(a)(5) the names, addresses, telephone 
     numbers, and identifying case number information in the State 
     program funded under part A, of noncustodial parents residing 
     in the service delivery area of the private industry council, 
     for the purpose of identifying and contacting noncustodial 
     parents regarding participation in the program under section 
     403(a)(5).''.
       (2) State tanf agencies.--Section 403(a)(5) of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 603(a)(5)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(K) Information disclosure.--If a State to which a grant 
     is made under section 403 establishes safeguards against the 
     use or disclosure of information about applicants or 
     recipients of assistance under the State program funded under 
     this part, the safeguards shall not prevent the State agency 
     administering the program from furnishing to a private 
     industry council the names, addresses, telephone numbers, and 
     identifying case number information in the State program 
     funded under this part, of noncustodial parents residing in 
     the service delivery area of the private industry council, 
     for the purpose of identifying and contacting noncustodial 
     parents regarding participation in the program under this 
     paragraph.''.
       (b) Safeguarding of Information Disclosed to Private 
     Industry Councils.--Section 403(a)(5)(A)(ii)(I) of such Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(5)(A)(ii)(I)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of item (dd);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of item (ee) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(ff) describes how the State will ensure that a private 
     industry council to which information is disclosed pursuant 
     to section 403(a)(5)(K) or 454A(f)(5) has procedures for 
     safeguarding the information and for ensuring that the 
     information is used solely for the purpose described in that 
     section.''.

TITLE IV--ALTERNATIVE PENALTY PROCEDURE RELATING TO STATE DISBURSEMENT 
                                 UNITS

     SEC. 401. ALTERNATIVE PENALTY PROCEDURE RELATING TO STATE 
                   DISBURSEMENT UNITS.

       (a) In General.--Section 455(a) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 655(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(5)(A)(i) If--
       ``(I) the Secretary determines that a State plan under 
     section 454 would (in the absence of this paragraph) be 
     disapproved for the failure of the State to comply with 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B)(i) of section 454(27), and that the 
     State has made and is continuing to make a good faith effort 
     to so comply; and
       ``(II) the State has submitted to the Secretary, not later 
     than April 1, 2000, a corrective compliance plan that 
     describes how, by when, and at what cost the State will 
     achieve such compliance, which has been approved by the 
     Secretary,

     then the Secretary shall not disapprove the State plan under 
     section 454, and the Secretary shall reduce the amount 
     otherwise payable to the State under paragraph (1)(A) of this 
     subsection for the fiscal year by the penalty amount.
       ``(ii) All failures of a State during a fiscal year to 
     comply with any of the requirements of section 454B shall be 
     considered a single failure of the State to comply with 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B)(i) of section 454(27) during the 
     fiscal year for purposes of this paragraph.
       ``(B) In this paragraph:
       ``(i) The term `penalty amount' means, with respect to a 
     failure of a State to comply with subparagraphs (A) and 
     (B)(i) of section 454(27)--
       ``(I) 4 percent of the penalty base, in the case of the 1st 
     fiscal year in which such a failure by the State occurs 
     (regardless of whether a penalty is imposed in that fiscal 
     year under this paragraph with respect to the failure), 
     except as provided in subparagraph (C)(ii) of this paragraph;
       ``(II) 8 percent of the penalty base, in the case of the 
     2nd such fiscal year;
       ``(III) 16 percent of the penalty base, in the case of the 
     3rd such fiscal year;
       ``(IV) 25 percent of the penalty base, in the case of the 
     4th such fiscal year; or
       ``(V) 30 percent of the penalty base, in the case of the 
     5th or any subsequent such fiscal year.
       ``(ii) The term `penalty base' means, with respect to a 
     failure of a State to comply with subparagraphs (A) and 
     (B)(i) of section 454(27) during a fiscal year, the amount 
     otherwise payable to the State under paragraph (1)(A) of this 
     subsection for the preceding fiscal year.
       ``(C)(i) The Secretary shall waive all penalties imposed 
     against a State under this paragraph for any failure of the 
     State to comply with subparagraphs (A) and (B)(i) of section 
     454(27) if the Secretary determines that, before April 1, 
     2000, the State has achieved such compliance.
       ``(ii) If a State with respect to which a reduction is 
     required to be made under this

[[Page 29523]]

     paragraph with respect to a failure to comply with 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B)(i) of section 454(27) achieves such 
     compliance on or after April 1, 2000, and on or before 
     September 30, 2000, then the penalty amount applicable to the 
     State shall be 1 percent of the penalty base with respect to 
     the failure involved.
       ``(D) The Secretary may not impose a penalty under this 
     paragraph against a State for a fiscal year for which the 
     amount otherwise payable to the State under paragraph (1)(A) 
     of this subsection is reduced under paragraph (4) of this 
     subsection for failure to comply with section 454(24)(A).''.
       (b) Inapplicability of Penalty Under TANF Program.--Section 
     409(a)(8)(A)(i)(III) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     609(a)(8)(A)(i)(III)) is amended by striking ``section 
     454(24)'' and inserting ``paragraph (24), or subparagraph (A) 
     or (B)(i) of paragraph (27), of section 454''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 1999.

                     TITLE V--FINANCING PROVISIONS

     SEC. 501. USE OF NEW HIRE INFORMATION TO ASSIST IN COLLECTION 
                   OF DEFAULTED STUDENT LOANS AND GRANTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 453(j) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 653(j)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(6) Information comparisons and disclosure for 
     enforcement of obligations on higher education act loans and 
     grants.--
       ``(A) Furnishing of information by the secretary of 
     education.--The Secretary of Education shall furnish to the 
     Secretary, on a quarterly basis or at such less frequent 
     intervals as may be determined by the Secretary of Education, 
     information in the custody of the Secretary of Education for 
     comparison with information in the National Directory of New 
     Hires, in order to obtain the information in such directory 
     with respect to individuals who--
       ``(i) are borrowers of loans made under title IV of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 that are in default; or
       ``(ii) owe an obligation to refund an overpayment of a 
     grant awarded under such title.
       ``(B) Requirement to seek minimum information necessary.--
     The Secretary of Education shall seek information pursuant to 
     this section only to the extent essential to improving 
     collection of the debt described in subparagraph (A).
       ``(C) Duties of the secretary.--
       ``(i) Information comparison; disclosure to the secretary 
     of education.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the 
     Secretary of Education, shall compare information in the 
     National Directory of New Hires with information in the 
     custody of the Secretary of Education, and disclose 
     information in that Directory to the Secretary of Education, 
     in accordance with this paragraph, for the purposes specified 
     in this paragraph.
       ``(ii) Condition on disclosure.--The Secretary shall make 
     disclosures in accordance with clause (i) only to the extent 
     that the Secretary determines that such disclosures do not 
     interfere with the effective operation of the program under 
     this part. Support collection under section 466(b) shall be 
     given priority over collection of any defaulted student loan 
     or grant overpayment against the same income.
       ``(D) Use of information by the secretary of education.--
     The Secretary of Education may use information resulting from 
     a data match pursuant to this paragraph only--
       ``(i) for the purpose of collection of the debt described 
     in subparagraph (A) owed by an individual whose annualized 
     wage level (determined by taking into consideration 
     information from the National Directory of New Hires) exceeds 
     $16,000; and
       ``(ii) after removal of personal identifiers, to conduct 
     analyses of student loan defaults.
       ``(E) Disclosure of information by the secretary of 
     education.--
       ``(i) Disclosures permitted.--The Secretary of Education 
     may disclose information resulting from a data match pursuant 
     to this paragraph only to--

       ``(I) a guaranty agency holding a loan made under part B of 
     title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 on which the 
     individual is obligated;
       ``(II) a contractor or agent of the guaranty agency 
     described in subclause (I);
       ``(III) a contractor or agent of the Secretary; and
       ``(IV) the Attorney General.

       ``(ii) Purpose of disclosure.--The Secretary of Education 
     may make a disclosure under clause (i) only for the purpose 
     of collection of the debts owed on defaulted student loans, 
     or overpayments of grants, made under title IV of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965.
       ``(iii) Restriction on redisclosure.--An entity to which 
     information is disclosed under clause (i) may use or disclose 
     such information only as needed for the purpose of collecting 
     on defaulted student loans, or overpayments of grants, made 
     under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965.
       ``(F) Reimbursement of hhs costs.--The Secretary of 
     Education shall reimburse the Secretary, in accordance with 
     subsection (k)(3), for the additional costs incurred by the 
     Secretary in furnishing the information requested under this 
     subparagraph.''.
       (b) Penalties for Misuse of Information.--Section 402(a) of 
     the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998 (112 
     Stat. 669) is amended in the matter added by paragraph (2) by 
     inserting ``or any other person'' after ``officer or employee 
     of the United States''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall become effective October 1, 1999.

     SEC. 502. ELIMINATION OF SET-ASIDE OF PORTION OF WELFARE-TO-
                   WORK FUNDS FOR SUCCESSFUL PERFORMANCE BONUS.

       (a) In General.--Section 403(a)(5) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(5)) is amended by striking subparagraph 
     (E) and redesignating subparagraphs (F) through (K) (as added 
     by section 305(a)(2) of this Act) as subparagraphs (E) 
     through (J), respectively.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 403(a)(5)(A)(i) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     603(a)(5)(A)(i)) is amended by striking ``subparagraph (I)'' 
     and inserting ``subparagraph (H)''.
       (2) Subclause (I) of each of subparagraphs (A)(iv) and 
     (B)(v) of section 403(a)(5) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     603(a)(5)(A)(iv)(I) and (B)(v)(I)) is amended--
       (A) in item (aa)--
       (i) by striking ``(I)'' and inserting ``(H)''; and
       (ii) by striking ``(G), and (H)'' and inserting ``and 
     (G)''; and
       (B) in item (bb), by striking ``(F)'' and inserting 
     ``(E)''.
       (3) Section 403(a)(5)(B)(v) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     603(a)(5)(B)) is amended in the matter preceding subclause 
     (I) by striking ``(I)'' and inserting ``(H)''.
       (4) Subparagraphs (E) and (F) of section 403(a)(5) of such 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(5)(F) and (G)), as so redesignated by 
     subsection (a) of this section, are each amended by striking 
     ``(I)'' and inserting ``(H)''.
       (5) Section 412(a)(3)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     612(a)(3)(A)) is amended by striking ``403(a)(5)(I)'' and 
     inserting ``403(a)(5)(H)''.
       (c) Funding Amendment.--Section 403(a)(5)(H)(i) of such Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(5)(H)(i)), as so redesignated by subsection 
     (a) of this section, is amended by striking 
     ``$1,500,000,000'' and all that follows and inserting ``for 
     grants under this paragraph--

       ``(I) $1,500,000,000 for fiscal year 1998; and
       ``(II) $1,400,000,000 for fiscal year 1999.''.

                        TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 601. CHANGE DATES FOR EVALUATION.

       (a) In General.--Section 403(a)(5)(G)(iii) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(5)(G)(iii)), as so 
     redesignated by section 502(a) of this Act, is amended by 
     striking ``2001'' and inserting ``2005''.
       (b) Interim Report Required.--Section 403(a)(5)(G) of such 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(5)(G)), as so redesignated, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iv) Interim report.--Not later than January 1, 2002, the 
     Secretary shall submit to the Congress a interim report on 
     the evaluations referred to in clause (i).''.

     SEC. 602. 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 due to a change in address. 
     The report shall include an estimate of the total amount of 
     such undistributed child support and the average length of 
     time it takes for such child support to be distributed. 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. 603. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of the Congress that the States may use 
     funds provided under the program of block grants for 
     temporary assistance for needy families under part A of title 
     IV of the Social Security Act to promote fatherhood 
     activities of the type described in section 403A of such Act, 
     as added by this Act.

     SEC. 604. ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR WELFARE EVALUATION STUDY.

       Section 414(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     614(b)) is amended by striking ``appropriated $10,000,000'' 
     and all that follows and inserting ``appropriated--
       ``(1) $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1996 through 
     1999;
       ``(2) $12,300,000 for fiscal year 2000;
       ``(3) $17,500,000 for fiscal year 2001;
       ``(4) $15,500,000 for fiscal year 2002; and
       ``(5) $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.''.

     SEC. 605. TRAINING IN CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT PROCEEDINGS.

       (a) In General.--Section 474(a)(3) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 674(a)(3)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E) as 
     subparagraphs (D), (E), and (F), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
       ``(C) 75 percent of so much of such expenditures as are for 
     the short-term training (including cross-training with 
     personnel employed by, or under contract with, the State

[[Page 29524]]

     or local agency administering the plan in the political 
     subdivision, training on topics relevant to the legal 
     representation of clients in proceedings conducted by or 
     under the supervision of an abuse and neglect court, and 
     training on related topics such as child development and the 
     importance of achieving safety, permanency, and well-being 
     for a child) of judges, judicial personnel, law enforcement 
     personnel, agency attorneys, attorneys representing a parent 
     in proceedings conducted by, or under the supervision of, an 
     abuse and neglect court, attorneys representing a child in 
     such proceedings, guardians ad litem, and volunteers who 
     participate in court-appointed special advocate programs, to 
     the extent the training is related to the court's role in 
     expediting adoption procedures, implementing reasonable 
     efforts, and providing for timely permanency planning and 
     case reviews, except that any such training shall be offered 
     by the State or local agency administering the plan, either 
     directly or through contract, in collaboration with the 
     appropriate judicial governing body operating in the 
     State,''.
       (b) Definitions.--Section 475 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 675) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) The term `abuse and neglect courts' means the State 
     and local courts that carry out State or local laws requiring 
     proceedings (conducted by or under the supervision of the 
     courts)--
       ``(A) that implement part B or this part, including 
     preliminary disposition of such proceedings;
       ``(B) that determine whether a child was abused or 
     neglected;
       ``(C) that determine the advisability or appropriateness of 
     placement in a family foster home, group home, or a special 
     residential care facility; or
       ``(D) that determine any other legal disposition of a child 
     in the abuse and neglect court system.
       ``(9) The term `agency attorney' means an attorney or other 
     individual, including any government attorney, district 
     attorney, attorney general, State attorney, county attorney, 
     city solicitor or attorney, corporation counsel, or privately 
     retained special prosecutor, who represents the State or 
     local agency administrating the programs under part B and 
     this part in a proceeding conducted by, or under the 
     supervision of, an abuse and neglect court, including a 
     proceeding for termination of parental rights.
       ``(10) The term `attorney representing a child' means an 
     attorney or a guardian ad litem who represents a child in a 
     proceeding conducted by, or under the supervision of, an 
     abuse and neglect court.
       ``(11) The term `attorney representing a parent' means an 
     attorney who represents a parent who is an official party to 
     a proceeding conducted by, or under the supervision of, an 
     abuse and neglect court.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments--
       (1) Section 473(a)(6)(B) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     673(a)(6)(B)) is amended by striking ``474(a)(3)(E)'' and 
     inserting ``474(a)(3)(F)''.
       (2) Section 474(a)(3)(E) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     674(a)(3)(E)) (as so redesignated by subsection (a)(1)(A) of 
     this section) is amended by striking ``subparagraph (C)'' and 
     inserting ``subparagraph (D)''.
       (3) Section 474(c) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 674(c)) is 
     amended by striking ``subsection (a)(3)(C)'' and inserting 
     ``subsection (a)(3)(D)''.
       (d) Sunset.--Effective on October 1, 2004--
       (1) section 474(a)(3) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     674(a)(3)) is amended by striking subparagraph (C) and 
     redesignating subparagraphs (D), (E), and (F) as 
     subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E), respectively;
       (2) section 475 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 675) is amended by 
     striking paragraphs (8) through (11);
       (3) section 473(a)(6)(B) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     673(a)(6)(B)) is amended by striking ``474(a)(3)(F)'' and 
     inserting ``474(a)(3)(E)''.
       (4) section 474(a)(3)(E) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     674(a)(3)(E)) (as so redesignated by subsection (a)(1)(A) of 
     this section) is amended by striking ``subparagraph (D)'' and 
     inserting ``subparagraph (C)''; and
       (5) section 474(c) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 674(c)) is 
     amended by striking ``subsection (a)(3)(D)'' and inserting 
     ``subsection (a)(3)(C)''.

     SEC. 606. USE OF NEW HIRE INFORMATION TO ASSIST IN 
                   ADMINISTRATION OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 
                   PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--Section 453(j) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 653(j)), as amended by section 501(a) of this Act, 
     is further 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 and address 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, 1999.

     SEC. 607. IMMIGRATION PROVISIONS.

       (a) Nonimmigrant Aliens Ineligible To Receive Visas and 
     Excluded From Admission for Nonpayment of Child Support.--
       (1) In general.--Section 212(a)(10) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(10)) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(F) Nonpayment of child support.--
       ``(i) In general.--Any alien is inadmissible who is legally 
     obligated under a judgment, decree, or order to pay child 
     support (as defined in section 459(i) of the Social Security 
     Act), and whose failure to pay such child support has 
     resulted in an arrearage exceeding $5,000, until child 
     support payments under the judgment, decree, or order are 
     satisfied or the alien is in compliance with an approved 
     payment agreement.
       ``(ii) Waiver authorized.--The Attorney General may waive 
     the application of clause (i) in the case of an alien, if the 
     Attorney General--

       ``(I) has received a request for the waiver from the court 
     or administrative agency having jurisdiction over the 
     judgment, decree, or order obligating the alien to pay child 
     support that is referred to in such clause; or
       ``(II) determines that there are prevailing humanitarian or 
     public interest concerns.''.

       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection 
     shall take effect 180 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (b) Authorization To Serve Legal Process in Child Support 
     Cases on Certain Arriving Aliens.--
       (1) In general.--Section 235(d) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1225(d)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(5) Authority to serve process in child support cases.--
       ``(A) In general.--To the extent consistent with State law, 
     immigration officers are authorized to serve on any alien who 
     is an applicant for admission to the United States legal 
     process with respect to any action to enforce or establish a 
     legal obligation of an individual to pay child support (as 
     defined in section 459(i) of the Social Security Act).
       ``(B) Definition.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), the 
     term `legal process' means any writ, order, summons or other 
     similar process, which is issued by--
       ``(i) a court or an administrative agency of competent 
     jurisdiction in any State, territory, or possession of the 
     United States; or
       ``(ii) an authorized official pursuant to an order of such 
     a court or agency or pursuant to State or local law.''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection 
     shall apply to aliens applying for admission to the United 
     States on or after 180 days after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.
       (c) Authorization To Share Child Support Enforcement 
     Information To Enforce Immigration and Naturalization Law.--
       (1) Secretarial responsibility.--Section 452 of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 652) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(m) If the Secretary receives a certification by a State 
     agency, in accordance with section 454(32), that an 
     individual who is a nonimmigrant alien (as defined in section 
     101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act) owes 
     arrearages of child support in an amount exceeding $5,000, 
     the Secretary may, at the request of the State agency, the 
     Secretary of State, or the Attorney General, or on the 
     Secretary's own initiative, provide such certification to the 
     Secretary of State and the Attorney General information in 
     order to enable them to carry out their responsibilities 
     under sections 212(a)(10) and 235(d) of such Act.''.
       (2) State agency responsibility.--Section 454 of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 654) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (32);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (33) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (33) the following:
       ``(34) provide that the State agency will have in effect a 
     procedure for certifying to the Secretary, in such format and 
     accompained by such supporting documentation as the Secretary 
     may require, determinations for purposes of section 452(m) 
     that nonimmigrant aliens owe arrearages of child support in 
     an amount exceeding $5,000.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to that amendment shall be in order except 
those printed in Part B of the report. 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 as read, debatable 
for the time

[[Page 29525]]

specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
not be subject to a demand for a division of the question.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to speak out of order 
for 1 minute.)


 Announcement Regarding Bills to be Considered Under Suspension of the 
                                 Rules

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 353, I 
announce the following measures to be taken up under suspension of the 
rules: H.R. 3261, H.R. 2724.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed 
in Part B of House Report 106-463.


             Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mrs. Mink of Hawaii

  Mrs MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part B Amendment No. 1 offered by Mrs. Mink of Hawaii:
       Strike title I and insert the following:
                     TITLE I--PARENTS COUNT PROGRAM

     SEC. 101. PARENT GRANTS.

       (a) In General.--Part A of title IV of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 601-619) is amended by inserting after section 
     403 the following:

     ``SEC. 403A. PARENT PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to make 
     grants available to public and private entities for projects 
     designed to--
       ``(1) promote successful parenting through counseling, 
     mentoring, disseminating information about good parenting 
     practices, including family planning, training parents in 
     money management, encouraging child support payments, 
     encouraging visitation between a custodial parent and their 
     children, and other methods;
       ``(2) help parents and their families to avoid or leave 
     cash welfare provided by the program under this part and 
     improve their economic status by providing work first 
     services, job search, job training, subsidized employment, 
     career-advancing education, job retention, job enhancement, 
     and other methods; and
       ``(3) help parents in their marriages through counseling, 
     mentoring, and teaching how to control aggressive methods, 
     and other methods.
       ``(b) Parent Grants.--
       ``(1) Applications.--An entity desiring a grant to carry 
     out a project described in subsection (a) may submit to the 
     Secretary an application that contains the following:
       ``(A) A description of the project and how the project will 
     be carried out.
       ``(B) A description of how the project will address all 3 
     of the purposes of this section.
       ``(C) A written commitment by the entity that the project 
     will allow an individual to participate in the project only 
     if the individual is--
       ``(i) a parent of a child who is, or within the past 24 
     months has been, a recipient of assistance or services under 
     a State program funded under this part; or
       ``(ii) a parent, including an expectant parent, whose 
     income is less than 150 percent of the poverty line (as 
     defined 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).
       ``(D) A written commitment by the entity that the entity 
     will provide for the project, from funds obtained from non-
     Federal sources (other than funds which are counted as 
     qualified State expenditures for purposes of section 
     409(a)(7)), amounts (including in-kind contributions) equal 
     in value to--
       ``(i) 20 percent of the amount of any grant made to the 
     entity under this subsection; or
       ``(ii) such lesser percentage as the Secretary deems 
     appropriate (which shall be not less than 10 percent) of such 
     amount, if the application demonstrates that there are 
     circumstances that limit the ability of the entity to raise 
     funds or obtain resources.
       ``(2) Consideration of applications by interagency 
     panels.--
       ``(A) First panel.--
       ``(i) Establishment.--There is established a panel to be 
     known as the `Parent Grants Recommendation Panel' (in this 
     subparagraph referred to as the `Panel').
       ``(ii) Membership.--

       ``(I) In general.--The Panel shall be composed of 10 
     members, as follows:

       ``(aa) 1 member of the Panel shall be appointed by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(bb) 1 member of the Panel shall be appointed by the 
     Secretary of Labor.
       ``(cc) 2 members of the Panel shall be appointed by the 
     Chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce of 
     the House of Representatives.
       ``(dd) 2 members of the Panel shall be appointed by the 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce of the House of Representatives.
       ``(ee) 2 members of the Panel shall be appointed by the 
     Chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
     Pensions of the Senate.
       ``(ff) 2 members of the Panel shall be appointed by the 
     ranking member of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
     and Pensions of the Senate.

       ``(II) Conflicts of interest.--An individual shall not be 
     eligible to serve on the Panel if such service would pose a 
     conflict of interest for the individual.
       ``(III) Timing of appointments.--The appointment of members 
     to the Panel shall be completed not later than March 1, 2000.

       ``(iii) Duties.--

       ``(I) Review and make recommendations on project 
     applications.--The Panel shall review all applications 
     submitted pursuant to paragraph (1), and make recommendations 
     to the Secretary regarding which applicants should be awarded 
     grants under this subsection, with due regard for the 
     provisions of paragraph (3), but shall not recommend that a 
     project be awarded such a grant if the application describing 
     the project does not attempt to meet the requirement of 
     paragraph (1)(B).
       ``(II) Timing.--The Panel shall make such recommendations 
     not later than September 1, 2000.

       ``(iv) Term of office.--Each member appointed to the Panel 
     shall serve for the life of the Panel.
       ``(v) Prohibition on compensation.--Members of the Panel 
     may not receive pay, allowances, or benefits by reason of 
     their service on the Panel.
       ``(vi) Travel expenses.--Each member of the Panel shall 
     receive travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, in accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of 
     title 5, United States Code.
       ``(vii) Meetings.--The Panel shall meet as often as is 
     necessary to complete the business of the Panel.
       ``(viii) Chairperson.--The Chairperson of the Panel shall 
     be designated by the Secretary at the time of appointment.
       ``(ix) Staff of federal agencies.--The Secretary may detail 
     any personnel of the Department of Health and Human Services 
     and the Secretary of Labor may detail any personnel of the 
     Department of Labor to the Panel to assist the Panel in 
     carrying out its duties under this subparagraph.
       ``(x) Obtaining official data.--The Panel may secure 
     directly from any department or agency of the United States 
     information necessary to enable it to carry out this 
     paragraph. On request of the Chairperson of the Panel, the 
     head of the department or agency shall furnish that 
     information to the Panel.
       ``(xi) Mails.--The Panel may use the United States mails in 
     the same manner and under the same conditions as other 
     departments and agencies of the United States.
       ``(xii) Termination.--The Panel shall terminate on 
     September 1, 2000.
       ``(B) Second panel.--
       ``(i) Establishment.--Effective January 1, 2001, there is 
     established a panel to be known as the `Parent Grants 
     Recommendation Panel' (in this subparagraph referred to as 
     the `Panel').
       ``(ii) Membership.--

       ``(I) In general.--The Panel shall be composed of 10 
     members, as follows:

       ``(aa) 1 member of the Panel shall be appointed by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(bb) 1 member of the Panel shall be appointed by the 
     Secretary of Labor.
       ``(cc) 2 members of the Panel shall be appointed by the 
     Chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce of 
     the House of Representatives.
       ``(dd) 2 members of the Panel shall be appointed by the 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce of the House of Representatives.
       ``(ee) 2 members of the Panel shall be appointed by the 
     Chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
     Pensions of the Senate.
       ``(ff) 2 members of the Panel shall be appointed by the 
     ranking member of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
     and Pensions of the Senate.

       ``(II) Conflicts of interest.--An individual shall not be 
     eligible to serve on the Panel if such service would pose a 
     conflict of interest for the individual.
       ``(III) Timing of appointments.--The appointment of members 
     to the Panel shall be completed not later than March 1, 2001.

       ``(iii) Duties.--

       ``(I) Review and make recommendations on project 
     applications.--The Panel shall review all applications 
     submitted pursuant to paragraph (1), and make recommendations 
     to the Secretary regarding which applicants should be awarded 
     grants under this subsection, with due regard for the 
     provisions of paragraph (3), but shall not recommend that a 
     project be awarded such a grant if the application describing 
     the project does not attempt to meet the requirement of 
     paragraph (1)(B).

[[Page 29526]]

       ``(II) Timing.--The Panel shall make such recommendations 
     not later than September 1, 2001.

       ``(iv) Term of office.--Each member appointed to the Panel 
     shall serve for the life of the Panel.
       ``(v) Prohibition on compensation.--Members of the Panel 
     may not receive pay, allowances, or benefits by reason of 
     their service on the Panel.
       ``(vi) Travel expenses.--Each member of the Panel shall 
     receive travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, in accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of 
     title 5, United States Code.
       ``(vii) Meetings.--The Panel shall meet as often as is 
     necessary to complete the business of the Panel.
       ``(viii) Chairperson.--The Chairperson of the Panel shall 
     be designated by the Secretary at the time of appointment.
       ``(ix) Staff of federal agencies.--The Secretary may detail 
     any personnel of the Department of Health and Human Services 
     and the Secretary of Labor may detail any personnel of the 
     Department of Labor to the Panel to assist the Panel in 
     carrying out its duties under this subparagraph.
       ``(x) Obtaining official data.--The Panel may secure 
     directly from any department of agency of the United States 
     information necessary to enable it to carry out this 
     paragraph. On request of the Chairperson of the Panel, the 
     head of the department or agency shall furnish that 
     information to the Panel.
       ``(xi) Mails.--The Panel may use the United States mails in 
     the same manner and under the same conditions as other 
     departments and agencies of the United States.
       ``(xii) Termination.--The Panel shall terminate on 
     September 1, 2001.
       ``(3) Matching grants.--
       ``(A) Grant awards.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall award matching 
     grants, on a competitive basis, among entities submitting 
     applications therefor which meet the requirements of 
     paragraph (1), in amounts that take into account the written 
     commitments referred to in paragraph (1)(D).
       ``(ii) Timing.--

       ``(I) First round.--On October 1, 2000, the Secretary shall 
     award not more than $70,000,000 in matching grants after 
     considering the recommendations submitted pursuant to 
     paragraph (2)(A)(iii)(I).
       ``(II) Second round.--On October 1, 2001, the Secretary 
     shall award not more than $70,000,000 in matching grants 
     considering the recommendations submitted pursuant to 
     paragraph (2)(B)(iii)(I).

       ``(iii) Nondiscrimination.--The provisions of this section 
     shall be applied and administered so as to ensure that both 
     mothers and expectant mothers and fathers and expectant 
     fathers are eligible for benefits and services under projects 
     awarded grants under this subsection.
       ``(B) Preferences.--In determining which entities to award 
     grants under this subsection, the Secretary shall give 
     preference to an entity--
       ``(i) to the extent that the application submitted by the 
     entity describes actions that the entity will take that are 
     designed to encourage or facilitate the payment of child 
     support, including but not limited to--

       ``(I) obtaining agreements with the State in which the 
     project will be carried out under which the State will 
     exercise its authority under the last sentence of section 
     457(a)(2)(B)(iv) in every case in which such authority may be 
     exercised;
       ``(II) obtaining a written commitment by the agency 
     responsible for administering the State plan approved under 
     part D for the State in which the project is to be carried 
     out that the State will cancel child support arrearages owed 
     to the State in proportion to the length of time that the 
     parent maintains a regular child support payment schedule or 
     lives with his or her children; and
       ``(III) obtaining a written commitment by the entity that 
     the entity will help participating parents who cooperate with 
     the agency in improving their credit rating;

       ``(ii) to the extent that the application includes written 
     agreements of cooperation with other private and governmental 
     agencies, including State or local programs funded under this 
     part, the local Workforce Investment Board, and the State or 
     local program funded under part D, which should include a 
     description of the services each such agency will provide to 
     parents participating in the project described in the 
     application;
       ``(iii) to the extent that the application describes a 
     project that will enroll a high percentage of project 
     participants within 6 months before or after the birth of the 
     child;
       ``(iv) to the extent that the application sets forth clear 
     and practical methods by which parents will be recruited to 
     participate in the project; and
       ``(v) to the extent that the application demonstrates that 
     the entity will consult with domestic violence prevention and 
     intervention organizations in the development and 
     implementation of the project in order to protect custodial 
     parents and children who may be at risk of domestic violence.
       ``(C) Minimum percentage of grants for nongovernmental 
     (including faith-based) organizations.--Not less than 75 
     percent of the aggregate amounts paid as grants under this 
     subsection in each fiscal year (other than amounts paid 
     pursuant to the preferences required by subparagraph (B)) 
     shall be awarded to nongovernmental (including faith-based) 
     organizations.
       ``(D) Diversity of projects.--In determining which entities 
     to award grants under this subsection, the Secretary shall 
     attempt to balance among entities of differing sizes, 
     entities in differing geographic areas, entities in urban 
     versus rural areas, and entities employing differing methods 
     of achieving the purposes of this section.
       ``(E) Payment of grant in 4 equal annual installments.--
     During the fiscal year in which a grant is awarded under this 
     subsection and each of the succeeding 3 fiscal years, the 
     Secretary shall provide to the entity awarded the grant an 
     amount equal to 1/4 of the amount of that grant.
       ``(4) Use of funds.--
       ``(A) In general.--Each entity to which a grant is made 
     under this subsection shall use grant funds provided under 
     this subsection in accordance with the application requesting 
     the grant, the requirements of this subsection, and the 
     regulations prescribed under this subsection, and may use the 
     grant funds to support communitywide initiatives to address 
     the purposes of this section.
       ``(B) Nondisplacement.--
       ``(i) In general.--An adult in a work activity described in 
     section 407(d) which is funded, in whole or in part, by funds 
     provided under this section shall not be employed or 
     assigned--

       ``(I) when any other individual is on layoff from the same 
     or any substantially equivalent job; or
       ``(II) if the employer has terminated the employment of any 
     regular employee or otherwise caused an involuntary reduction 
     of its workforce in order to fill the vacancy so created with 
     such an adult.

       ``(ii) Grievance procedure.--

       ``(I) State procedure.--A State to which a grant is made 
     under this section shall establish and maintain a grievance 
     procedure for resolving complaints of alleged violations of 
     clause (i) by State or local governmental entities.
       ``(II) Federal procedure.--The Secretary shall establish 
     and maintain a grievance procedure for resolving complaints 
     of alleged violations of clause (i) by private entities.

       ``(iii) No preemption.--This subparagraph shall not preempt 
     or supersede any provision of State or local law that 
     provides greater protection for employees from displacement.
       ``(C) Rule of construction.--This section shall not be 
     construed to require the participation of a parent in a 
     project funded under this section to be discontinued the 
     project on the basis of changed economic circumstances of the 
     parent.
       ``(D) Rule of construction on marriage.--This section shall 
     not be construed to authorize the Secretary to define 
     marriage for purposes of this section.
       ``(E) Penalty for misuse of grant funds.--If the Secretary 
     determines that an entity to which a grant is made under this 
     subsection has used any amount of the grant in violation of 
     subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall require the entity to 
     remit to the Secretary an amount equal to the amount so used, 
     plus all remaining grant funds, and the entity shall 
     thereafter be ineligible for any grant under this subsection.
       ``(F) Remittance of unused grant funds.--Each entity to 
     which a grant is awarded under this subsection shall remit to 
     the Secretary all funds paid under the grant that remain at 
     the end of the 5th fiscal year ending after the initial grant 
     award.
       ``(5) Authority of state agencies to exchange 
     information.--Each agency administering a State program 
     funded under this part or a State plan approved under part D 
     may share the name, address, and telephone number of parents 
     for purposes of assisting in determining the eligibility of 
     parents to participate in projects receiving grants under 
     this title, and in contacting parents potentially eligible to 
     participate in the projects, subject to all applicable 
     privacy laws.
       ``(6) Evaluation.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Labor, shall, directly or by grant, contract, or 
     interagency agreement, conduct an evaluation of projects 
     funded under this section (other than under subsection 
     (c)(1)). The evaluation shall assess, among other outcomes 
     selected by the Secretary, the effects of the projects on 
     parenting, employment, earnings, payment of child support, 
     and marriage. In selecting projects for the evaluation, the 
     Secretary should include projects that, in the Secretary's 
     judgment, are most likely to impact the matters described in 
     the purposes of this section. In conduction the evaluation, 
     random assignment should be used wherever possible.
       ``(7) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such 
     regulations as may be necessary to carry out this subsection.
       ``(8) Limitation on applicability of other provisions of 
     this part.--Sections 404 through 410 shall not apply to this 
     section or to amounts paid under this section, and shall not 
     be applied to an entity solely by reason of receipt of funds 
     pursuant to this section.
       ``(9) Funding.--
       ``(A) In general.--
       ``(i) Interagency panels.--Of the amounts made available 
     pursuant to section 403(a)(1)(E) for fiscal years 2000 and 
     2001, a

[[Page 29527]]

     total of $150,000 shall be made available for the interagency 
     panels established by paragraph (2) of this subsection.
       ``(ii) Grants.--Of the amounts made available pursuant to 
     section 403(a)(1)(E), there shall be made available for 
     grants under this subsection--

       ``(I) $17,500,00 for fiscal year 2001;
       ``(II) $35,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2002 through 
     2004; and
       ``(III) $17,500,000 for fiscal year 2005.

       ``(iii) Evaluation.--Of the amounts made available pursuant 
     to section 403(a)(1)E) for fiscal years 2000 through 2006, a 
     total of $6,000,000 shall be made available for the 
     evaluation required by paragraph (6) of this subsection.
       ``(B) Availability.--
       ``(i) Grant funds.--The amounts made pursuant to 
     subparagraph (A)(ii) shall remain available until the end of 
     fiscal year 2005.
       ``(ii) Evaluation funds.--The amounts made available 
     pursuant to subparagraph (A)(iii) shall remain available 
     until the end of fiscal year 2006.''.
       (b) Funding.--Section 403(a)(1)(E) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     603(a)(1)(E)) is amended by inserting ``, and for fiscal 
     years 2000 through 2006, such sums as are necessary to carry 
     out section 403A'' before the period.
       (c) Authority to States To Pass Through Child Support 
     Arrearages Collected Through Tax Refund Intercept to Families 
     Who Have Ceased To Receive Cash Assistance; Federal 
     Reimbursement of State Share of Such Passed Through 
     Arrearages.--Section 457(a)(2)(B)(iv) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     657(a)(2)(B)(iv)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(except the last sentence of the 
     clause)'' after ``this section''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following: ``Notwithstanding 
     the preceding sentences of this clause, if the amount is 
     collected on behalf of a family that includes a child of a 
     participant in a project funded under section 403A and that 
     has ceased to receive cash payments under a State program 
     funded under section 403, and the amount so collected exceeds 
     the amount that would otherwise be required to be paid to the 
     family for the month in which collected, then the State may 
     distribute the amount to the family, and the aggregate of the 
     amounts otherwise required by this section to be paid by the 
     State to the Federal Government shall be reduced by an amount 
     equal to the State share of any amount so distributed.''.
       (d) TANF Maintenance of Effort Determinations To Be Made 
     Without Regard to Expenditures for Parent Programs.--Section 
     409(a)(7)(B)(i) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 609(a)(7)(B)(i)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

       ``(V) Exclusion of expenditures for parent programs.--Such 
     term does not include expenditures for any project for which 
     funds are provided under section 403A.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 367, the gentlewoman from 
Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer my amendment, which substitutes for the 
word ``father'' the word ``parent.'' I think that that is a very 
important change to what has been offered here in titles I and II.
  There is, I believe, a misapprehension that somehow, in enacting the 
Welfare Reform Act and the welfare-to-work provisions that went along 
with it, that somehow fathers, the noncustodial part of the family, was 
neglected and not served and not considered.
  In debating the Welfare Reform Act, we had numerous discussions about 
deadbeat dads and how important it was to enforce the child support 
provisions, and all the mechanisms that went to that. So there was no 
neglect of the concerns that fathers had an important part in assuming 
their parental responsibilities. That is all incorporated in the 
Welfare Reform Act.
  In the enactment of the welfare-to-work legislation, there was 
careful consideration to understand the burden of both the custodial 
parent as well as the noncustodial parent.
  When one infers that in most cases the custodial parent is the 
mother, about 85 percent of the cases, then we look at the distribution 
of the funding under the welfare-to-work program and we realize that, 
indeed, fathers have been taken into account, because I am told by the 
Department of Labor that about 25 percent of the funding has actually 
gone to the noncustodial parent, to enable that parent to obtain work 
guidance and all sorts of assistance, transportation to the job and 
whatever.
  So there was no discrimination, no leaving out of the fathers in the 
formula for consideration of the necessity of responsibility.
  The children were, of course, the main object of the legislation. In 
every case, both the custodial parent and the noncustodial parent were 
given the options of coming under the program and benefiting from it.
  So now we come to this new provision which is described as a 
fatherhood grant program. I believe that what is assumed by the purpose 
of this language is that somehow fathers have been left out.
  Obviously, we want to do everything we can to instill responsibility 
in absent fathers to make sure they pay for their child support, to 
make sure if they want a job, they are counseled and assisted in every 
possible way for obtaining a job.
  But when we create a new title and we spend $150 million and direct 
it only to fathers, it seems to me that the concept of family then kind 
of withers on the vine. When we talk about family, we are talking about 
a mother and a father.
  When we have, on page 4 of this legislation, a provision which says 
that there must be a written commitment by the entity applying for this 
grant that will allow an individual to participate only if the 
individual is a father of a child who is on welfare, or a father whose 
income is less than 150 percent, it seems to me that we are creating a 
division which is so unnecessary.
  It may be true that the entities that come in for this funding will 
deal with fathers separately than they will with mothers, but it seems 
to me to create a whole program and declare that only those eligible to 
participate are fathers is wrong.
  So I have offered this amendment to Title I which expands it, talks 
about the importance of parents. It talks about the importance of 
counseling. The original bill that we are debating provides for 
marriage counseling. I do not know if a marriage counselor will deal 
with a situation with only one part of the family. They want both 
parties to come together.
  So I think that it makes a lot of sense to recognize the roles and 
responsibilities of both the fathers and the mothers, and to provide 
this extra assistance.
  It is important to realize that the current law does deal with job 
funding and all sorts of services in job search and getting ready for 
work for both the custodial and the noncustodial, so that is not new. 
What it will create is a whole new bureaucracy for the management of 
this aspect of the welfare-to-work law which already exists in the 
Department of Labor.
  I would hope that my amendment will be agreed to and that we will 
provide this advantage for both sides of the family equation.
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) is 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), the distinguished 
chairman of the subcommittee.

                              {time}  1400

  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong 
opposition to this amendment. First of all, ironically, in the bill is 
a reform of the welfare-to-work provisions that is a program whose goal 
it is to reach out to women who have been on welfare for long periods 
of time, 5, 10, 15 years, and provide the education and training that 
is essential to help someone like that get into the workforce. For a 
lot of societal reasons, the great majority of people on welfare are 
women. Like 99.9 percent. And almost all the services in the fatherhood 
bill are already available to women.
  Mr. Chairman, all our program does is to level the playing field by 
making similar services available to men. There is no effort anywhere 
in current law that would provide for the noncustodial parent the kinds 
of resources this bill does. And because they are primarily men when we 
are talking about noncustodial parents of children on welfare, then we 
need a fatherhood program.

[[Page 29528]]

  How many times have I stood on this floor and fought for those 
special training centers under the SBA for women, because women 
entrepreneurs need different information than men entrepreneurs to 
succeed because the environment in which they come up is different. 
Well, the same is true for poor fathers of welfare children. They 
suffer a sort of unique exclusion in our society. Their girlfriends, 
because they are on welfare, get job training, get education. Pretty 
soon they feel good about themselves; pretty soon they have a good job 
and they leave the young man behind. This is the imbalance that the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), my friend, referred to in his 
remarks and the source of the fatherhood bill.
  We need to level the playing fields for these guys so they too can 
get the job training and skill development; they can get good jobs. Not 
only will they be able to support the kids better, but they will have 
the pride in themselves that is essential to healthy relationships.
  This bill directly addresses some of the problems that tend to be 
common among these men, for example, the problem of aggressive 
behavior. So not only are we looking at providing them with education 
around parenting skills. Women at least get that from their friends; 
they at least get it from their moms. The young men who are the 
unmarried fathers of children on welfare have no milieu in which to 
help them develop the skills they are going to need for this new life 
of fatherhood. I am proud that we are recognizing the needs of these 
men, and it is about time because we recognized the same needs of the 
women a long time ago.
  There is not one aspect of this bill that in any way interferes with 
the money for maternal and child health block grants; that is gender 
based. Women, infant and children's program; that is gender based. 
Violence against women; that money goes to women. This money is to 
prevent that violence. This is a fatherhood program that is geared 
primarily at this human development that allows us to control anger in 
such a way that we do not end up with domestic violence.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to go to any school in their 
district that has done Character Counts and mediation and the principal 
will tell us, the incidence of ``he hit me'' or ``she hit me'' plummet 
95 percent in the first 3 months. So we can teach violence control and 
teach relational issues, but we need to teach that with the men 
together. They need to hear each other and share experience about how 
they resolved a conflict with a woman, because there is no venue for 
them to do that.
  If my colleagues visit these fatherhood programs, they will see why 
we need special services for dads, because dads do count.
  So I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment because it demeans 
the importance of our fathers, it demeans the role they play, and it 
denies them the skill development they need to succeed.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Mink 
amendment. I strongly support fatherhood and any efforts to help men be 
better parents. I just do not believe these programs have to be 
isolated.
  Right now under the welfare-to-work program, men and women can 
receive job training, educational training, and likewise equal support. 
We do not need a gender-specific law now.
  The Mink amendment eliminates all gender discriminatory language and 
replaces it with parents. By replacing the word ``father'' with 
``parent'' in title I of the Fathers Count Act, the Mink amendment 
emphasizes the fact that both fathers and mothers are important to 
families. Providing grants to help only fathers will pit dads and moms 
in a fight for welfare assistance against each other. Targeting only 
fathers ignores the fact that 84 percent of single-parent families are 
headed by mothers. Tying Federal benefits to only fathers violates the 
equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to the Constitution.
  We must help all parents, whether mother or father, acquire the 
skills and training to become self-sufficient. This bill, without the 
Mink amendment, would undo the protections of the family violence 
option that many States have adopted under welfare reform. The Mink 
amendment improves the Fathers Count Act by giving preference to 
programs that consult with domestic violence organizations in the 
development and implementation of the project. Nearly 30 percent of 
women on public assistance are experiencing violence in their lives and 
two-thirds report having been victims previously.
  The Mink amendment improves upon the goal of the fatherhood program 
by stating that the program must help parents in their marriages, 
through counseling, mentoring and teaching, how to control aggressive 
behavior.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Mink amendment.
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute, simply to clarify 
the point that the language in this bill already provides for 
nondiscrimination. If I can read from the actual language of the bill 
that is currently on the floor: ``Nondiscrimination. The provisions of 
this section shall be applied and administered so as to ensure that 
mothers, expectant mothers, and married mothers are eligible for 
benefits and services under projects awarded grants under this section 
on the same basis as fathers, expectant fathers, and married fathers.''
  Mr. Chairman, this is a red herring. There is no issue here.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. 
Mink) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the underlying bill. I am pleased 
to note that legislation that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman 
Goodling), the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), and I authored, 
which frees up funding for moving from welfare to work, is in this 
bill. I thank the majority for their cooperation.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the Mink amendment. If I could have one wish 
for every child in America, it would be that there is at least one 
committed adult who gets out of bed every morning and makes that 
child's welfare the most important priority in his or her life. I think 
it is important that we recognize that males or females, blood 
relatives or nonblood relatives, can serve that function.
  Anything that narrows those opportunities by gender, by blood 
relation versus nonblood relation, I think narrows the chance that 
children are going to get that kind of care. Mothers and fathers, aunts 
and uncles, friends who are willing to take responsibility as 
guardians, all of these people are necessary for children to be 
nurtured.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the Mink amendment because I believe it does 
not tie the funding streams to the gender of the adult, but it ties the 
funding streams to the needs of the child and the existence of an adult 
who is willing to help. I urge support of the Mink amendment as well as 
support for the underlying bill.
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I have no additional speakers, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) to make all parents 
count, rather than only fathers. We cannot overemphasize the value of 
having a father present and participating in a positive way in a 
child's life. Dads are invaluable. But so are moms. And most of the 
children we want to help with this bill live with their mothers.
  Mr. Chairman, if we want to change these children's lives, we must 
provide grants to help both their parents, their mom and their dad. 
Then the family can make changes.
  Why should we not offer parents counseling and job skills assistance, 
both the moms and the dads, and make sure that the custodial parent, 
the low-income mom, has the same opportunity

[[Page 29529]]

as the noncustodial father? A recent study of 10 cities by the 
Institute of Children and Poverty showed that 42 percent of the poorest 
families in those cities do not get TANF benefits. We have census data 
that shows that the poorest one-fifth of single-mother families had a 
significant loss of income between 1995 and 1997, due largely to the 
loss of public benefits without any corresponding gain in earnings.
  The moms in these poor families would need to go on welfare in order 
to get the kind of benefits that are being offered to the absentee dads 
by the fatherhood grants. What sense does that make? Our goal is to get 
more people into work, not on to welfare.
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, listening to the debate on this particular amendment on 
the floor, I am constrained one more time to reread what is actually in 
the bill on the floor before us that addresses this issue already:
  ``Nondiscrimination. The provisions of this section shall be applied 
and administered so as to ensure that mothers, expectant mothers, and 
married mothers are eligible for benefits and services under projects 
awarded grants under this section on the same basis as fathers, 
expectant fathers, and married fathers.''
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard some curious arguments today. We do not 
hear the same arguments applied to other programs such as maternal and 
Child Health Block Grants, the Women, Infants and Children program, and 
the Violence Against Women Act. Mr. Chairman, I think the point here is 
we already have a level playing field. We are not creating a new 
bureaucracy. This is a very lean program in which the money will go 
directly to projects at the local level and do so on a 
nondiscriminatory basis.
  This program is not being created in isolation. This fits nicely and 
directly into many of the efforts that are already going on at the 
local level and also at existing welfare-to-work programs.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that this amendment is unnecessary and it 
overlooks a fundamental reality and that is the benefits from this 
legislation will go beyond the father by enabling the father to provide 
help and support for the mother; and most importantly, it will benefit 
their child by providing two caring, supportive parents active in their 
lives.
  This bill, without this amendment, is a solid social initiative. This 
amendment, I believe, simply muddies the waters; and it should be 
categorically rejected.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). All time for debate on the 
amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending 
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 367, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii 
(Mrs. Mink) will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. English

  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part B Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. English:
       In section 403A(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Social Security Act, as 
     proposed to be added by section 101(a) of the bill, 
     redesignate subclauses (II) and (III) as subclauses (III) and 
     (IV), respectively, and insert after subclause (I) the 
     following:
       ``(II) Qualifications.--An individual shall not be eligible 
     to serve on the Panel unless the individual has experience in 
     programs for fathers, programs for the poor, programs for 
     children, program administration, or program research.''.
       In section 403A(b)(2)(B)(ii) of the Social Security Act, as 
     proposed to be added by section 101(a) of the bill, 
     redesignate subclauses (II) and (III) as subclauses (III) and 
     (IV), respectively, and insert after subclause (I) the 
     following:
       ``(II) Qualifications.--An individual shall not be eligible 
     to serve on the Panel unless the individual has experience in 
     programs for fathers, programs for the poor, programs for 
     children, program administration, or program research.''.
       In section 403A(b)(3)(B)(i) of the Social Security Act, as 
     proposed to be added by section 101(a) of the bill--
       (1) strike ``and'' at the end of subclause (II);
       (2) add ``and' at the end of subclause (III); and
       (3) add at the end the following:
       ``(IV) helping fathers arrange and maintain a consistent 
     schedule of visits with their children;''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 383, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I am not in opposition to the amendment, 
but I am not aware of anyone in opposition, and I ask unanimous consent 
to control the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. English).
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment has two parts. First, it requires that 
individuals who serve on the selection panels created under this act 
have some background in programs for fathers, programs for the poor, 
programs for children, program administration or program research.

                              {time}  1415

  This amendment ensures that only individuals who have professional 
experience related to social programs evaluate which fatherhood 
programs should be funded under this act.
  Second, this amendment encourages the payment of child support by 
helping fathers with visitation. The intent of this legislation is to 
select programs which will have the greatest chance of promoting 
marriage, improving parent effectiveness, and helping fathers with 
employment.
  This legislation gives preference to those programs which promote the 
payment of child support by helping fathers in a variety of ways. My 
amendment would add one more way to promote payment of child support 
specifically by helping fathers arrange and maintain a schedule of 
regular visits to their children.
  This amendment encourages fathers to have a more active role in their 
children's lives, both financially and by spending more time with their 
children. Under this amendment, the real winners are the children. This 
amendment, I understand, has bipartisan support and has no budgetary 
impact.
  I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as I pointed out, I support the gentleman's amendment. 
But I took the time because I have had some conversations with the 
gentleman concerning this amendment. I support it, but a literal 
reading of it could be interpreted to link visitation with the payment 
of child support. Now, I know that the author of the amendment does not 
intend that to be the consequence. We are in a position where we cannot 
amend an amendment on the floor under the rule which we are operating 
under.
  So I heard the gentleman's explanation, and I fully agree with what 
he is intending to do that we want to make sure the noncustodial parent 
has a more active role in the child's life, which is the language used 
by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), a more responsible 
relationship.
  I would just point out, my conversations with the gentleman is that 
we will work, as this bill works its way through the process, to make 
sure there is no unintended consequences of the gentleman's amendment.

[[Page 29530]]

  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
English).
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I make that commitment absolutely. I thank 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) for his support and his 
thoughtful analysis of this issue, and I would be delighted to work 
with him and work with the rest of the subcommittee on that point.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to look carefully at this 
issue. I think it is relatively straightforward. This amendment would 
vastly strengthen this bill. It would introduce expertise into the 
evaluation process. In the end, it would bring fathers closer to their 
children.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. English).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 3 printed in Part B of House Report 106-463.


             Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mrs. Mink of Hawaii

  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part B amendment No. 3 offered by Mrs. Mink of Hawaii:
       Strike title II, and redesignate succeeding titles and 
     sections (and amend the table of contents) accordingly.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 383, the 
gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, title II of the Fathers Count Act gives $5 million to 
two nationally recognized nonprofit fatherhood promotion organizations, 
$5 million to each of two nationally recognized nonprofit fatherhood 
promotion organizations. I oppose that kind of selection out of 
organizations for funding at such a level as $5 million.
  We have been debating on the floor that the Federal Government and 
the bureaucracy has to be cut. In fact, we cannot come to agreement on 
many of our appropriation bills because we are still arguing over the 
funding levels that each of these worthy groups are entitled to. Yet, 
here, today we have legislation which is prepared to give two 
organizations $5 million just for existing.
  The provision in the law says that the nonprofit promotion 
organization has to have a minimum of 4 years of experience in 
disseminating a national public education campaign, including 
production and placement of television, radio, and print public service 
announcements that promote the importance of responsible fatherhood.
  While I do not have any objection to national organizations being in 
existence to do exactly that, to teach men in our society to be 
responsible if they father children, they ought to be willing to pay 
for their support, maintenance, and education.
  The government ought not to be out there trying to find ways in which 
to nurture these people through the establishment of funding for 
national organizations. But national organizations probably do a 
tremendous amount of good. They gather together the forces within a 
community, within the country, to come to grips with this issue of 
parental responsibility. I think that is something to be applauded.
  But I do take great objection to the idea that the Federal Government 
needs to get involved in promoting through the placement of television, 
radio, and present public service announcements about the 
responsibilities of fatherhood. So I would hope that my amendment would 
be agreed to, and that only title I of this Fathers Count Act 
legislation will be agreed to and, hopefully, will be changed to a 
parenthood kind of program.
  It is important to realize that, if this is connected to welfare, 
which I assume that it is, that 85 percent of the people on welfare who 
are the custodial parents are women. If we are going to try to deal 
with this issue of welfare and the problems of poverty and the problems 
that children must suffer through because they are in a welfare family, 
then we have to make special efforts to try to support the single moms 
who are out there struggling to make a life and to support these 
children. Yet, we have no programs that I am aware of that specifically 
allocates $5 million for the support of single moms who are trying to 
raise their children and who are on welfare.
  So I think that it is a matter of priorities. It is not a priority 
which I share. I believe it is a dangerous precedent. I hope that, 
instead of spending this $10 million in this way, that we can provide 
the monies for other programs.
  I am told by someone who is knowledgeable that Healthy Mothers 
Program has been cut from the budget. Now, there is a program that has 
been nationally recognized, and the people that organize that program 
have all remarked what a tremendous contribution it makes to helping 
children and families at risk. Yet, the Congress is seeing fit not to 
fund this program.
  So this money, I think, is needed in other programs where the need is 
much, much greater and where the benefits for the children at risk can 
be addressed directly. While I have no objection to these two 
organizations in mounting their campaigns for fatherhood and to insist 
that fathers be recognized for their responsibilities in their 
communities and in this country, I do object to the fact that special 
funds are set aside for the purposes for promoting these private 
organizations.
  Mr. Chairman, title II of the Fathers Count Act gives $5 million to 
two nationally recognized nonprofit fatherhood promotion organizations. 
Five million dollars! We have recently been debating on the floor that 
every federal agency must cut its wasteful spending so its budget can 
be reduced by 1 percent. Yet, this legislation is prepared to give two 
organizations $5 million just for existing.
  We have not done this for motherhood organizations. And mothers make 
up 84 percent of the custodial parents on welfare. If we do anything 
with this five million dollars, we should provide it to the people that 
need this assistance the most--the custodial parent.
  Title II would give this money to organizations to help them develop 
and promote material addressing the issue of responsible fatherhood and 
promote marriage. Fathers should be responsible, and I applaud any 
organization that strives to make non-custodial fathers active in their 
children's lives and well-being. But it is not the federal government's 
job to provide these non-profit organizations with millions of dollars 
to help them do their job. This sets a dangerous precedent. Are we to 
provide millions of dollars to the National Education Association? Or 
to the National Organization for Women? Of course not.
  It is the federal government's responsibility to provide services to 
help custodial parents become self-sufficient. We should help these 
parents find jobs so they can provide for their families.
  My amendment will strike title II and save this government millions 
of dollars that can be better spent.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and 
claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
English) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong 
opposition to this amendment. The bill does not allocate $1 to any 
organization. It does set aside $5 million for competitive grants where 
the Secretary makes the final decision.
  We do want some of the money in the bill to be set aside for highly 
developed organizations that have been in the fatherhood business for a 
long time, that

[[Page 29531]]

are reputable, and that are capable of testing project designs in many 
different places across the Nation because we know very, very little 
about what works in reaching out to these dads.
  The rest of the money goes to community-based organizations because 
we know what is happening out there, the things that are going on, some 
of them funded by TANF, happening at the neighborhood level, at the 
small city level; and those are useful.
  But it may be very hard to tell from those what ideas might be useful 
nationwide and what will not. We know there are a number of 
organizations whose programs are well enough developed and whose 
reputation in the service community is strong enough that they would be 
able to begin to test some models nationwide in multiple cities. So two 
of these competitive grants have to go to that kind of organization.
  The bill would be weakened by the elimination of these projects 
because since we know so little about this area, not to be able to both 
fund some of the big experienced programs in multicities across the 
Nation to see how they work and whether they are as effective in New 
England as in the Southwest or California, and not to be able to do 
that as well as the small community-based grants would limit our 
ability to draw from our experience through this bill a national policy 
that will serve these families.
  So I urge opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
English) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) has brought a 
lot of passion to this debate. But I sense that she seems to fear that, 
in a free and open competition for funds in which religious and other 
faith-based organizations are playing on a level playing field, the 
usual suspects may not get all the money.
  There is no question this fatherhood legislation will bring lots of 
new organizations into play, most of which have never before received 
government funding. As long as that competition is fair, what can be 
wrong with more competition?
  Let us recognize the major provision of title II is the multicity 
fatherhood project. Only organizations that have experience in 
organizing and conducting fatherhood programs and in coordinating with 
local agencies are eligible for this money. These are very reasonable 
requirements, directly relating to achieving program success.
  The committee required that at least one of the projects use the 
technique of employing married couples who live and work in the service 
delivery area to serve as role models. Based on our hearings, this 
innovative approach was judged to hold a great deal of potential for 
success, and the committee, therefore, wants to test this model through 
rigorous experimentation.
  Also in this provision is a clearinghouse which we feel is absolutely 
essential. If we are going to learn from the experience with fatherhood 
programs, experience which is already developing, then we need to have 
a national clearinghouse that will allow that information and that 
experience to be disseminated to communities that can learn and profit 
from the example. We urge the rejection of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and 
pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 367, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii 
(Mrs. Mink) will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 4 printed in Part B of House Report 106-463.

                              {time}  1430


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Cardin

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The Clerk will designate the 
amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part B amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Cardin:
       In section 403(a)(5)(C)(iv) of the Social Security Act, as 
     so redesignated by section 301(b)(1)(A) of the bill, and as 
     proposed to be amended by section 301(c)(1)(B) of the bill--
       (1) insert ``or'' at the end of subclause (II);
       (2) strike ``; or'' at the end of subclause (III) and 
     insert a period; and
       (3) strike subclause (IV).
       In section 301 of the bill, redesignate subsection (d) as 
     subsection (e) and insert after subsection (c) the following:
       (d) Custodial Parents With Income Below Poverty Line Who 
     Are Not on Welfare.--
       (1) In general.--Section 403(a)(5)(C) of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 603(a)(5)(C)), as amended by subsection (b)(1) of this 
     section, is amended--
       (A) by redesignating clauses (vi) through (ix) as clauses 
     (vii) through (x), respectively; and
       (B) by inserting after clause (v) the following:
       ``(vi) Custodial parents with income below poverty line who 
     are not on welfare.--An entity that operates a project with 
     funds provided under this paragraph may use the funds to 
     provide assistance in a form described in clause (i) to 
     custodial parents--
       '`(I) whose income is less than 100 percent of the poverty 
     line (as defined 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); and
       ``(II) who are not otherwise recipients of assistance under 
     a State program funded under this part.''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Section 403(a)(5)(C)(iv) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     603(a)(5)(C)(iv)), as so redesignated by subsection (b)(1)(A) 
     of this section, and as amended by subsection (c)(2) of this 
     section, is amended in the last sentence by striking ``clause 
     (v)'' and inserting ``clause (v) and (vi)''.
       (B) Section 412(a)(3)(C)(ii) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     612(a)(3)(C)(ii), as amended by subsection (b)(2) of this 
     section, is amended by striking ``(viii)'' and inserting 
     ``(xi)''.
       In section 304(b) of the bill--
       (1) strike ``section 301(b)(1)'' and insert ``subsections 
     (b)(1) and (d)(1) of section 301''; and
       (2) redesignate clause (x) of section 403(a)(5)(C) of the 
     Social Security Act, as proposed to be added by such section 
     304(b), as clause (xi).

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 367, the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Cardin 
amendment to allow custodial parents, usually moms with incomes below 
the poverty line, to participate in welfare-to-work programs equally 
with noncustodial parents, usually dads.
  While I was glad to get this limited amendment into the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce markup for access for low-income custodial 
moms, this is far better. In fact, it is far more fair and sensible to 
treat low-income custodial moms equal to dads. We know that more and 
more of the very poorest families in this country are not receiving 
welfare. These are families headed by single moms. It is not sensible, 
nor is it fair to give absentee dads greater access to welfare-to-work 
programs than it is to give these programs to the mothers, those who 
are living with their children and taking care of them day in and day 
out.
  If we want to help low-income children, we need to give both their 
parents equal access to the welfare-to-work program. That is what the 
Cardin amendment does, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

[[Page 29532]]


  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Goodling) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would hope we would not go down this path, Mr. Chairman, for many 
reasons. Under the current law, the funds are targeted for hard-to-
employ welfare recipients and noncustodial parents with children on 
welfare. No one else can get that money. But we worked out in committee 
an arrangement where 30 percent of that money could go for nonwelfare 
recipients living in poverty.
  Now, I have a tremendous fear if we ever open this up and say 100 
percent. Why do I have that fear and why is it legitimate? When we 
combined all these workforce programs to try to make them work several 
years ago, the State employment offices were out there trying to kill 
everything we were doing. Why were they doing that? Because they have a 
tendency to give all of their effort to those who they know they can 
count as successful so when they have to give their statistics, they 
say, okay, we were very successful. However, the people they neglected 
are the hardest people there are to try to prepare for employment.
  That is my fear here. If we open this up beyond the 30 percent, the 
next thing we will find is these people on welfare, these custodial 
parents with children on welfare, all of a sudden will get no service, 
because they are very, very difficult to try to prepare for the 
workforce.
  Again, we have to make sure that we understand there is all sorts of 
money out there for those people. When we look at TANF and other 
programs, there are billions of dollars that are serving these very 
people that we are talking about at the present time. We do not want to 
just turn this into another job-training program, because that, of 
course, was a real failure in the past.
  Also keep in mind there is $2.5 billion for economically 
disadvantaged adults and dislocated workers assistance under the Work 
Force Investment Act. All of that money is out there for these people. 
But this sets up a situation where 100 percent of the funds could be 
used to serve custodial parents in poverty. Again, we are taking away 
the opportunity, and not only the opportunity but the mandate to make 
sure that the most difficult to prepare for the workforce are getting 
help through this service.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. DeMint).
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of every person on 
welfare who wants to get his or her hands on the ladder of opportunity, 
and that is why I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
  I also rise to congratulate over 2 million welfare recipients in this 
country who, under the Republican welfare reform program, have had 
restored to them not only a job but dignity in their life; and I 
implore those on the other side of the aisle to keep our focus on this 
welfare-to-work program for the people that are truly on welfare.
  There are many job training programs, but there is only one welfare-
to-work. We worked out a good compromise in committee that would allow 
us to use up to 30 percent of the funds for those not on welfare but 
below the poverty line, and this is a good start. But if we take our 
total focus off of welfare recipients, the ones that are still on it 
are going to be the ones that are hardest to get jobs and we need more 
than ever the welfare-to-work program focused on these people today.
  So I again encourage everyone on the other side to remember, let us 
do not create another job training program. There are a lot of those. 
But in my district, the folks in the chamber and in businesses and in 
community organizations are working together with the Department of 
Social Services to focus welfare funds as well as private sector funds 
to get people back to work. And I just hope that we will not destroy 
this program by opening it up and just leaving it to anyone who chooses 
to use it in a different way.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. English).
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, having examined this amendment, I am 
inclined to agree with it, and I rise in support of it.
  What this amendment does is it allows more people to participate in 
welfare-to-work and it allows States to use more funds for welfare-to-
work programs for low-income custodial parents who do not receive TANF.
  This provides greater flexibility to the States. And given that 
flexibility was the hallmark of our 1996 welfare reform bill, I believe 
that this is consistent with its spirit. I support this amendment.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just make a couple points, if I might, in 
response to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the 
committee.
  This amendment carries out the commitment we made to our States when 
we enacted welfare reform, and that is to give flexibility to our 
States to be able to deal with the problems. The gentleman is 
suggesting that we should restrict our States somehow on how they feel 
it is best to deal with the problems by imposing this 30 percent 
restrictional use of funds for low-income custodial parents. The 
Committee on Ways and Means, in its version of the bill, included this 
amendment. It did not put the 30 percent restriction in.
  Mr. Chairman, what really concerns me is that it is not limited to 30 
percent; it is limited much below that. In fact, it is unlikely that 
any resources will get to this targeted group unless this amendment is 
adopted, because it has to compete with two other groups of 
individuals; one, those that have been on TANF for 30 months or less 
and, number two, the commitment we made to help children aging out of 
foster care. They are both subject to the same 30 percent.
  There are not going to be any resources available for low-income 
custodial parents who are playing according to the rules. We would be 
telling them to go on welfare to get the help. That does not make any 
sense. We should be rewarding people who want to play by the rules, who 
want to be able to get a good job. The States should have this 
flexibility.
  I listened to the proponents of welfare reform and I voted for it. We 
talked about trusting our States to be able to have the flexibility to 
deal with the job. Let us not discriminate against low-income people 
because they have not been on welfare. And let us live up to our 
commitment we promised to children aging out of foster care so there 
would be resources available for that group. And let us also deal with 
the people who have been on welfare for less than 30 months.
  Support this amendment. It is a good amendment. It is a bipartisan 
amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 5 printed in Part B of House Report 106-463.


                Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 5.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part B amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Traficant:
       In section 403A(b)(1) of the Social Security Act, as 
     proposed to be added by section 101(a) of the bill, add at 
     the end the following:
       ``(E) A written commitment by the entity that the entity 
     will make available to each individual participating in the 
     project education about alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs and 
     the effect of abusing such substances, and information about 
     HIV/AIDS and its transmission.''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 383, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and a member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.

[[Page 29533]]

  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Following this debate, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Hinchey) made a very good statement about poverty. One of the 
statements he made was that people without seem to have more problems.
  My little amendment says it would require any of these projects 
getting grants under this bill to also add a drug-alcohol education 
component and information about the transmission of AIDS and the HIV 
factor.
  In America, at the University of Cincinnati Medical School, 20 
milligrams of diacetylmorphine, known on the streets as heroin, has 
produced physical dependence in 7 days, known as addiction on the 
streets, in 7 days with laboratory animals. The synergistic effect of 
drugs has destroyed families, where many families unknowingly, fathers, 
end up in hospital rooms with unintended overdose accidents. I think 
that these projects and this program is good, but any fatherhood 
project that does not offer this, I think, would be lacking.
  I think it is a good program. I do not ask for any additional money, 
because I believe the social service system could network to do this, 
but Congress says they shall do this. I think it is that important.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to manage the time 
in opposition, even though I am not opposed to this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
English) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I rise in support of the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Traficant).
  I think it is noteworthy that what he has offered is a requirement 
that these fatherhood projects provide education on alcohol, tobacco 
and other drugs, as well as the effect of abusing such substances and 
information about HIV/AIDS. I think we can all agree that this is a 
valuable addition to this bill and a valuable addition to this debate.
  Mr. Chairman, I serve in a district that abuts on that of the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), and let me say I am very grateful 
for his long-standing interest in these issues. He has been, I think, a 
real leader in the House focusing on these issues for many, many years, 
and he has been an inspiration to me.
  Let me just say, in addition, that I think his amendment strongly 
adds to this bill. I think it gives this bill an additional push and I, 
for one, strongly support its inclusion in the final language.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Mrs. Johnson).
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I also want to 
congratulate the gentleman from Ohio on his amendment. I think it is a 
very worthy one. I accept it for myself.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I also support the amendment and compliment 
my friend from Ohio. It strengthens the bill, and we certainly would 
like to see it included.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Yes, reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, 
we appreciate the gentleman's continued interest in these issues and 
find his amendment a real constructive addition to the bill.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to thank the chairman, and I want to close by thanking my 
friend and neighbor, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), who 
has worked with me on many issues.
  I also want to thank my fellow graduate at Pitt, the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin), who has done a great job. And, Mr. Chairman, it 
seems that every bill that the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. 
Johnson) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) seem to be 
involved with, it has worked out good for the American people.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 6 printed in Part B of House Report 106-463.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Edwards

  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part B amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Edwards:
       At the end of section 403A(b)(3)(C) of the Social Security 
     Act, as proposed to be added by section 101(a) of the bill, 
     add the following new flush sentence: ``Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, funds shall not be provided under 
     this section to any faith-based institution that is 
     pervasively sectarian.''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 367, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) and a member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is one sentence long. It says this: 
``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds shall not be 
provided under this section to any faith-based institution that is 
pervasively sectarian.''
  This is very simple. The Supreme Court ruled in 1988 they cannot give 
dollars directly to pervasively sectarian organizations, essentially 
organizations that are thoroughly religious, that their secular and 
religious purposes are so intertwined they cannot separate them. We are 
picking up that language of the Supreme Court in its 1988 case to try 
to make this bill constitutional.
  I want to be clear. My amendment does not stop Federal funds from 
flowing to faith-based organizations. That is happening today. It has 
happened for years. And it will continue to happen under my amendment.
  What will be different is, under my amendment, we will follow the 
profound principles of the first 10 words, in fact, the establishment 
clause of the Bill of Rights, that say our Founding Fathers did not and 
would not want direct Federal dollars to go directly to houses of 
worship, churches, and synagogues.
  There are many supporters, from the Joint Baptist Committee to the 
American Jewish Committee, of this amendment. Let me just say some 
things that will happen if it does not pass.
  First, they will obliterate a 200-year wall of separation between 
church and State. Convenience or even good intentions are not good 
enough reasons to turn our back on the first 10 words of the First 
Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
  Secondly, without my amendment passing, this bill will let a church 
or religious organization take Federal dollars and, in the decision of 
hiring people for that federally funded program, say, no, they are not 
good enough, we are not hiring them because they are not, as an 
American citizen, of the right religion in our opinion. I find that is 
offensive to the concept of religious freedom and respect and 
independence in this country.
  Third, I think they are going to harm these religious organizations 
by inviting massive Federal regulation of them. And finally, they will 
create great dissension as these organizations compete for Federal 
dollars.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

[[Page 29534]]

  (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, this has been a fascinating partial debate. Now we are 
to the actual amendment, which the sponsor says would not affect faith-
based organizations but would, in fact, gut the intent of this 
amendment and certainly would set back and probably reverse the whole 
flow that the Federal Government has been doing for a number of years 
to try to include people who want to include character and faith-based 
organizations in the delivery of social services by going back to the 
pervasively sectarian standard.
  In fact, Vice President Al Gore, in his home page for President, as 
well as his speech that he gave in Atlanta, said,

       I believe the lesson for our Nation is clear. In those 
     instances where the unique power of faith that can help us 
     meet the crushing social challenges that are otherwise 
     impossible to meet, such as drug addiction and gang violence, 
     we should explore carefully tailored partnerships with our 
     faith communities so that we can use approaches that are 
     working best.

  Governor Bush in Texas has done this with prison fellowship, with 
other groups that are involved in youth issues and fatherhood issues, 
and we see many examples in this current administration.
  The Brookings Institute has come out forcefully for this saying that, 
in fact, to use a pervasively sectarian standard has, in fact, 
discriminated against those who want to include as a part the moral 
teachings.
  Now, to argue and rewrite the American Constitution to say that this 
obliterates the wall of separation, first off, that was not in the 
original Constitution, but it certainly does not obliterate the wall of 
separation.
  The intent of the Founding Fathers was clearly not to take religion 
out but, rather, to keep certain religions from being funded.
  As an anti-Baptist, I would not have wanted to fund the Anglican 
Church. People in the other States would not have wanted to fund, as 
they were at the time of original founding, the ministers and the 
church schools in those States as the only choice for schoolchildren.
  But, in fact, the United States Congress in their first few years 
when they could not get Bibles in from England, the United States 
Congress, with Federal dollars, bought Bibles to distribute to the 
public schools.
  A little bit later the Congress, concerned that it was difficult even 
to purchase those, the same Founders who wrote the Constitution 
purchased Bibles, printed them, and it says at U.S. Government expense, 
to be distributed by congressional legislation to public schools.
  That is not what we are proposing here. The question is not whether 
we are proposing actual religious education. In fact, everything in 
this bill and in the previous three times this House has voted 
overwhelmingly for the charitable choice provision, the same provision 
that we are voting on today that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) 
is trying to gut, the plain truth of the matter is that we cannot use 
any of these funds for religious teaching.
  So contrary to what the Founding Fathers allow, which was Bibles 
printed at congressional expense distributed by the United States 
Congress to public schools, we are not proposing that.
  We are just saying, in the process of addressing questions like 
fatherhood, as we did earlier in Juvenile Justice, as we did earlier in 
Human Services, as we did earlier in welfare reform, that we should be 
able to include character and faith-based organizations in that 
section.
  The most dynamic organizations in this country, in fact, have 
pastors, youth leaders, people who attend churches, church-based 
organizations, or parent church organizations that do not teach 
religion but have that as a component, the love, the hope, the faith, 
the kindness, the tolerance that comes through religion is intermingled 
in their programs.
  To say that a program, for example, if a particular religion, whether 
it is, for example, Orthodox Jews, and if Orthodox Jews have a program 
to reach kids in their neighborhood or fathers in their neighbor, to 
say that they must hire somebody who does not belong to their religion, 
in effect, means they will not participate in these programs.
  Now, the Government gets to decide when a faith-based organization 
comes up and says we have a proposal here under the Father Counts bill 
or any of the other three previous bills where we passed this exact 
same language, that when they propose this to the Government, they do 
not say it has to show it is not teaching religion, it has to show that 
it is addressing the problems there, it is addressing them in a unique 
way regardless which of these bills we are talking about, and there are 
many protections; and ultimately the Federal Government has to decide 
is this group the best way to deliver these services.
  So I think this is a reasonable amendment that has passed by as many 
as 350 votes in this House. It is supported by the leading presidential 
candidates in both parties as a general principle.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin), cosponsor and coauthor of this legislation.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding me this time, and I urge my colleagues to support his 
amendment.
  I hope everybody will put this in proper perspective. This bill deals 
with $150 million over the next 5 years. It incorporates by reference 
the charitable choice provisions that are in the 1997 Welfare Reform 
bill that has spent $16.5 billion per year. What the Edwards amendment 
does is make it clear that this money must be spent in a 
constitutionally acceptable way.
  We have by reference in this statute that it must be spent consistent 
with the establishment clause of the United States Constitution as it 
relates to religious freedom, separation of church and state. That is 
already in this bill by reference.
  Read the Edwards amendment. The Edwards amendment says that it goes 
to the establishment clause and incorporates the Supreme Court test, as 
it is in the Kendrick case. So the pervasively sectarian test is the 
test on whether we have violated the establishment clause.
  This is not whether faith-based organizations will participate or 
not. They do participate under the bill or under the Edwards amendment. 
The Edwards amendment makes sure that we spend the money in a 
constitutionally acceptable way.
  I urge my colleagues to accept the amendment so that we can get 
faith-based institutions and entities using these funds but using it an 
acceptable way so we can build upon the program and really help the 
people that this legislation is aimed at.
  It is a good amendment. It clarifies. It prevents it from causing 
problems that otherwise could occur. I urge my colleagues to support 
the amendment.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand in opposition to the amendment. I am afraid 
that this would have a chilling effect upon the application of an 
otherwise very, very fine bill.
  We are going to need a lot of help from a lot of areas in order to be 
able to get through and to accomplish the goals that all of us have 
with regard to this legislation.
  The Supreme Court, in its decisions, is not a static entity. It is a 
living entity. It is one that shifts and goes back and forth in 
accordance with the facts of the various cases and the changing times.
  It is time that we looked to other organizations, non-traditional 
organizations, to help out. This bill is not going to promote any 
religious activity. It would be grossly unconstitutional if this is 
what it was. But the churches

[[Page 29535]]

and synagogues and other religious institutions can be very valuable in 
reaching out and getting these fathers and bringing them in and do 
exactly what the intent of this bill is.
  I stand in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Edwards amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment is simple. It just conforms the bill to 
the First Amendment of the Constitution as interpreted by a long line 
of Supreme Court decisions.
  Many religiously affiliated groups now sponsor Federal programs, but 
the program must be administered in a secular manner and not conducted 
in a pervasively sectarian manner. And so, Federal funds support 
programs sponsored by Catholic Charities or Lutheran Services. But they 
do not have to be Catholic or Lutheran to benefit from those services. 
And if they want to compete for a job funded by those Federal dollars, 
they do not have to be Catholic or Lutheran to be hired.
  This bill, without the Edwards amendment, allows Federal funds to 
sponsor pervasively sectarian activities and allows sponsors to require 
program participants as a condition of receiving federally funded 
benefits to require the participation in church religious activities 
and allows churches to discriminate based on religious affiliation in 
hiring employees with Federal dollars. That is wrong. It is 
unconstitutional, and we should fix it by adopting the Edwards 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) has 4 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) has 4\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority whip.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong objection and 
opposition to this amendment.
  It is amazing to me how people can misinterpret history. Separation 
of church and state was created in this century by these courts. And, 
in fact, the courts are moving away from the concept, as outlined by 
the Members on the other side of the aisle.
  To claim that our Founding Fathers were for separation of church and 
State is either rewriting history or being very ignorant of history.
  So I just rise in strong opposition to the charge that there is this 
great wall separating this Government from religious influence. There 
was no such separation when the Nation was founded, and there can be no 
separation today.
  George Washington, the father of our country, left no doubt that 
religion and religious institutions provide indispensable support to 
our Government. In his farewell speech, President Washington warned 
that, ``Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national 
morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.''
  John Jay, the original Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, said it is 
the duty of wise, free, and virtuous governments to ``encourage virtue 
and religion.''
  John Adams, our second President, stated, ``Our Constitution was made 
only for a moral and religious people.''
  John Hancock argued that, ``The very existence of the Republics 
depend much upon the public institutions of religion.''
  Time after time, the founders implored the influence of religion in 
public affairs. This amendment tries to forbid the exact same influence 
that the Founding Fathers thought so necessary.

                              {time}  1500

  Those who argue for an absolute separation of church and State like 
to quote Thomas Jefferson as he has been quoted here many times and 
they quote him all over the place, but they leave out a few details.
  For example, while he was President of the United States, Jefferson 
supported the appropriation of Federal funds to pay for Christian 
missionaries to Indians. That is right. As President, Thomas Jefferson 
provided cash support from the government to pay for missionaries and 
actually built a church building with government money.
  The point is very clear. All of these great men had a profound impact 
on the creation of this Republic, and their words add essential insight 
into the original intent of the Constitution.
  This bill we are debating deals with fatherhood programs and 
charitable organizations. Despite the precedence set by the Founders, 
this amendment tries to build a wall between virtue and its source, 
religious principle.
  Mr. Chairman, America has always been one Nation under God. The 
Constitution and religion have never been mutually exclusive. As the 
founders set forth, it is simply impossible and it is unwise to try to 
separate people and their government from religion. I urge my 
colleagues to defeat this bad amendment.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Strickland).
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, we should all feel some trepidation at 
what has just been spoken in this Chamber. As a former United Methodist 
minister, I know and I believe that there is an appropriate role that 
religious organizations play in social services. In fact, they are 
already doing wonderful things with Federal funding through such 
secular affiliations as Catholic Charities and Jewish Federations. We 
are grateful to them for providing desperately needed services. But 
when we cross the line and let specific churches receive Federal grants 
and then engage in discriminatory practices, we are setting back the 
clock of civil rights in our country.
  This bill would allow churches and synagogues to receive Federal 
money directly which would in turn allow them to use those Federal 
funds to discriminate in hiring practices. Do we want to open that 
door? Do we really want to see a sign in front of a church getting 
Federal funds that says, ``Jews need not apply''? Do we want to see a 
sign in front of a protestant church saying ``Catholics will not be 
considered for this position''?
  I think not. I hope not. I pray not.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, without this amendment, this bill opens the 
door to religious organizations requiring individuals to participate in 
a religious ceremony or to listen to sectarian proselytizing as a 
condition of participating in a federally funded program. That violates 
our Constitution and quite frankly is an abuse of government authority 
over families in need.
  No one has or should exclude religious institutions from performing 
good works or from receiving public funds to do so. But a religious 
organization should never be allowed using Federal funds to condition a 
meal for a homeless person or anger counseling for an abusive husband 
on participating in a religious ceremony or listening to a religious 
sermon and it should not be allowed to discriminate in employment on a 
religious basis using government funds.
  No one is talking about separating, totally separating church and 
State. But we are talking about keeping each in its proper sphere and 
not allowing government to help invade the religious sphere or religion 
invade the government's sphere. We are talking about preventing the 
sectarian strife that will come when the Methodists think they are 
getting half a percent too little and the Catholics half a percent too 
much of Federal funds.
  That is why we need this amendment, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I have gone from being concerned about the language of this bill to 
being alarmed by some of the statements I have heard from the 
leadership of this House. First, we heard the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Souder) say the establishment clause of the first amendment really 
was not in the original Constitution, as if, my colleagues, that is to 
suggest that the Bill of Rights

[[Page 29536]]

somehow has less power or force in our constitutional government 
because it was only part of the Bill of Rights, it was only the first 
amendment to the Constitution.
  Then the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) came up and said separation 
of church and State was invented in the 20th century. My colleagues, 
that would be a great surprise to Mr. Jefferson who mentioned that very 
phrase in the 18th century. It would be a great surprise to Mr. Madison 
and the writers of the Bill of Rights who felt deeply about this.
  The fact is that this bill is going to allow Federal funds to go to 
faith-based organizations but it is going to follow not only the Bill 
of Rights but the Supreme Court decision of 1988, that is this century, 
not two centuries ago, that said you cannot send Federal dollars to 
pervasively sectarian organizations.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and I especially thank him for his leadership on this issue. He 
has been a great defender of the Constitution in this House. We take 
that oath when we become Members of Congress, and he has fulfilled it 
so admirably. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
  I rise in support of his amendment which will maintain the 
constitutional separation of church and State while protecting 
religious institutions from the entangling reach of government.
  His amendment is necessary because the charitable choice provision of 
the Fathers Count Act is, I believe, unconstitutional.
  Mr. Chairman, my husband, my five children and I have among us over 
100 years of Catholic education. Catholic religious organizations are 
an integral part of our lives. I think it is very important in 
understanding the importance of the gentleman from Texas' amendment to 
understand the difference between religious organizations and the 
nonsectarian aspect of their activities. These groups are called 
religious affiliates. For example, in our community and across the 
country, local Catholic charities and Jewish social service groups are 
nonsectarian groups. We should be able to support them. The gentleman 
from Texas' amendment allows us to do so. We should support his 
amendment.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Let me conclude by saying this is a very simple issue. The gentleman 
from Texas does not want money going to churches and I do. In many poor 
neighborhoods in our cities, in many small rural towns, the church is 
the only institution remaining. I want them to be able to reach out to 
fathers who need help, to welfare women to provide day care and other 
services. I do not want them to be able to use public dollars to 
proselytize or discriminate against participants. In the charitable 
choice statute is a clear line between church business and public 
business. I urge rejection of the Edwards amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 367, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Edwards) will be postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 367, 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed in the following order: amendment No. 1 
printed in part B offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink); 
amendment No. 3 printed in part B offered by the gentlewoman from 
Hawaii (Mrs. Mink); amendment No. 6 printed in part B offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


             Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mrs. Mink of Hawaii

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on amendment No. 1 offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii 
(Mrs. Mink) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 172, 
noes 253, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 583]

                               AYES--172

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stupak
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu

                               NOES--253

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre

[[Page 29537]]


     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Barton
     LaTourette
     Matsui
     Quinn
     Rogan
     Simpson
     Smith (TX)
     Thornberry

                              {time}  1533

  Messrs. RADANOVICH, DeMINT, BURR of North Carolina, WALSH, NUSSLE, 
FOSSELLA, SPENCE, GORDON, COSTELLO, BARR of Georgia, McINTYRE, and Mrs. 
TAUSCHER changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 583 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``No.''
  (Mr. ARMEY asked and was given permission to speak out of order for 1 
minute.)


                      Further Legislative Program

  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an announcement concerning the 
schedule for the rest of the day.
  Mr. Chairman, the passage vote on the fathers count bill will be the 
last recorded vote for today. We will continue debate on those 
suspensions already scheduled for consideration. However, any request 
for recorded votes on those suspensions will be held over until 12 noon 
on Friday.
  As previously announced, the House will be in pro forma session 
tomorrow. We do expect legislative business on the floor Friday, with 
votes after 12 noon.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ARMEY. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished majority leader 
for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, might I inquire of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) 
that in the event that the appropriations bills are not ready to be 
voted upon on Friday, does the majority intend to have the Members come 
back on Friday to vote on the suspension bills?
  Mr. ARMEY. The gentleman should be advised the leadership sees no 
contingency that would precipitate such an event. There is nothing that 
I can see that would cause me to think that that would be necessary.
  When and if I saw anything that would result in that kind of 
consideration, I would give that consideration out of respect for the 
Members. Should such an unlikely and unpredictable contingency arise, I 
am sure the Members would be notified in a proper and effective 
fashion.
  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to speak out of order for 1 
minute.)


                   Regarding the Legislative Program

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey), the ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would just ask the majority leader to respond to two problems. I 
think Members have a right to know what is happening in some of these 
conferences.
  At this point, two of the vehicles which had been expected to be used 
to bring bills back to this House are being tied up in the other body 
by individual Members.
  In addition to that, we have not yet reached any significant 
agreement in the Labor-HHS bill. We still have outstanding issues in 
both the Interior and Commerce-State-Justice which are viewed as major 
by both sides.
  It is my profound belief that if Members are asked to come back here 
Friday, it is highly unlikely that there will be something for them to 
vote on out of these conferences.
  I would simply urge the majority leader to take another read on what 
is happening on these bills, because it does not do any Member any good 
to come back here and sit twiddling their thumbs while they wait for 
the conferees to finish.
  I would also make one other request. We just met in the D.C. 
conference. The decision was made to bring all five bills into one 
bill. My concern is that if we are interested in passing whatever comes 
out of the conference, if those five bills are put into one, I am 
afraid that there are a variety of groups on both sides who will be so 
concerned and so opposed to portions of those bills that we will 
maximize the opposition to a bill if it is packaged as five bills. I 
think there is a significant opportunity that the entire thing could go 
down.
  So I think we need to have some private conversations. I am trying to 
help move this process forward, but I think there is insufficient 
appreciation of the resistance that we are still likely to meet from 
groups on both sides of the aisle to various items that are expected to 
be in these packages.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate, again, the remarks from the 
gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. Chairman, I might mention that we have listened to the voices in 
this Chamber, primarily from the other side, express their regret that 
we have not yet finished our business almost daily now for some few 
weeks.
  We understand their frustration with that, and we are determined to 
end that frustration and complete this work on Friday. We expect to do 
that. We intend to do that. We are determined to do that.
  The obstructions that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) noted 
may seem formidable, and perhaps they are daunting to some, but they 
will be overcome. We will be back here Friday at noon. Votes will be 
taken. I thank the Members for their attention.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 367, the Chair 
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of 
time within which a vote by electronic device will be taken on each 
amendment on which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.
  (Mr. ABERCROMBIE asked and was given permission to speak out of order 
for 1 minute).


                             Point of Order

  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, is every Member of this body entitled 
to equal treatment on this floor?
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) state 
a point of order?
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, the Chair will have to give me some 
guidance. Part of regular order, Mr. Chairman, is to see to it that 
every Member is allowed to deal with his or her district and still be 
able to, under the rules of this House, fulfill his or her duties with 
respect to voting.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has not stated a point of order. Does the 
gentleman wish to state a point of order?
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I believe that under what the majority 
leader just stated, I will be prevented from being able to go home and 
come back in adequate time to be able to vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has not stated a point of order that the 
Committee of the Whole can resolve.

[[Page 29538]]


  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Is it the Chair's ruling that I am out of order 
wanting to be able to vote on this floor?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has not stated a point of order.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. This is unseemly, Mr. Chairman. I would not deny any 
Member in this House the right to vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I will not be silenced on this.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
  Does the gentlewoman from Hawaii seek recognition?
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I will not be silenced on this. There is not a 
Member here that does not know that I am speaking of something that 
goes to the vital interest of every single Member here.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) will 
suspend.


             Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mrs. Mink of Hawaii

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on amendment No. 3 offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii 
(Mrs. Mink).
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my 
demand for a recorded vote on amendment No. 3 be withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Hawaii?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The amendment fails by voice vote.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Edwards

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Edwards) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 184, 
noes 238, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 584]

                               AYES--184

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--238

     Aderholt
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pastor
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Archer
     Barton
     Gekas
     Houghton
     LaTourette
     Matsui
     Quinn
     Rogan
     Salmon
     Smith (TX)
     Thornberry

                              {time}  1550

  Mr. Bonior changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed 
to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Hobson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Pease, Chairman pro tempore of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
3073) to amend part A of title IV of the Social Security Act to provide 
for grants for projects designed to promote responsible fatherhood, and 
for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 367, he reported the 
bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of 
the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the Whole? If not, 
the question is on the amendment.

[[Page 29539]]

  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Scott

  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I am, in its present form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Mr. Scott moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3073 to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the 
     same to the House forthwith with the following amendment:
       Strike section 101(d) and insert the following:
       (d) Applicability of Charitable Choice Provisions of 
     Welfare Reform.--Section 104 of the Personal Responsibility 
     and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 
     604a) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(l) Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this 
     section, this section (except subsection (f), relating to 
     publicly funded employment discrimination by religious 
     institutions) shall apply to any entity to which funds have 
     been provided under section 403A of the Social Security Act 
     in the same manner in which this section applies to States, 
     and, for purposes of this section (except subsection (f)), 
     any project for which such funds are so provided shall be 
     considered a program described in subsection (a)(2).''.

  Mr. SCOTT (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to State that if this 
motion to recommit is passed, we will immediately consider final 
passage. So adopting the motion to recommit will not defeat the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a simple amendment. The bill provides that 
religious organizations which sponsor fatherhood programs with Federal 
funds may discriminate in hiring based on religious affiliation. The 
amendment in the motion to recommit provides that hiring with Federal 
funds cannot be based on religion.
  The motion to recommit provides that civil rights laws will apply to 
these Federal funds. Mr. Speaker, the idea that religious bigotry may 
take place with Federal funds is not speculative. The bill, without 
this amendment, specifically provides that religious sponsors are not 
covered by title VII of the Civil Rights Act against discrimination 
based on religion.
  Mr. Speaker, during the prior debate on charitable choice, we heard 
how this would work. Cited on page H4687 of the Congressional Record, 
June 22, 1999, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) asked the major 
sponsor of charitable choice if a religious organization using Federal 
funds could fire or refuse to hire a perfectly qualified employee 
because of that person's religion. The response from the supporter of 
charitable choice, which was never disputed during that debate and was 
frankly validated during today's debate, was and I quote: ``A Jewish 
organization can fire a Protestant if they choose.''
  Mr. Speaker, there was a time when some Americans, because of their 
religion, were not considered qualified for certain jobs. In fact, 
before 1960 it was thought that a Catholic could not be elected 
President. And before the civil rights laws of 1960s, people of certain 
religions routinely suffered invidious discrimination when they sought 
employment. Fortunately, the civil rights laws of the 1960s put an end 
to that practice, and we no longer see signs suggesting that those of 
certain religions need not apply for jobs.
  Now, when those civil rights laws passed, there was one common sense 
exception that allowed religious organizations to discriminate based on 
religion when, for example, a Catholic church hired a priest. They 
could, of course, require that the job applicant be Catholic. Or a 
Jewish synagogue hiring a rabbi, they can, of course, require that the 
applicant be Jewish. But, Mr. Speaker, that exemption applies to the 
use of the private funds of the religious organizations. It was never 
expected to be applied to Federal funds used in a discriminatory 
manner.

                              {time}  1600

  Now, the sponsor of the bill may say that we need to honor the 
religious integrity of the sponsor. That is fine for the church funds, 
but we should not use Federal funds in a discriminatory manner.
  Religious organizations now sponsor Federal programs. Catholic 
Charities sponsor federally funded services, but one does not have to 
be Catholic to get a job with those programs, because the civil rights 
laws apply to those Federal funds. The Lutheran Services of America 
sponsor federally funded services, but one does not have to be Lutheran 
to get a job paid for with those Federal funds.
  This bill grants a new exemption and would allow religious bigotry to 
be practiced with the use of Federal funds. That is wrong. The motion 
to recommit guarantees that those who apply for jobs paid for with 
Federal dollars will not have to suffer the indignity of invidious 
discrimination based on their religious beliefs. So I urge my 
colleagues to support the motion to recommit.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment. Under the charitable choice provisions of the welfare reform 
bill, provisions that have been affirmed by this body in three 
consecutive Congresses in one form or another, religious institutions 
do have the right to maintain their religious character; that is, they 
do not have to hire someone who radically disagrees with them and 
cannot, therefore, be part of the body of the character of that 
institution.
  However, they have no right to proselytize in programs that are 
funded with public money, and they have no right to discriminate on the 
basis of religion amongst applicants.
  In other words, within the charitable choice provisions, there is a 
constitutional firewall drawn. Furthermore, it is one that has worked. 
There have been cases in which programs have proselytized, and their 
grants have been withdrawn. So it not only has a firewall, it is an 
enforceable firewall.
  Now, I would just say to my colleagues that the underlying issue here 
is, do you think that churches should take part. Because this is an 
important matter of public policy that we are about to vote on, I 
believe that churches should be part of providing social services in 
America as long as they do not, through that means, proselytize, 
because the church-based groups can provide a larger context in which 
people can grow.
  Once the money has been lost from the Federal Government, the program 
eliminated, or the person no longer fits the criteria, they still have 
the support system that the church-based community represents in many 
poor neighborhoods in our cities, in many small, poor rural towns where 
some of the fathers that need our help live.
  In many of our cities, in the poorest neighborhoods, in many of our 
small towns, the only institution remaining is the small churches, 
often small black churches, small Hispanic community churches. Yes, 
they need to be able to reach out to the fathers of children on welfare 
and help them, and help them in the same way that we help the mothers 
of children on welfare.
  So this is a very good bill. We need the small church institutions to 
help us reach people, and we need those institutions to support people 
long after the public money and the public interest is gone.
  I urge my colleagues' rejection of the motion to recommit. I urge my 
colleagues' support for this bill, which, for the first time, is going 
to recognize that dads do count and that we can help dads be better 
providers, better fathers, and that, together, we can create

[[Page 29540]]

for children, for all children, a structure around them that provides 
better economic and emotional support.
  So vote no on the motion to recommit. Support the bill. It is a giant 
step forward.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Without objection, the previous 
question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which a 
vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of 
passage of the bill.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 176, 
noes 246, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 585]

                               AYES--176

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--246

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Barton
     Crane
     DeGette
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Lofgren
     Matsui
     Quinn
     Rogan
     Smith (TX)
     Thornberry

                              {time}  1622

  Messrs. McINTOSH, SPRATT, McINNIS and GILMAN changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 583, 584 and 588 I was 
attending parent-teacher conferences for my daughter. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``no'' on all three votes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the passage 
of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 328, 
nays 93, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 586]

                               YEAS--328

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Holt
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde

[[Page 29541]]


     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--93

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Berman
     Burton
     Campbell
     Capuano
     Chabot
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clay
     Coburn
     Collins
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Cox
     DeFazio
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Edwards
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gejdenson
     Goode
     Graham
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hutchinson
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kilpatrick
     Kingston
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meek (FL)
     Mink
     Moran (KS)
     Olver
     Owens
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pombo
     Rivers
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Spence
     Stark
     Stump
     Sununu
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Baker
     Barton
     Callahan
     DeGette
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Lofgren
     Matsui
     Pascrell
     Quinn
     Smith (TX)
     Thornberry

                              {time}  1631

  Messrs. TOWNS, MARKEY, and MORAN of Kansas changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. WELDON of Florida, TAYLOR of North Carolina, HERGER, and Ms. 
LEE changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________