[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 3]
[House]
[Page 3792]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, WORK, AND FAMILY PROMOTION ACT OF 2003

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 69 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 69

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 4) to reauthorize and improve the program of 
     block grants to States for temporary assistance for needy 
     families, improve access to quality child care, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed two hours, with 50 minutes equally divided 
     and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Ways and Means, 40 minutes equally divided 
     and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and 30 minutes 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be 
     considered as read. No amendment to the bill shall be in 
     order except those printed in the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may 
     be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment. All 
     points of order against such amendments are waived except 
     that the adoption of an amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall constitute the conclusion of consideration 
     of the bill for amendment. At the conclusion of consideration 
     of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 69 is an appropriate and fair rule 
providing for the consideration of H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility, 
Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2003.

[[Page 3704]]

  This rule provides for a total of 2 hours of general debate in the 
House with 50 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means, 40 
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking 
member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and finally, 30 
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  After general debate, the rule makes in order two substitute 
amendments: the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lantos); and the substitute amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Kind), and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), both of which 
are printed in the report of the Committee on Rules and debatable for 
40 minutes each, equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an 
opponent.
  The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the 
bill, as well as against the amendments printed in the report. Finally, 
the rule permits the minority to offer a motion to recommit, with or 
without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, 7 years ago many of us stood in this very Chamber 
surrounded by skeptical glares and wary eyes as we began debate on the 
historic welfare reform package. The day was August 1, 1996. It was 
also payday for many Americans. And on that day, 14 million welfare 
recipients cashed a paycheck for which they had not worked.
  Mr. Speaker, 14 million people received money from the American 
taxpayers in exchange for no work, no questions asked, no strings, no 
requirements, no obligation to produce or demonstrate the slightest bit 
of productivity to our communities and to our society. Such was the 
nature of our welfare system 7 years ago.
  Now, this may have seemed unfair to the taxpayers; but it was doubly 
unfair to the welfare recipients trapped in generational cycles of 
poverty and hopelessness. But on that day in 1996, Congress passed one 
of the most historic reform bills ever, one that truly made the 
American dream a reality for millions of Americans previously without 
hope. But these reforms were not passed without a fight.
  There were claims that the landmark plan would drive poor families 
into the streets. And there were shouts that children would be left 
starving, and cries that single mothers would be forced to neglect 
their families. But now, 7 years later, we see a very different picture 
of what welfare reform has done. The predictions of doom and gloom have 
not been realized. Quite to the contrary, welfare caseloads have fallen 
from 14 million to 5 million. Over 3 million children have been lifted 
out of poverty.
  Black child poverty rates have hit a record low, and the poverty rate 
among Hispanics has seen its largest decrease in history. In addition 
to these tremendous statistics, perhaps the biggest achievement of 
welfare reform is the way in which these reforms have promoted self-
sufficiency and empowered so many men and women.
  Welfare reform has given Americans a chance to work and the means to 
do it by placing a high value on the contributions of each and every 
person in society. It assumes that every person has some talent, some 
knowledge, some skill, some individual uniqueness to contribute. It 
assumes that each man and woman who is physically and mentally capable 
can and should be, even in the slightest discernible way, a productive 
part of our communities.
  The benefits are twofold. Not only are our communities strengthened 
by the additional contributions, but these men and women, who were 
formerly trapped in a cycle of dependency, have now established a real 
sense of accomplishment and independence. Today we have a tremendous 
opportunity to build on these successes.
  As I proceed to describe this legislation, I expect it will sound 
very familiar. That is because less than a year ago in this very 
Chamber this Congress approved the same plan, updated simply for time.
  While I have the honor and distinction of introducing this 
legislation on behalf of the House, it is really the gentleman from 
California (Chairman Thomas), the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman 
Tauzin), the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner), the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McKeon), the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), 
and many others who have worked long hours to craft a bill that 
empowers individuals, protects children, and strengthens families.
  Their committees have vetted this language over and over in dozens of 
hearings and markups. After already exhausting the committee process 
last year, we have brought this plan straight to the floor at the 
commencement of the new Congress, as the first major piece of 
legislation out of the hopper. That is how strongly we believe in this 
plan. The reforms of 1996 have expired. They expired September last 
year. We cannot afford to wait.
  First of all, this package provides $16.6 billion for the Temporary 
Assistance of Needy Families, commonly known as TANF, as a block grant, 
which was created in the 1996 reform. Funding this block grant goes 
directly to State-designed programs to help move more welfare 
recipients into productive jobs. Yet 58 percent of welfare recipients 
are not participating in work activities yet, and that is not 
acceptable.
  It continues to cost taxpayers money, but worse still, it stifles the 
recipients' ability to achieve true self-sufficiency. Therefore, this 
package calls for increasing the work-related activity requirements 
from the current 50 percent to 70 percent by fiscal year 2008.
  Next, this plan offers parents and families the tools and resources 
they need to secure a job, achieve independence and strengthen 
families. By providing access to reliable, high-quality child care, 
recipients will have peace of mind knowing that their child is safe as 
they train for, find, and keep a stable job.
  Children are our future, and we cannot settle for second-rate care. 
So in addition to the $4.8 billion funding already in place, this 
package provides an extra $2 billion. With these dollars comes greater 
flexibility for States, which will now be able to transfer 50 percent 
of their share of TANF to child care instead of the current 30 percent.

                              {time}  1015

  We all know that training and education are the backbone of advancing 
one's professional opportunities. So while 24 of the 40 hours must be 
spent in actual work, the remaining 16 hours may be defined by States 
and can include training and education. And up to 4 months during a 24-
month period can be counted towards State work requirements if the 
individual is engaged in education or training that will lead to work.
  Finally, the plan gives unprecedented flexibility to States by 
establishing broad, new State flex authority that is enthusiastically 
supported by our Nation's governors, and it will really give them the 
tools they need.
  Mr. Speaker, welfare recipients do not want a handout. They do not 
want a life-style of dependence. They do not want a system that offers 
only a one-way ticket to poverty. American families want to live the 
American dream. They want the chance to build strong and prosperous 
lives and they want to offer brighter futures to their loved ones. 
Therefore, it is my hope that we can silence the grumbles that echoed 
through this Chamber back in 1996 and build on the successes we have 
had thus far.
  Fostering independence through work, empowering families and lifting 
more Americans out of poverty are at the core of this reform package, 
just as they were in 1996. The empirical evidence of the past 7 years 
quite adequately demonstrates the success so far.
  So let us tune out the protests. The shouts, cries and pleas of the 
naysayers

[[Page 3705]]

in 1996 were myths then and they are myths now.
  To my colleagues who may hesitate to support this rule for partisan 
reasons, I invite you to take a good look at where we were 7 years ago 
and where we have come today. You will find hundreds of children and 
families in each of your districts that are better off now than they 
were 7 years ago. They are working. They are proud. They are teaching 
their children about the dignity of having a job and the honor of 
providing for a family.
  Mr. Speaker, a check in the mail every month will not teach 
responsibility, it will not build confidence, and it will not break the 
cycle of dependency and poverty. But it will if they have a job. It 
will provide a sense of accomplishment, a sense of accomplishment for a 
job well done. And it will provide the means to achieve the American 
dream. A check in the mail for a hard month's work will open up the 
doors of opportunity and offer all Americans an endless supply of pride 
and self-worth for generations to come.
  I urge this body to adopt this rule and approve H.R. 4.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in 1996 a sweeping welfare reform initiative was enacted 
and authorized for 5 years. Temporary assistance to needy families 
replaced guaranteed welfare checks with a new work requirement, placed 
a lifetime limit on the benefits recipients could receive, and removed 
most legal immigrants from eligibility for welfare.
  The program was up for reauthorization last year. The reauthorization 
legislation passed the House with a rule that allowed only one 
substitute amendment. The bill was reported out of the Senate Finance 
Committee, but was never considered by the full Senate.
  We are here today to consider the rule for the Personal 
Responsibility, Work and Family Protection Act of 2003. Mr. Speaker, 
the underlying bill impacts millions of vulnerable Americans, yet the 
process for consideration of the bill has muzzled meaningful debate and 
barred serious consideration of alternatives and amendments.
  In the 108th Congress, not a single committee with jurisdiction over 
this legislation has considered H.R. 4. Five committees had 
jurisdiction over the legislation: Ways and Means, Education and the 
Workforce, Energy and Commerce, Agriculture and Financial Services. 
There are over 50 new Members of Congress, not here in the 107th 
Congress when we began the process, and none of them have had the 
opportunity to consider and vote on the legislation in committee.
  The Republican leadership rushed welfare reauthorization to the House 
floor. Instead of allowing the Congress and these committees to 
examine, debate and discuss this important piece of legislation, the 
majority has opted to bar the full House from considering 22 amendments 
and to allow us to consider only two substitute amendments.
  Because the committee process was skipped, my Democratic colleagues 
and I asked for an open rule so that, at the very least, the full House 
could consider the many issues brought up in the dozens of amendments 
filed with the Committee on Rules. There are too many issues that 
deserve full discussion and debate. The two substitute amendments that 
are in order under the rule cannot fully address these issues.
  The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) offered a very important 
amendment. It called for a temporary suspension of time limits on TANF 
benefits to individuals that reside in a metropolitan statistical area 
where the unemployment rate exceeds 7 percent. But the Committee on 
Rules, along partisan lines, ruled it out of order.
  And the rule voted out of committee on party lines allows for only 2 
hours to debate this reform bill. No committees have looked at the 
bill, and the full House only has 2 hours to debate it. The rule does 
not give Members the opportunity to address fully the inadequacies of 
this legislation, the grave changes to the program and the growing 
needs of Americans living in poverty. The rule bars any meaningful 
debate and prohibits consideration of important amendments affecting 
the elderly, parents and children.
  Mr. Speaker, too many people are drowning in a sea of poverty. 
Welfare-to-Work should not merely toss the poorest Americans a life 
preserver to help them float along, with their heads barely above the 
poverty level.
  The Catholic Family Center in Rochester, New York, provides an 
example of how the 1996 welfare reforms are failing. The center is 
doing a great job getting the women in their program off welfare and 
into work, but the average starting salary of the women is $6.82 an 
hour, far less than the $17.66 that a Rochester-area single parent with 
two preschoolers must earn to provide the basic necessities.
  H.R. 4 does nothing to close the gap and does not give these hard-
working parents who are trying hard to work and care for their families 
the chance to succeed. We need to do more for our most vulnerable 
friends and neighbors.
  I can tell you that in my district the need for assistance is 
growing. In Monroe County, New York, applications for welfare 
assistance were up 17 percent in the year 2001. Requests for emergency 
housing placements rose by 25 percent from 2000 to 2001. And a program 
helping the homeless reported that 20,000 more homeless men, women and 
children were served in the fall of 2001 than during the same period of 
the year 2000.
  The underlying bill fails to meet this growing need and fails to 
address the most fundamental goal of welfare reform, moving recipients 
into real jobs and out of poverty. While caseloads have fallen over 50 
percent nationally since 1996, a good thing, the poverty rate has 
decreased only 13 percent over the same period.
  If scores of those who have moved off the welfare rolls during a 
period of economic expansion remain dependent on food stamps, WIC and 
other public assistance, what are they going to do now that the economy 
is in recession and the States are in financial crisis? Are recipients 
going to be forced to try to work and raise their children without the 
education, training or child care that is necessary to move to real 
independence? In fact, in the State of New York, almost half the 
families that move off welfare are still living in poverty. This is not 
success. Governors, mayors, State legislators, welfare directors and 
poverty experts all say the same thing, that the bill is a step in the 
wrong direction.
  We all know that education is key to moving out of poverty, yet this 
legislation eliminates vocational education from the list of activities 
that count as a work-related activity. What message does this send to 
Americans who seek a career in the building trades?
  The bill even hurts poor children. Access to quality child care is an 
essential part of helping families to get off welfare and improving the 
odds that children arrive at kindergarten ready to learn. The 
Congressional Budget Office has reported that the new work requirement, 
increasing by 33 percent the amount of time that recipients participate 
in work activities, will require $8 billion to $11 billion in new child 
care funding over 5 years. However, the bill only provides $2 billion. 
What are the financially strapped States supposed to do about a $9 
billion gap in child care funding? Where are these children going to go 
while their parents work 33 percent more hours?
  This welfare reauthorization bill also demands more from States 
without providing any increased funding. It is estimated that unfunded 
mandates in this bill will cost my State more than $1 billion over 5 
years. Nationwide, the estimated cost of unfunded mandates is $11 
billion. You can see my State is impacted tremendously.
  How can we shift this huge financial burden onto New York and the 
other States, especially now that the economy is in recession and 
States across the country are facing huge budget shortfalls? How do 
these unfunded mandates lift people out of poverty and help them get a 
job and give them hope?

[[Page 3706]]

  Mr. Speaker, there is a better way, one that maintains State 
flexibility, one that focuses on real work and one that seeks to help 
families escape poverty. My Democratic colleagues and I support strong 
work requirements that will move people into real jobs. We believe that 
States should have the flexibility to determine the best mix of 
services and activities to move them towards self-sufficiency.
  We want to provide welfare recipients with access to vocational 
training so they can find some good jobs. And we support providing the 
necessary resources particularly for quality child care to help 
families leave welfare for work. This measure utterly fails to do that.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to share some wisdom with you from the 
people of the 28th District of New York. In an editorial, published 
last fall in the Buffalo News, wrote the following about welfare 
reauthorization:

       The goal of welfare reform should not simply be to trim the 
     welfare rolls. It should be to break the cycle of poverty 
     that puts people on welfare in the first place. Reduced 
     government expenses are a nice benefit, but reducing poverty 
     is the key to long-term success for the program and for the 
     people who have relied upon it. Education and training offer 
     far better chances not only to land jobs but to keep them. 
     Increased child care assistance is a necessary adjunct in 
     breaking the multigenerational cycle of welfare entitlement, 
     as well as a humanitarian move that should come naturally to 
     a rich nation that nonetheless is home to impoverished 
     children.

  That was from the Buffalo News, September 15, 2002. I urge my 
colleagues to voted against this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield such time 
as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the 
very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. 
Before I begin, I cannot help but think of one of Thomas Jefferson's 
great lines, the author of our Declaration of Independence. I have got 
to sort of extrapolate from that when Thomas Jefferson said two 
thinking men, and in this case it is two women, but he said, ``Two 
thinking men can be given the exact same set of facts and draw 
different conclusions.''
  Mr. Speaker, I sat and listened to the very eloquent remarks by my 
good friend from Ohio, the author of this legislation who chairs our 
Republican Conference, and I listened to the equally eloquent remarks 
from my friend from the 28th District of New York who just entered that 
editorial in the Record, and I said that just to let her know I was 
listening very, very carefully.
  It is to me very difficult to believe that we are talking about the 
same piece of legislation and the same kind of program. We obviously in 
this country are faced with serious economic challenges. There are 
people who are hurting out there. We know that. But as I listened to 
the reports of the failure of welfare reform, I am reminded that it was 
a bipartisan piece of legislation. I say it was bipartisan because 
clearly at the end of the day, after two tries, on the third, President 
Clinton proudly signed and embraced welfare reform in 1996.
  We enjoyed strong economic growth through the 1990s. Many people 
tried to make the claim that the only reason we saw the success of 
welfare reform is that we were dealing with a strong, vibrant, growing 
economy; when in fact I looked at and talked with the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Herger), the chairman of the subcommittee on Ways and 
Means that deals with this, and he pointed out that during the 1980s, 
when we saw an equally strong economy, we witnessed a 25 percent 
increase in the numbers on the welfare rolls.
  We saw strong, bold economic growth during the Reagan years, as we 
know, yet the numbers of people getting into what my friend from Ohio 
appropriately described as that generational cycle of dependence 
continued to grow more and more. And then during the 1990s we again saw 
strong economic growth, but at the same time we saw implementation of 
the welfare reform legislation and we have seen tremendous improvement.
  We all know that an economic downturn began in the third and fourth 
quarters of the year 2000. We also know that we suffered tremendously 
from the tragedy of September 11, 2001. What we found, Mr. Speaker, was 
that during that period of time, we obviously witnessed a recession. We 
saw two quarters of negative economic growth. That was last year.

                              {time}  1030

  But then the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) reported to us 
that even during that period of time, we saw a 10 percent reduction in 
the numbers on welfare, meaning that we have been able to very boldly 
encourage and move people out of that generational cycle of dependence.
  If we look at this measure and the steps that are being taken to 
ensure that those who are truly in need are not going to be suffering, 
it is very, very impressive. We obviously provide a caveat which allows 
those parents with children who are in need an opportunity to have 
consideration for that. We allow in this measure an opportunity for 
those who are suffering from drug addiction to have an opportunity to 
deal with that need. We clearly are providing States with flexibility. 
That is something they said they needed. In my State of California, we 
have extraordinary extremes from one end to the other. So to provide 
that opportunity for flexibility is very important.
  As we look at the structure of the rule for consideration of this, I 
am somewhat struck with the arguments that were made by my friend from 
New York. She said that they advocated an open rule, and it is true 
that an open rule was moved up in the Committee on Rules last night 
when we pursued this bill; and if an open rule had been made in order, 
these very thoughtful substitutes, one of which has come forward from 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), my very good friend, and I am 
happy he is offering it in the name of our late former colleague, Patsy 
Mink, from Hawaii, and the other substitute which was made in order 
under this rule is being offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Cardin), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. I said when I 
announced that we would be considering this measure that we lean 
towards making substitutes in order, and we have provided waivers and 
protections so that those substitutes are, in fact, in order. So that 
is why we clearly should have, I believe, strong bipartisan support for 
this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, we have had story after story told of the families who 
may not be making as much money today while they are working as they 
were when they were receiving welfare, and yet they have a level of 
dignity and pride in what it is that they are doing that makes them 
happier and more fulfilled. We obviously want to ensure that they have 
an opportunity to make many times, many times what they were making 
when they were on welfare and we believe that if we can put into place 
President Bush's program for economic growth, we can get this economy 
going so that we can take this number that we have today which was at 
one point 12 million and because of the success of welfare reform has 
dropped down to 5 million; and we can, I believe, bring that number 
even lower.
  People talk about compassionate government and the fact that we need, 
as we look at legislation like this, to demonstrate compassion. And I 
would remind my colleagues of something that is oft said and that is 
the level of compassion of the government should not be based on the 
number of people who are on welfare, but instead on the number of 
people who do not need to be on welfare. And that is really what we are 
trying to do with this legislation; and I hope very much that we can 
move ahead, pass this rule, make sure that we consider these 
substitutes, which I believe are very well intentioned but need to be 
defeated, and then pass this very important legislation that the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) has offered to us.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

[[Page 3707]]


  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, this Congress is starting off on the wrong foot. Welfare 
reauthorization reform is an important issue. It affects the lives of 
millions of people, and it deserves thoughtful and careful 
deliberation. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the majority does not agree. 
The course of those millions of lives will now be determined by a 
handful of Republican leaders and their staffers, nobody else. That is 
just wrong and it is not how a democratic body is supposed to function. 
Welfare reauthorization is important, but the legislative process is 
important too. And it should not be simply tossed away like yesterday's 
newspaper.
  In addition to trying to finish last year's work today halfway 
through February, this body is now abandoning the committee system that 
has served this House for over 200 years. Sure the majority has allowed 
for two substitutes, and I suppose we should be very grateful; but let 
me remind my colleagues that this bill was referred to five committees. 
How many of those committees held a hearing on this bill in the 108th 
Congress? Zero. How many of those committees marked up this bill? Zero. 
Over 50 new Members of this body, Republican and Democrat, were denied 
the opportunity to shape this debate. Do their views not matter? Do we 
not want their input and their expertise? Could we not have scheduled 
hearings and markups during these last few weeks when our own schedule 
here in this Congress has been virtually nonexistent? And I should also 
add, Mr. Speaker, that the omnibus appropriations bill that we are 
going to deal with later today includes language that will extend the 
current welfare program until September of this year. I believe that 
that gives us ample time to do this right, to let the committees work 
their will.
  Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce testified on this bill yesterday before the Committee on 
Rules, and in the process he said that he is a fan of the committee 
system. It is too bad his leadership does not agree with him. Mr. 
Speaker, I want to say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
that the committee work matters, that Members who serve in this House 
matter, that the people of this country matter, and this is not the way 
for us to do the people's business.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from 
Rochester for yielding me time.
  I looked into the Congressional Record, and we have now made it a 
part of the democratic views, the Congressional Record in March of 
1993, and the following remarks appeared there, Mr. Speaker:

       Every time we deny an open amendment process on an 
     important piece of legislation, we are disenfranchising the 
     people and their representatives from the legislative 
     process. The people and their representatives are not even 
     being treated as second class citizens. They might as well 
     not be citizens at all given how little impact they have on 
     shaping legislation in the House. If that is not 
     undemocratic, I would like to know what is. In other words, 
     Mr. Speaker, the further you and your leadership stray from 
     the regular order around here, the more you are insulting a 
     new order which is not democracy by any definition. The 
     people are sick and tired of this political gamesmanship. 
     They want back their own House, and they want it to be open 
     and democratic, not closed and dictatorial.

  Those were the words of the former chairman of the Committee on 
Rules, a good friend of mine that I traveled the world with, Gerald 
Solomon; and they were true in 1993, and they are true today as we 
consider H.R. 4. This bill is opposed by Children's Defense Fund, the 
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, and the National Council of 
Churches. And for good reason. It does very little to address the two 
primary purposes of welfare, to help those who need help and to provide 
opportunities to move out of poverty.
  Although a number of items in this bill concern me, there are two key 
aspects that demonstrate its fundamental failure. First, the narrow 
definition of work activities. H.R. 4 does not include educational 
programs and training activities. This bill restricts the States from 
providing education and training opportunities to welfare recipients 
and does not allow them to count vocational education as a work 
activity. I believe that any educational opportunities, vocational 
training, internships, ESL, GED, and even basic literacy courses are 
the keys to success. The only way to get out of poverty and achieve 
permanent self-sufficiency is through education and training. When we 
place people in deadend jobs and fail to give them any opportunities 
for advancement, we have simply placed them in a dead end.
  The second aspect of this bill that concerns me is one that severely 
impacts my State of Florida as well as California, Texas, and New York. 
These are the four States with the highest populations of both legal 
and illegal immigrants. H.R. 4 discriminates against legal immigrants 
by denying them Federal assistance even if they have been living in 
this country for a number of years. Both the National Governors 
Association and the National Conference of State Legislators have 
recommended that States be given the option to use Federal funds to 
serve legal immigrants; but under H.R. 4, legal immigrants must be 
living in this country for 5 years before they are eligible for Federal 
aid. Even more distressing is the fact that many of those affected by 
this discrimination are children who were born in the United States and 
are, in fact, United States citizens.
  We have always been very quick as a Nation to judge other cultures as 
advanced or civilized, and now the time has come to judge ourselves. 
The measure of how advanced and civilized we are is not in the number 
of Blackberrys, CDs and DVDs, SUVs, and laptops we possess per capita. 
The true measure of how advanced and civilized we are is the manner in 
which we care for the most vulnerable members of our society.
  I urge our colleagues to vote against this measure and vote for 
Cardin and Kucinich.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to, though this is the debate on the 
rule, emphasize the difference here. It is too bad no effort was made 
in subcommittee or full committee this time around to try to forge a 
bridge over these differences.
  What are the differences? It is not the value of work. It is not the 
linkage of welfare to work. No. The difference is whether the emphasis 
in the Republican bill will be as, to people who are remaining on 
welfare, they work, or getting people off of welfare into work. And the 
difference is whether people working should remain in poverty or 
whether it should be an emphasis on people working out of poverty. And 
this is a major difference; and it is seen, for example, in the way the 
Republicans give credit to the States against the required 
participation rate because of caseload reduction instead of people 
moving into employment.
  It also is shown in terms of the reduction in flexibility for the 
States to use vocational ed and other techniques, other approaches, so 
that people move out of poverty into true independence. And here is the 
reason the challenge matters so much. We do not have the exact data, 
but a huge proportion of people who have moved off of welfare into work 
remain in poverty. The average for people who have moved off of welfare 
into work is $2,500 a quarter or $10,000 a year. It is also shown in 
the lack of child care money in the Republican bill, also in the lack 
of adequate health care. So these are important differences.
  So this is not a battle of 1995 and 1996. We worked, a number of us, 
very hard to craft a welfare bill that paid adequate attention to 
health care and to day care, though it had other problems remaining in 
it. No. This is a question of where we go from here and

[[Page 3708]]

whether we are going to tailor a system that gives the States the 
flexibility, the inducement, and the mothers the opportunity to move 
from welfare to work, out of poverty into true independence. That is 
the difference.
  So I am proud to be supporting the Cardin bill, and I hope that all 
the Democrats will vote for it; and I regret that the Republicans made 
no effort at all to see if we could put this together in this year.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Wynn).

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule, not because it allows 
us two amendments on the Democratic side or two substitutes, but 
because it supports a bill which fundamentally perverts the 
congressional processes.
  There have been no hearings on this bill. New Members who came in 
this session did not get an opportunity to hear testimony, raise 
questions or make amendments. That is not the way the congressional 
process, the democratic process, is supposed to work. For that reason 
alone, we should reject this bill.
  But let me go further. Just yesterday, a janitor in this building 
stopped me and asked me if I could help him find a job for his 40-year-
old girlfriend. She worked as a pharmacist's assistant and cashier, and 
jobs are scarce. I am not sure if my colleagues on the Republican side 
understand that.
  The question used to be ``Where is the beef?'' I think the question 
today ought to be ``Where is the compassion?''
  This bill will result in putting people out of work, putting people 
on the street who used to be on welfare. This bill will put burdens on 
States, $8 to $11 billion more mandated to the States, without a single 
dollar of help from the Federal Government. Where is the compassion?
  Critically, on the subject of compassion, this bill ignores the 
problem of child care. People want to go to work. That lady wanted to 
go to work. But is there child care funding? No. Right now there are 15 
million eligible children for which the States cannot pay child care. 
That is one of the fundamental flaws of this bill. Add to that the fact 
we are asking mothers to work more hours, and you see why this is a 
major problem.
  If one looks further, one will find that the bill limits education 
and vocational training. People want to go to work, they want to get 
good jobs, but they need training. My colleagues, unfortunately, do not 
see that as compassion. It seems to me we ought to have a bill that 
maximizes rather than minimizes training opportunities.
  Finally, we have legal immigrants, immigrants who pay taxes. They are 
not allowed to benefit under this bill.
  This is a misbegotten bill. It ought to be returned to committee. We 
ought to reject this rule and reject, more importantly, the underlying 
bill.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume just to respond briefly, because child care is very important 
to me too. I think it is probably one of the most important pieces of 
this legislation.
  This bill gives the governors in every State the ability to shift 
more of the TANF funding into child care. We not only put an additional 
$2 billion more into child care, we allow the governors to take the 
TANF funds and spend from 30 percent, which is the maximum allowed now, 
to now 50 percent of the TANF funds can shift into child care.
  So it is very important that this body understands the funds are 
there, and it is within the purview of the governors to allow it to be 
spent for child care. I think that that extra flexibility is very 
important, and we are happy to have provided that.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, the point I was making is that our welfare 
rolls are increasing because people are out of work, which means the 
States will have more people to fund; and the bill does not provide 
substantial increases in funding to the States. You are asking them to 
basically take out of their existing TANF money to provide for more 
people. That does not seem to make sense.
  I reiterate, 15 million eligible children are not being funded.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the governors 
will be allowed to use the funds that the Federal Government is giving 
them to provide for child care, and that is a good thing.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think this legislation is, which is the reason why I 
rise to oppose the rule, ``my way or the highway.''
  Consultation is the way of this Congress. In determining my position 
on welfare reform, I went to the constituents of my district who are 
facing drastic conditions, high unemployment and great need.
  I listened to my distinguished friend explain the Republican bill, 
and simply my response to that is, it gives the governors the right to 
borrow from Peter to pay Paul. When they borrow to get child care 
money, what it will do is undermine the needs of your people elsewhere 
and those in dire poverty.
  Let me share with you my concern as to whether any Texan can vote for 
the Republican bill, because Texas is number one in the percentage of 
uninsured children, we are number 50 as it relates to children who are 
fully immunized, and we are number nine in States with a population 
under 18 living in poverty. So this bill does not respond to the needs, 
if you will, of those living in poverty in the State of Texas.
  The Republican bill provides less money for training, no focus on 
helping families move up the economic ladder, and frankly, there is not 
enough money for child care. If you talk to single parents, or parents 
in general, living in poverty or unemployed or trying to get training 
or work, they tell you that there is no money for child care.
  As we look to homeland security, which is very important, we should 
not abandon home security. It certainly is an outrage that we would 
send young men and women off to fight our battles for justice and 
humanity and democracy who are legal immigrants, but yet their families 
back home are living in poverty because we insist that they be in this 
country for 5 years. Why is it not important that they are legal 
immigrants and that they require the same dignity as anyone else?
  I would simply say then that we have a crisis. People are starving, 
are unemployed, children are going hungry as they go to school, and 
young mothers who are teenage mothers are living without parenting 
skills and without training skills. An amendment that I offered did not 
get in place to be able to help train them.
  I would simply say that we have a crisis, and for those who are 
scoring this, I am going to be voting for the Democratic substitute and 
the Kucinich amendment, because I am going to stand with the poor 
people of America as opposed to worrying about the scorers, who do not 
care anything about the human needs of people living in this Nation and 
around the world.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not going to talk about the bill. I am going to 
talk about the process, because that is what is really wrong with what 
happened here.
  When we organized the Committee on Ways and Means, I asked the 
chairman in open committee whether we would have hearings on this bill. 
The chairman said that is what he wanted. But it is pretty clear that 
this House is being run by a politburo run by the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. DeLay).
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) obviously told the chairman of

[[Page 3709]]

the Committee on Ways and Means, which is supposed to be the most 
powerful committee in Congress, you cannot have hearings on this; we 
are dealing with this on the floor without any discussion, no debates.
  Now, if this were a good rule and you made it an open rule and let us 
put any amendments forward we wanted to, if we could have the debate 
out here in public, that would be okay. But you closed that off, as 
well as having any kind of public discussion in the committee system.
  Now, this Congress, I am sure, is going to do more and more of that, 
because it is clear what you are trying to do is run stuff through here 
so quickly that we will be out of town when some war begins, and there 
will not be any Members of Congress around here. You will have done all 
the business, you will not have any hearings anyplace, and you will 
simply pass the legislation over to the Senate and go home. That is a 
travesty on the process that has been in place in this country for 200 
years.
  This is not a minor little bill. This is not ``shall we name the post 
office in Oologah, Oklahoma, after Will Rogers?'' This is about what we 
do with the poor people of this country. And for Members elected not to 
have an opportunity to debate amendments and discuss the issue, I know 
what they are going to say when we get out here with the regular bill; 
they are going to say we did it last year.
  Listen, things have continued down the drain. We have got higher and 
higher unemployment, and more and more of us are facing problems in 
State legislatures that cannot respond to this.
  The President has made no proposal to deal with the problems of the 
States in dealing with people who are on welfare, who are in trouble, 
kids. The President says, ``Leave no child behind.'' Well, I guess he 
means they can go to school on an empty stomach. That is okay with him. 
Okay, that is good. But why not have a kid with a stomach with some 
food in it so he can pay attention to the books?
  But if we had this debate and we had all these amendments put out 
here and we argued about whether you could actually get 30 hours of 
work, or should you count training or whatever, all those issues would 
then make it very clear what you are doing to poor people. You do not 
care whether they have a livable wage; just shove them off the rolls 
and leave them out there. And when we start to get the kids, we are 
going to get the kids from the programs in every State that deal with 
child abuse. People are going to say, these parents are not taking care 
of these children. We have to take those children away from them.
  It will be created by a bill that never had a hearing. Shame on the 
Republican leadership.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in response, the fact that this bill did not go through 
the committee process is totally unfounded. This bill was vetted and 
there were hearings held and there were committee markups, both in the 
House and the Senate. There were task forces. There was so much work 
done on this bill, and it took so long; we passed it with bipartisan, 
very wide bipartisan support, and we sent it to the other body. There 
was no action at that time.
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford to waste that amount of time again. We 
have to get this done. It has already expired. We need to reauthorize 
the welfare reform provisions and improve upon them. So much success 
has happened, we need to continue the momentum and allow the families, 
the children, the men and women, to rise out of poverty, give them the 
tools that they need; and that is exactly what this bill does.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in response to my good friend from Ohio, the author of 
this bill, I cannot imagine any legislature in the country saying we 
are not going to put this through the committee system this year 
because we talked about it last year.
  Times have changed tremendously since last year. Unemployment rolls 
have risen, people are being thrown out of work on a daily basis. In my 
district, I am told that even temporary jobs are almost impossible to 
find. But that is only one portion of it. Many, many parts of this bill 
needed to be debated again this year in light of the new realities.
  I agree with my colleagues who spoke before me: It is a shame and it 
is a blot on this Congress that we would bring a bill of this 
magnitude, affecting the lives of so many Americans, without going 
through a single one of the five committees that had jurisdiction over 
it.
  I hope this is not a symbol of things to come. If it is, then the 
legislature has declared itself to be unnecessary. I cannot imagine 
much that will come up here this year that we probably did not discuss 
in years past.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I ask my colleagues just to look back at the 
welfare reforms of 1996 and to remind them how far we have come, how 
far the poverty-stricken people in this Nation have come.
  Today, we will find children and families in every one of our 
districts better off now than they were 7 years ago. We have reduced 
the welfare rolls. They continue to drop even in these tough times. Our 
welfare rolls are continuing to drop, even as unemployment may rise.
  H.R. 4 builds on these efforts to further protect our children, to 
strengthen our families, to increase States' flexibility, and to 
continue the decline in poverty.
  Mr. Speaker, it has often been said that the best social program is a 
job. This legislation provides the needed tools for them to move from 
welfare to work. There is no reason to stall any longer. This bill has 
expired. We cannot let it go any longer. We need to pass this rule 
today, we need to pass this bill today. Stall tactics are over.
  Today is the day. We have a very important thing to do for this 
country, and we should get on with it. I urge my colleagues to support 
this rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the 
balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Pryce of Ohio). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 69 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
consideration of the bill, H.R. 4.

                              {time}  1059


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 4) to reauthorize and improve the program of block grants to 
States for temporary assistance for needy families, improve access to 
quality child care, and for other purposes, with Mr. Simpson in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) each will control 25 minutes; the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from California 
(Mr. George Miller) each will control 20 minutes; and the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) 
each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page 3710]]

  Mr. Chairman, before 1996, welfare recipients were trapped, trapped 
in a welfare system for an average of 13 years. The welfare program 
actually discouraged work, amazingly enough, and caseloads climbed, 
peaking at 14 million individuals in 5 million families.
  In 1996, reform law turned the welfare program in the right 
direction, in the work direction. Recipients now are benefiting from 
increased work, education, training, larger incomes, reduced child 
poverty, and greater self-reliance, which probably is the most 
important benefit from the new program. Welfare caseloads are down more 
than 50 percent since that historic 1996, and the caseloads continue to 
decline even in a recession structure.
  Some of my colleagues might remember the dire predictions of reform 
opponents in 1996 who predicted that the law, in their words, would 
cast 1 million more children into poverty. I am glad to report they 
were wrong. Nearly 3 million children have been lifted from poverty 
since 1996 in key groups, such as children raised in single-mother 
households and African American children, who are seeing poverty fall 
to record-low levels.
  Now, obviously, we need to continue on these successes, and that is 
why H.R. 4 is before us today. Our priority is to help more people 
successfully transition to work in order to know the dignity of 
collecting a paycheck instead of a welfare check. Now, more than ever, 
work is the only permanent path out of poverty.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the real issue before us is where we go from here. We 
can analyze where we were in 1995 and 1996. Many of us worked hard to 
bring about a welfare reform that linked welfare-to-work and provided 
child care and also provided health care. After those ingredients were 
placed into the bill, and it was a struggle, many of us voted for the 
welfare reform bill, despite serious inadequacies, especially as to 
legal immigrants and as to food stamps.
  Where do we go from here? It is said a paycheck is dignity. Yes, a 
paycheck that provides people with a living wage and that moves them 
out of poverty is the true ticket of dignity. The problem with the bill 
that has been brought before us, and there are many procedural issues 
that have been raised, such as the failure to go through the committee 
process in this session; but the problem is that the emphasis in the 
Republican bill is not moving people off of welfare into productive 
work, but two problems: emphasizing those who are on welfare working, 
rather than moving people from welfare to work and people moving from 
welfare to work, though they remain in poverty. Those are the two 
flaws.
  We can do much better. Our challenge now is whether people can move 
from welfare to work out of poverty and into true independence, and 
that is what the Cardin substitute does. That is what the Thomas bill 
or whatever it is called fails to do, and there has been no effort at 
all at any point before this session or during this session to try to 
bridge these differences.
  The reason it is so important is because large numbers, we are not 
sure exactly the number, but this is clear: huge numbers of people who 
move from welfare to work remain in poverty. The majority earn $2,500 a 
quarter, $10,000 a year.
  So the Republican bill fails in terms of accomplishing that goal of 
moving people out of poverty. So they tailor the bill so that the 
incentive to the States is not to get people into productive work, but 
to reduce caseloads no matter how it is done.
  There are other problems with it. The flexibility of the States to 
help move people out of welfare into work and out of poverty has been 
reduced and their ability to use training education. There is 
inadequate day care money, and I want to emphasize this very briefly. 
There is an increase in the Republican bill, but it is discretionary 
money; and CBO has said it is $7.5 billion less than necessary to meet 
the new requirements in this bill.
  We can do much, much better with State flexibility, with the right 
emphasis on not only welfare to work, but welfare to work that moves 
people out of poverty.
  These differences are important distinctions. They are important 
differences that will lead to different results for mothers, for their 
children, and for our Nation; and this House is now forfeiting the 
chance if it passes the Republican bill to accomplish these results.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, we are going to hear a number of claims; 
and I would like to present one that I believe is incontrovertible, and 
that is if people remain on welfare, they will remain in poverty.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Herger), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Human 
Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means; and I ask unanimous 
consent that he control the remainder of the time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) will control 
the time of the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This important legislation before us today, H.R. 4, the Personal 
Responsibility Work and Family Promotion Act of 2003, builds on the 
many successes of the historic 1996 welfare reform law. H.R. 4 will 
help even more people transition from welfare to work and know the 
dignity of collecting a paycheck instead of a welfare check.
  As my colleagues may recall, before 1996 the Nation's welfare program 
actually encouraged dependence with recipients staying on the rolls for 
an average of 13 years. The program discouraged work, and caseloads 
reached record levels with some 5 million families and 14 million 
recipients dependent on benefits by 1994.
  Since the 1996 changes, work has increased, incomes are higher, child 
poverty has been reduced, and families are more self-reliant. Welfare 
caseloads are down more than 50 percent and have continued to decline 
even over the past 2 years as unemployment rates have risen. Nearly 3 
million children have been lifted from poverty, and poverty rates for 
African American children and families headed by single mothers have 
reached all-time lows.
  We must continue to build on this record of success. We can do that 
by passing H.R. 4. This legislation fulfills the President's call to 
further improve the welfare system by encouraging even more welfare 
recipients to work. It would protect children and strengthen families 
by promoting healthy marriages, and it would allow States increased 
flexibility in operating their welfare programs.
  The welfare program needs our immediate attention since it has been 
on life support since October 1 of 2002. Permanent reauthorization of 
this program is vitally important to States and the families and 
individuals this program serves.
  I urge all Members to vote in support of H.R. 4.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control the time 
on this side.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) will control 
the time of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, my remarks should not be taken as any 
kind of a statement about the Committee on Ways and Means, because we 
had nothing to do with this. But I remember the verse in the Bible 
where they were asking Christ how you would know if you were really a 
good Christian, and he said, well, it is how you

[[Page 3711]]

take care of the least of these, meaning the poor people and the sick 
and all of the rest. This bill is an absolute travesty. Nobody wants to 
talk about it.
  Now, let me tell my colleagues what Republicans say. Mark Schweiker, 
the former Republican Governor of Pennsylvania said, ``Meeting the work 
requirements in the House bill would require us to dismantle much of 
our time-tested and effective welfare program and replace it with 
costly programs with little utility. These changes, including 
significant new child care costs, would cost the taxpayers of 
Pennsylvania more than $300 million.'' That is a Republican Governor 
talking.
  Or we could take the Republican Senate chairman in Iowa. Her name is 
Mary Cramer. She said, ``We are concerned that the proposals such as 
the legislation passed by the House will restrict Iowa's successful 
efforts to provide training to welfare recipients and meet the needs of 
local businesses. We urge you not to take a step backwards and further 
restrict education and training options.''
  I could go on like this. Anybody outside the Beltway, outside of the 
office of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), knows that this bill is 
not going to make it better; it is going to make it worse.
  Now, I have a whole long list of things. The GOP will say today that 
welfare reform has been a great success. If that is, why have 41 out of 
the 47 States said, the Republican plan would force fundamental change 
in their current welfare program? Why are we changing it if it is not 
broken? What is the point? The point is to squeeze poor people.
  We heard earlier that child poverty has fallen dramatically because 
of welfare reform. No, that is not what everyone else who is an 
economist says. It is a good economy, and it has been the earned income 
tax credit, and we still are forcing families, with a family of three 
living on $2,500 a quarter. Now, that is 70 percent of the Federal 
poverty line. We call that success? That is what we are being led to 
believe out here, that we have a success and we ought to squeeze them 
more. They got too much. That family of three with $10,000 for a year 
ought to be squeezed some more.
  We will also hear, and we did hear, that this bill gives more 
flexibility because we allow States to define 16 of the 40 required 
work hours in the bill. This bill increases the current law direct-work 
requirement from 20 to 24 hours and eliminates job search. Looking for 
a job does not count anymore; you only get credit for working. So if 
you have a job making $6 an hour and you spend a little bit of time out 
looking for a job, you do not get any credit whatsoever for that.
  The CBO estimates that the paperwork involved in this is going to be 
a cost of $6.2 billion over the next 5 years. So we will pay for $6.2 
billion worth of paperwork; but we will not think about the people, 
because we need to pass the committee, we need to get it right out here 
and get it passed because TANF expired on March 31. What they did not 
say when they came out on the floor was, the Senate Republicans 
included a 6-month extension of the current law through September 30 in 
the Omnibus Appropriation Act we are about to take on.
  Now, that extension is supported by the National Governors 
Conference, so Republican legislators are going out and sticking their 
thumb in the eye of Republican Governors.

                              {time}  1115

  Now, if the House negotiators would withdraw their objections to that 
extension, we would have plenty of time for thoughtful consideration of 
their program. We would have the next 6 months to think about it. The 
thing I really like best is, we had plenty of debate last year so we do 
not need to debate it this year, as though, if you discussed it in 
1941, it is good enough; we do not need to discuss it again, right?
  Well, do things change? Did we have a new Congress elected in 
November? We have got new people here. Some of these people have never, 
ever considered these issues, a lot of them. There has been no public 
debate whatsoever, and we passed last year's bill on a party line vote, 
and no attempt was made to work it out with the minority then. This is 
more of the same. This is just rubber-stamping George Bush's proposals, 
and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) leads the politburo, and he 
keeps sending things up here.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, just to respond, it is important that we move now. We 
had more than 20 hearings on this legislation last year. The 
legislation actually expired September 30 of 2002. We are now 6 months 
on life support.
  The gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) mentioned that the 
reason the welfare rolls have dropped is because of prosperity. I would 
remind the gentleman that we are in a recession now. And even though we 
are in a recession, the welfare rolls, even since 2000, have dropped 
some 7 percent.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Stark), one of the distinguished members of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this so-
called Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act. It is 
sort of an anti-Christian, egalitarian, rich-folks welfare bill. They 
are going to pay for the tax cut by impacting the least powerful people 
in our community.
  In 1964, Lyndon Johnson declared a war against poverty. Well, today 
my Republican colleagues and the President have declared a war against 
the poor and against all successful social programs in this country. My 
Republican colleagues in the House, led by President Bush, want to gut 
the poverty programs. The Republicans propose to privatize Medicaid, 
destroy Head Start, eliminate housing subsidies for the poor and make 
it impossible for low-income families to get the earned income tax 
credit.
  But the real hotshots in the Republican Party have dreamed this one 
up. Not only will they make it difficult for adults. You know, Ronald 
Reagan created their welfare cheat years ago in his mind, when it was 
still working, and he had an African American woman in a white ermine 
cape in an El Dorado Cadillac. And my friend from California has heard 
this story time and time again. Now the Republicans have come up with a 
new welfare cheat. It is a little kid in second grade. I have one. Let 
me show you a picture. Here is one. It is my son. He is in second 
grade.
  Now, he does not get subsidized lunches at school, Mr. Chairman, but 
you know what the Republicans will do, they will wait until these kids 
get in the cafeteria line for their subsidized lunch, and they will 
say, Sonny, go home and get a tax return from your parents, because we 
are kicking you out of the school lunch program.
  That is how they will save money to do away with the inheritance tax. 
They will beat up on little children and call them welfare cheats.
  It is that kind of arrogant, obscene statement in programs that will 
impact the poor and the helpless in our country. And this TANF 
legislation is the first legislation in the program to reduce the 
impoverished in our country to begging.
  For example, there is no job training after the first 24 hours out of 
40 hours of work. There is a requirement that traps poor people in 
welfare or in poverty. In Alabama, Oregon, Louisiana, Mississippi, 
Wyoming and Texas, anyone who works 24 hours a week at minimum wage 
would be ineligible for any welfare programs at all.
  Right now, three out of four families in our country are eligible for 
child care under State rules, but they cannot get it. That is why both 
of our Democratic alternatives provide substantial increase in child 
care funding over the next 5 years.
  Finally, and here is perhaps the most arrogant of all, the 
Republicans, who consider themselves experts in family law and 
marriage, waste $300 million to promote a marriage program inspired by 
their blind allegiance to the Holy Rollers of the Christian right. 
These arrogant Republicans are suggesting we take this money and train 
people to get married. Now with 60 percent of the

[[Page 3712]]

women on welfare having at one point been victims of domestic violence, 
the Republican agenda that coerced poor people into marriage virtually 
guarantees tragic consequences across our country.
  Marriage programs completely ignore the real barriers that prevent 
many from pulling themselves out of poverty. If you want to truly 
motivate healthy marriages, then they would support both Democratic 
bills, because we address the underlying causes of marital instability, 
which in most cases is poverty.
  The Democratic bills make poverty reduction an explicit goal of 
welfare. It gives States the tools to help families move from welfare 
to work and it provides State financial incentive to reduce child 
poverty, not kick children off the school lunch program and let them 
starve. It lets them live in stable families, have families that have 
the income and the support for decent healthy, progressive lives in 
this country.
  I urge Members to oppose H.R. 4 and support both Democratic 
alternatives.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind my good friend from California, 
who is talking about Christian programs and how much poverty is 
affected by our current welfare bill and the new one, our own State of 
California poverty rates by the latest Census have gone down since the 
1996 bill by 1,031,000.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), a first-term Member of this body, but a person 
who is very experienced in developing domestic policy.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin) for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4 and in support of 
the substitute amendment. For 20 years an unwritten agreement regarding 
the old welfare system existed between conservatives and liberals. 
Conservatives refused to devote more money to the program. Liberals 
refused to demand anything of recipients. We have lost two generations 
of Americans to that failed system of dependency.
  I was proud to be part of the strong bipartisan welfare reform that 
the White House and the Congress enacted in 1996. The 1996 reforms were 
a bold experiment that broke from the past with a new approach that 
grounded the welfare system in the values of work and responsibility.
  Enrollment has plunged by more than 50 percent since 1996. Eight 
million people left poverty in the 1990s. Teen pregnancy dropped by 
more than 20 percent and child support collections doubled. We are 
moving in the right direction because we were true to our common 
values.
  The most important thing that we have accomplished with welfare 
reform has been to connect a generation of children to the culture of 
work. Most of us in this room grew up watching our parents go to work. 
We internalized the value of work, and now we are passing those values 
on to our own children. Today, millions of children who would otherwise 
have grown up in a home where work was an alien concept are being 
raised in a home where they are learning the routine of work.
  I know that there are good people on both sides of this aisle with 
good values who have seen reforms we created improve the lives of folks 
back home. To those in this Congress with whom I worked in 1996, let us 
not walk away from what we have accomplished. We have a future 
obligation not to let bad politics undo our good work.
  I am confident, I am extremely confident, there will be no shortage 
of partisan fights this session, tax cuts, the deficits, prescription 
drugs. To give up on proven success to engage in another unnecessary 
partisan fight is wrong.
  Mr. Chairman, welfare reform is about demanding responsibility and 
encouraging work. Over the past 6 years we as a Nation have benefited 
from our willingness to move beyond the old politics. This legislation 
represents a return to the failed policies of the past. It is not 
compassionate nor is it conservative. It undermines our common values 
as Americans.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Cardin) has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from 
California has 19\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Shaw), the original chairman of the committee that put out 
the 1996 welfare reform.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I think one of the things, and when you listen to some 
of the debate on the floor by a couple of speakers that I had a chance 
to watch from my office, you see some bitterness and some hatred trying 
to be painted onto this system of welfare reform.
  We had worked on welfare reform prior to 1996 for several years. We 
worked hard and long and we did it with compassion. We were faced with 
a system that was broken, badly broken. And unfortunately, in this 
broken system, we were breaking people. They were losing their spirit, 
their inner souls, their drive, what makes people try to do better and 
to become role models for their kids, actually paying people not to 
work, paying people to have kids and not to get married.
  And guess what? That failed, broken system encouraged that type of 
behavior. And the welfare rolls grew and they grew and they grew in 
time of prosperity as well as time of recession.
  But then in 1996 after two failed attempts and two vetoes by the 
Clinton administration, on August 22, 1996, the welfare reform bill was 
signed into law and there were Democrats and Republicans at the signing 
ceremony. There were Democrats and Republicans that ended up voting for 
this welfare reform. And this was after a debate that was punctuated by 
predictions of kids sleeping on grates.
  And what have we accomplished with this? We have cut our welfare 
rolls by over 50 percent. Even today, we do not see any great rise in 
welfare reform even as the jobless rates began to rise as of a couple 
of years ago. This is a wonderful success. And I say, it was done with 
great compassion.
  We were concerned about what happens to the kids. We have provided 
child care.
  We were worried about how the medical expenses were going to be paid. 
We have provided continuation of Medicaid.
  We are worried about how the training for jobs was going to go 
forward. We have provided job training. The States have done a 
wonderful job in not only training people so that they can have jobs, 
but in also teaching them how to take interviews, how you dress, how 
you shake hands.

                              {time}  1130

  Why is all this necessary? It is necessary because the people that 
were on welfare, that had to come off of welfare were victims of 
welfare, and they did not know any difference; but they were good 
people, and we believed in the human spirit, and we were not 
disappointed.
  Now who were these people that got out and who are the real champions 
of welfare reform? Oh, I hear everybody taking credit for it, but the 
real heroes were mostly single moms who, after they realized that there 
was something outside of a life of welfare and dependence, could make 
something out of themselves, could take control of their lives and 
could become role models for their kids.
  I think that day in 1996 when we passed in this House welfare reform 
after hearing a speech by the President in which he said right before 
the vote that he would sign the bill, I think that is one of the 
proudest moments in the history of this House of Representatives. Now I 
think it is time to go a little further.
  There are those, because of the reduction in the welfare rolls, who 
would like to decrease the funding. We are getting down now to some 
hard-core unemployed people. I think 58 percent of the people receiving 
benefits now are

[[Page 3713]]

not working, and we need to give that extra little push, but I think we 
need to continue to do it with compassion.
  We need the flexibility that this bill has for child care. We have 
got to be sure these kids are not in the street. We have got a 
responsibility, and that responsibility has grown out of a failed 
welfare program that existed for decades in this country prior to 1996.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would 
just like to say to the gentleman, I compliment the gentleman for the 
role he played in 1996. I think our side is trying to protect the 
product that my colleagues developed in 1996.
  This bill that is before us dramatically alters it. The gentleman is 
right, it was a great success. Why are we now being so prescriptive at 
the national level?
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, to answer the gentleman, there are increases 
in the work requirements. We have gotten to a plateau where the 
original intent of the welfare reform is not being fully implemented, 
and I think this is a good corrective measure.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield three minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Miller).
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 
4, the Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act of 2003; 
and I support this important measure because it will remodel and 
improve the welfare reform legislation that has already helped millions 
of people off the welfare rolls, improved child well-being, lifted 
millions more out of poverty, and boosted personal incomes and improved 
the quality of life.
  Take, for example, a family from my district in northwest Florida. 
James and his wife and their 2-year-old son had to relocate to DeFuniak 
Springs at a time when there were few job prospects in that community. 
In November of 2001, James and his family had to apply for cash 
assistance to meet their needs.
  The couple agreed that James would participate in the Welfare 
Transition Program; and during the 2-week employment preparation 
program, he learned that he had an aptitude for the medical field.
  Upon completion, he entered a community service work site at the 
Council on Aging; and during this service assignment, he demonstrated 
not only an aptitude but also the initiative to seek training and 
further experience. He qualified for financial assistance for training 
through the Workforce Innovation Act and completed training as a CNA 
through Walton County Vocational Tech.
  Through his eagerness to learn, James was able to secure a paid 
position with the Council on Aging; and last February, he was hired to 
a full-time position with benefits and is no longer receiving cash 
assistance.
  Mr. Chairman, this is just one of the many examples of how hard work, 
personal ambition, and a system that puts faith in the individual can 
be successful. Even with accomplishments like this, we can do a whole 
lot more. Our welfare system is not perfect, and we must improve it by 
offering reforms that promote a life of self-sufficiency, dignity and 
hope.
  I hope that my colleagues support these important principles and will 
support H.R. 4.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, it is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished whip on the 
Democratic side.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time, and I thank him for his leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, today the self-proclaimed compassionate conservatives 
dropped their guard and a little bit of a charade, in my opinion.
  This hard-hearted welfare reform bill literally mocks the increasing 
number of Americans who are struggling to make ends meet, and it forces 
cash-strapped States to swallow a huge unfunded mandate. This bill 
barks, Get a job, but it turns a blind eye to the most obvious question 
facing any job seeker today: Where?
  When Democrats and Republicans came together in 1996 and pursuant to 
President Clinton's campaign in 1992 when he said he wanted to see 
welfare end as we knew it, we came together in a bipartisan fashion; 
and he signed that bill, ending welfare as we knew it. This Nation was 
enjoying the longest peacetime expansion of our economy in 50 years. 
Twenty-two million new jobs were created during the '90s.
  I voted for the welfare reform 7 years ago because I strongly support 
the principle that a person has to earn what they receive, and if they 
receive assistance, they have a responsibility to pursue the ability to 
work and support themselves and their children; but oh, how 
circumstances have changed, Mr. Chairman.
  Today our economy is stagnating. It is in the worst hiring slump in 
nearly 20 years. More than 8 million jobless Americans are looking for 
work, and more than 2 million jobs have been lost since President Bush 
took office. Yet this GOP bill blithely ignores reality.
  It would impose unrealistic work requirements on recipients, even 
forcing mothers with children under the age of 6 to double the number 
of hours they are required to work each week to 40. At the same time, 
it utterly fails to provide the funding that is needed to back up these 
new work requirements. Where was the passion to get away from unfunded 
mandates that I heard so much about in the early '90s before the 
Republicans took control?
  The bill passes the buck to the States, which will be forced to spend 
an estimated $11 billion over the next 5 years to implement the new 
rules. How do we expect the States to pay for this unfunded mandate? 
They were forced to address a $49 billion budget shortfall in fiscal 
2003, and according to the National Conference of State Legislatures 
face a minimum $68.5 billion shortfall in 2004.
  Mr. Chairman, on its own merits this bill is bad enough; but when 
considered in the context of the failed economic policies of this 
administration, it is oblivious to the realities confronting our people 
and our States. The Republican proposal cracks down on the single mom 
who the gentleman from Florida, my good friend, referred to as a hero. 
This bill cracks down on that single mom who is trying her best to work 
and still take care of her kids. At the same time it supports a plan 
that would give the top 1 percent of America's taxpayers over a $25,000 
tax cut. Where is the compassion in that? Where is the commitment to 
leave no child behind in that?
  I urge my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, to vote for the Democratic 
substitute which increases work expectations but also assists the 
States in accomplishing that objective. It would impose tough, but 
fair, work requirements. It would increase mandatory funding for child 
care by $11 billion over 5 years. It speaks to the bipartisan agreement 
that we had, expecting work but also expecting us to help those who 
cannot find work, who cannot work.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like, just in response to the gentleman from Maryland, the 
CBO has indicated that there will not be any unfunded mandates. I have 
a letter in front of me. Because of the broad flexibility afforded 
States under the TANF program to structure the program and determine 
benefits, the new requirements of H.R. 4 would not be intergovernmental 
mandates.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Portman), a key player in welfare reform on the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time, and I commend him for the legislation before us today which 
extends and builds on the very successful welfare legislation that this 
House passed back in 1996, truly one of the best pieces of legislation 
we have enacted during my time in Congress.
  Amazing success. We have lifted 2.7 million children out of poverty 
through this welfare legislation over the last 7 years. We have reduced 
welfare caseloads by 60 percent. In my own State of

[[Page 3714]]

Ohio, 267,000 people have left welfare and instead started working; and 
they are enjoying now the dignity and the self-respect that comes with 
work.
  It is hard to argue with that success. I commend the gentleman from 
Maryland, the ranking member on the subcommittee, for his work with the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and now with the gentleman from 
California on this legislation. I know he shares our same goals, but I 
would have to dispute what his colleague from Maryland just said about 
this being a hard-hearted reauthorization of welfare reform. Hardly 
hard-hearted.
  The gentleman just made a very good point that there is no unfunded 
mandate, which was one of his points; and having been the author of the 
unfunded mandate act, I am glad we have gone through that process and 
determined there is flexibility here and it is not an unfunded mandate 
on States.
  More importantly, there is $2 billion in additional funding in this 
legislation for child care, a huge commitment over the next 2 years to 
provide significant new resources even at a time when our budgets are 
tight for something that is very important, which is transitional child 
care.
  There are more taxpayer resources obviously going to these families 
who need help. Back in 1996, we were giving roughly $7,000 on average 
per family for welfare. Now, under this program that we will hopefully 
pass today, it would be $16,000 per family. That is a substantial 
increase.
  The point was made that we are cutting the funds to the States. We 
are not. Despite a 60 percent reduction in caseloads, we are not 
reducing the funding to the States. We are keeping the same commitment 
on the block grant, plus we are adding, as I said, another $2 billion 
on child care.
  These are the statistics, and it is hard to argue with them; and 
there has been a lot of success.
  I want to talk about the personal stories just for a second. All of 
us have gone back home and talked to welfare moms who have taken 
advantage of the opportunities we have provided them over the last 6 
years with this legislation.
  I have had the opportunity to visit with a lot of those families but 
also some of our good agencies back home. One is called the 
Accountability and Credibility Together Center in Cincinnati, Ohio; it 
is called ACT. They have had remarkable success. They have worked with 
over 5,000 families in the greater Cincinnati area to move them from 
welfare to work; and guess what, only 200 of those families have gone 
back to public assistance. Incredible success story.
  When I was there at the center recently, I have been there a couple 
of times, but a family was there. They had come in. Both the mom and 
dad were out of work. They were about to apply for public assistance 
and welfare. Instead, the center got them plugged into some educational 
opportunities, some job opportunities. Now this woman has gone back, 
she has gotten her GED. She is now in college, and her family is 
supporting her in that. The husband is working. Again, the dignity and 
the self-respect that comes from that having worked, being able to 
provide for a family is something that the statistics cannot tell. That 
is the great success story of welfare reform that this Congress passed 
back in 1996.
  This is an important extension of that. It is a necessary 
reauthorization, but will encourage more work, will encourage healthier 
families, encourage more marriage. I think this is a good bill, and I 
hope we will pass it with bipartisan support.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to the time division?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) has 4\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) has 9 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), another important member of our Committee 
on Ways and Means.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I may not need the whole 3 
minutes, but I want very much to talk about this issue of work 
requirements because, first of all, all the studies show that welfare 
reform was most successful in the States with the most stringent work 
requirements. The University of Michigan studied this, certainly no 
bastion of conservatism. The study by the Manpower Demonstration 
Research Corporation also shows that programs that emphasize rapid 
entry into the workplace leads to more employment and higher earnings.
  Now what does this bill that the President has proposed and the 
committee has disposed of and brought to this floor do about work? It 
does a very simple thing. It raises the number of hours a person must 
work from 20 to 24. That is 3 full work days, 8, 16, 24, three full 
work days, but it raises the work requirement to 40 hours. That is 5 
days, but the other 16 hours, Tuesday and Thursday for example, could 
be used to take classes. The States can count that as work. They can 
count, in fact, under the bill, mental health treatment as work, 
substance abuse treatment as work, all those things that are necessary 
for the person to be able to succeed in a full-time job and to move up 
the career ladder in that job.

                              {time}  1145

  So what this requires of people on welfare is to think about their 
whole week and how are they going to use the time in that week to 
create their own future.
  Work experience is, without question, a part of that. You need the 
experience, you need the recommendations, you need to be on site in a 
workplace to decide whether this is the line of work you want. If you 
work at a lower-level job in the insurance industry, you get a pretty 
good idea of whether those career ladders are interesting to you. You 
start out in a hospital or a nursing home, you get a pretty good idea 
of whether those career ladders are worth the extra training to work up 
them.
  If you do not work, you are isolated from the real world and from 
what it takes to advance, what it takes in skill, what it takes in 
being able to work with a team, what it takes in personal discipline. 
So work is important. It does help us move forward.
  But education, training, money management, a better understanding of 
career tracks, mental health, substance abuse treatment, all those 
things, including caring for your own child, can be counted as work.
  You know what communities can do with this bill? They can hire 
skilled child development people to head up after-school programs for 
children, and then count as work the time that women spend, or welfare 
recipients, women and men, spend as assistants in those programs so 
that we can explode the after-school program opportunities for our 
kids. And that person's children can be in that program. So not only 
are you with your own children, but you are learning the child 
development information you need to be a better parent. Every parent 
needs this.
  So this bill creates extraordinary opportunity for human growth and 
for personal growth. And without creating that opportunity, the promise 
of freedom is a false promise.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, do I have the right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) has the 
right to close.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time to close.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, with so much attention devoted to Iraq, 
money is now being diverted from quality child care as well. The 
Republicans' own Congressional Budget Office estimates that over the 
next 5 years, for every dollar that is required for child care and 
other associated costs of the goal of moving people from welfare to 
work, this Republican bill will provide one very thin dime. This leaves 
a gap, a ``window of vulnerability'' of 90 cents on that dollar.
  In Texas alone, we will require $688 million that this bill is not 
providing

[[Page 3715]]

to meet the needs of our children and to fulfill the work requirements 
of this legislation. It does not take satellite surveillance photos to 
see the irrefutable proof in our own neighborhoods that too many 
children will not have the child care or the child protective services 
that they need and will be left in neglect.
  This is a ticking time bomb in our own country, not on the other side 
of the world, and it can be defused by providing the essential dollars 
that even their estimators say will be required to ensure quality child 
care and to get people to work. Otherwise, these families already 
rowing hard against a severe current of trouble, are now told that they 
will be left without a paddle.
  This Administration and its allies here in Congress are all too 
willing to raid Social Security and Medicare to build smart bombs, but 
what about smart kids and opportunities for them? The gap between this 
Administration and its Leave-No-Child-Behind policy and the reality of 
leaving scores of children behind is a scandal. Only in the sense that 
every child today will be forced to pay off the huge public debt have 
we left no child behind.
  As my friend and State senator from Texas Eliot Shapleigh said, ``In 
a society that values tax breaks over kids, ultimately it is the kids, 
their education, our prosperity, and America's ability to compete that 
will pay the price.'' Inaction is not a solution. We cannot sit here 
doing so very little to meet the needs of our next generation of 
Americans. What we need is a coalition of the willing, a coalition of 
the willing to vote ``yes'' on a meaningful Democratic alternative to 
ensure that our youth are given a chance to become productive members 
of society instead of a burden to America.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to respond to my friend from Texas that when we started welfare reform 
back in 1996, the average amount of money that was available for each 
family was slightly less than $7,000. Today, that amount, because we 
block granted it, the average amount that is available for each family 
today is about $16,000. More than double. Also in this bill we have $2 
billion that is for additional child care.
  And just to the State of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), that 
will amount to some $370 million of additional child care, just for the 
State of Texas.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Camp), a key member of our Subcommittee on Human Resources.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise today in support of H.R. 4, the Personal 
Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act of 2003.
  Mr. Chairman, we have the opportunity and responsibility to build on 
the 1996 law, which many here helped write. The law we crafted has seen 
unparalleled success by almost every measure, yet our work is not done. 
I am proud that the main focus of this legislation has been on self-
empowerment, work, and most importantly, strengthening family.
  If we look at the fact that more parents are working today, we have a 
responsibility to ensure that parents have child care. This bill adds 
$2 billion over the next 5 years to the current record amounts for this 
purpose. In addition, this bill also provides the States new 
flexibility so that unused funds can be transferred over and used for 
child care needs of working families.
  In total, the funds available today per family on welfare, as the 
chairman said, represent $16,000. That is double the $7,000 available 
for those purposes in 1996.
  Many of us are not new to this issue. In addition to being one of the 
authors of the landmark 1996 welfare reform law, along with our current 
chairman, as well as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the 
chairman in 1996, I have held field hearings, sat with advisory panels, 
and spoken with constituents. The one common theme was proper access to 
child care, that that was an impediment on the road from welfare to 
work.
  This bill meets the needs of the parents who have told me time and 
again that child care is one of the greatest challenges they face. Let 
us give support to these families who desperately want the choice to 
work.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. It strengthens the landmark 
welfare reform bill Congress passed and President Clinton signed into 
law in 1996. Let us give our families the tools they need to ensure 
that parents can enter the workforce with peace of mind, knowing their 
children will be in a safe and constructive environment.
  I urge support of this bill.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a bad bill at the wrong time. I supported the 
1996 welfare reform legislation. I thought it was the right thing to 
do. In 1996, we gave the States flexibility. This legislation takes it 
back. In 1996, we gave the States the resources they needed. This bill 
does not give them the dollars in order to do the job.
  The legislation before us is remarkably different from the 1996 bill. 
That is why so many of our Nation's governors have said to us in a 
letter dated today that we will take a significant step backwards in 
reforming welfare. This is not the time to replace State flexibility 
with unfunded mandates.
  My chairman says this is not an unfunded mandate. The Congressional 
Budget Office says it will cost $8 to $11 billion extra money for the 
States to comply with the requirements in this legislation. The 
Republican bill gives the States $1 billion more and $1 billion on a 
promise. That is an unfunded mandate. Maybe technically it is not, 
because you can transfer monies from other accounts.
  Let me tell you a story of my own State of Maryland. Our States have 
record deficits. In 50 years they have not been this bad. We see that 
deficits are between $70 to $85 billion in our States. In Maryland, our 
governor is recommending a 23 percent reduction in child care because 
of the deficits. And what do we do? Mandate they spend more money by a 
prescriptive Federal law.
  That is not what I voted for in 1996. I voted to give the States 
flexibility and the resources, and this legislation is taking it away. 
It is going to hurt our children, it is going to hurt our States, and 
it is wrong. We should have done better, and had we gone through a 
normal process, we would have had a chance to explore what happened 
during this past year, correct the mistakes in this body and not rely 
on a conference.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this bill. We will offer an 
alternative, a substitute, later on in the debate so we can correct 
these mistakes.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Sometimes, when I listen to the debate on the other side, I wonder if 
we are talking about the same legislation. We are seeing in the area of 
child care some $2 billion more that is being placed into this 
legislation than was in the 1996 bill.
  Again, since we keep hearing about unfunded mandates, I again have a 
letter in front of me from the Congressional Budget Office indicating 
that there are no unfunded State mandates.
  But let us go over the incredible successes of the 1996 bill and 
where we go here in our new legislation. Child poverty has fallen since 
1996 by nearly 3 million children who have been lifted up out of 
poverty. The black child poverty rate is now at a record low. More 
parents are working today than ever before in welfare. Employment by 
mothers most likely to go on welfare rose by 40 percent between 1995 
and 2000. Dependents fell by unprecedented levels. Welfare caseloads 
fell by 9 million during this period of time, from 14 million 
recipients in 1994 to just 5 million today. Yet there is much that 
needs to be done.
  Even though we have more people working than before, there are still 
58 percent of recipients who are not working or who are not receiving 
training or who are not involved at all. Too many families are breaking 
up. It is

[[Page 3716]]

tough enough to raise children with two parents, let alone just one. We 
still have 2 million families that remain dependent on welfare that we 
want to address.
  What our new legislation would do is that we allow for more parents 
to be able to work and, therefore, be able to receive benefits. States 
will continue to receive the record Federal welfare and child care 
funds, despite since 1995, a nearly 60 percent reduction in rates. This 
means that average allotment per family will go from less than $7,000 
in 1995 to some $16,000 today. And there are funds in here to help 
encourage and to help give counseling to encourage that every child has 
two parents at home. So we recognize this.
  Again, of all the legislation that I have been involved with in 16 
years, I feel this has been the most successful. And what we are doing 
in this current legislation, H.R. 4, is building on these incredible 
successes of the last 5 years and continuing them.
  I urge the strong, overwhelming support of this body on H.R. 4.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Boehner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the 1996 welfare reform law that we are reauthorizing 
today has been an unprecedented success, one of the most important 
pieces of social policy since the civil rights legislation of the 
1960s. We transformed the welfare system from a permanent entitlement 
system that tolerated government dependence to a temporary assistance 
program which helps people earn a new start, find a job and become 
self-sufficient.
  Today, with the Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion 
Act, we are prepared to build on that success. This bill marks the 
beginning of a second phase of reform that will help even more 
Americans find productive jobs.
  The colleagues on the other side of the aisle may say, The system is 
working, why fix it? Why argue with success? Here is why. Welfare 
caseloads have fallen dramatically since 1966; but as this chart shows, 
some 58 percent of TANF recipients still are not working for benefits, 
according to the Department of Health and Human Services.
  The bottom line is approximately 2 million families remain on welfare 
rolls today, and we need to do something about it. Over the last 2 
years, the Committee on Education and the Workforce has held five 
hearings on the success of welfare reform and the new challenges that 
we face today. Last year our committee approved a bill introduced by 
the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the Working Toward 
Independence Act, which is now part of this overall bill which is 
before us today.
  It strengthens work requirements to ensure that we move welfare 
recipients on the path to self-reliance. As Connecticut Governor John 
Rowland has said, ``The most compassionate way to break the cycle of 
poverty, dependency, and hopelessness is through work.''
  The bill requires welfare recipients to participate in work 
activities 40 hours a week. But within these new requirements, there is 
significant flexibility for States and recipients themselves. Welfare 
families will have 16 hours a week to pursue education and job-training 
opportunities. They can also attend school full-time for up to 4 months 
over a 2-year period. This measure also increases the percentage of 
welfare families in each State that must be engaged in work-related 
activities, currently at 50 percent, moving to 70 percent by 2008.
  Some have questioned whether States can meet these new requirements, 
suggesting that we are setting the bar too high. But I agree with what 
President Bush said, ``If it brings dignity into someone's life, it is 
not too high of a goal.'' And remember, the bill gives States 5 years 
to comply with the new work requirements.
  The bill also includes significant funding increases for child care, 
boosting spending for the Child Care and Development Block Grant by $2 
billion over the next 5 years.
  In addition to this new money, it is important to remember that 
States have half the case loads that they had in 1996, which means that 
they have twice as much money available to spend on work programs, 
child care, transportation and other services that are necessary in 
order to help move people from a life of dependency toward the 
mainstream of American society.
  H.R. 4 also incorporates key elements of President Bush's Good Start, 
Grow Smart plan to improve early childhood education. It encourage 
States to address the cognitive needs of young children so they are 
developmentally prepared to enter school.
  Finally, the bill includes a promising new plan to empower States and 
localities to develop innovative solutions to help keep needy families 
working towards independence. It would give States and local agencies 
the opportunity to coordinate certain welfare and workforce development 
programs and improve their efficiency and their ability to help move 
people from welfare to work.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing I would like to echo the sentiments of 
President Bush when he said that no level of despair should be 
acceptable in our society. With this bill we are going to help some of 
the most vulnerable members of our society to help them achieve 
independence and self-sufficiency, and I urge Members to support the 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Woolsey) will control the time of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
George Miller).
  There was no objection.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as a Member of Congress who has actually been on 
welfare, let me tell Members, I know the pitfalls of H.R. 4. I know the 
pitfalls of the Republican welfare bill.
  I also know what we have learned since we passed welfare reform in 
1996. We learned that we have to make changes. We learned that we 
cannot send people to work and keep them in poverty forevermore. We 
learned that we have to do a better job in helping the families that 
need that safety net.
  In this economy with fewer jobs and a greater waiting list for child 
care, we know that we have a lot of work to do because people are 
returning to welfare in this bad economy. But the most important thing 
that we learned from 1996 is that it is not so hard to get people off 
welfare, but it is very hard to get them out of poverty. So if we want 
to keep individuals off the welfare rolls, particularly in a weaker 
economy, the economy we have today under President Bush, we have to 
work very hard; otherwise we have failed because welfare moms, those 
who have moved from welfare, have moved into permanent poverty.
  Today more than one-fifth of the families that have left welfare 
since 1996 have come back onto the rolls and 39 States have reported a 
greater caseload increase for the last quarter.
  This country needs welfare that gives States the flexibility they 
need to get families out of poverty and into real work, work that pays 
a livable wage, work that a mother can sustain her family on.
  H.R. 4 will push more low-income parents into low-paying workfare 
jobs while making it almost impossible for them to get a real 
education, the kind of education they need to get good jobs, jobs that 
will keep them off welfare forevermore.
  While increasing the hours of work, the Republican bill does not 
provide the child care support that is necessary to sustain those 
families. We have a Democratic substitute. Our substitute enables 
States to give welfare recipients the support, the services they need 
so that they can go forward, become skilled, educated, and get jobs 
which will keep them off of welfare forever.

[[Page 3717]]

  I am the perfect example of what a good education, child care 
resources, good health, and actually being a little bit assertive did 
not hurt at all, what a difference that makes to a family. I was on 
welfare for 3 years even though I was working. We cannot take those 
services away from moms if we expect them to be able to take care of 
their families now and into the future.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Employer-
Employee Relations.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I believe our welfare plan 
has worked. It has been shown to work, and the corrections that are in 
this plan make it work better. It is no surprise to the people of the 
Third Congressional District of Texas that because of the excellent 
services provided by the North Central Texas workforce, many leave 
welfare behind.
  One example is a woman I will call Alice who found help through the 
Choices program in Allen. A single mother of two children, Alice went 
to the workforce center in Allen 5 months pregnant. She had never held 
a steady job. Having worked a month as a receptionist and 3 months as a 
waitress, she decided she needed a job to support her and her children.
  The Choices program provided her with child care assistance and 
transportation assistance to seek employment. She worked with the 
employment services staff, and in time she found a job as a warehouse 
manager in Plano making $8.50 an hour. The job did not last because the 
company went broke and she lost it. That did not stop her. Within 2 
weeks of losing her job, she found another working as a receptionist in 
Plano making $12.50 an hour.
  Her employment counselor reports that Alice always showed 
determination and motivation to become self-sufficient so she can 
support her family. She still works full time and has even taken on a 
part-time job as a Mary Kay distributor. In December, she sent a 
Christmas card to the people of the North Central Texas Workforce 
Center in Allen thanking them for their help. She is a shining example 
of the positive things that happen when people move from welfare to 
work. This welfare bill helps them immensely. Let us pass it today.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
Republican welfare bill, even though my colleague from Ohio is on the 
other side.
  I keep hearing stories about Alice and Mary and Stephanie who have 
done well off of welfare. I would like to line up all of the Johns and 
Alices and Marys that I know who have not had success, who have gone 
from welfare to poverty, to show Members their children who are 
suffering as a result of the fact that their mom or dad cannot get 
child care in order to go to work.
  It is an interesting discussion right now that we would talk about 
work for welfare recipients when in fact the people who have been 
working all along have no jobs, and we know the last person hired is 
going to be the first person fired.
  Right now would have been the opportunity in these low economic times 
to take this bill back to committee and take into consideration the 
fact that the economy is not in as good a shape as it has been, and 
maybe we could have put some incentives into this bill to have 
employers hire welfare workers, and maybe that might have stimulated 
our economy a little bit.
  We are in the worst economic times since World War II. Every city, 
every county, every State is laying off workers. I just read a story in 
the New York Times this morning about layoffs. So to say this is a 
great time to talk about moving from welfare to work is ridiculous, and 
it is ridiculous to have this discussion without taking into 
consideration the whole issue of the economy as it currently exists.
  All we have to do is ask Governor Taft, a good friend of the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), what trouble the State of Ohio is in 
right now. Even with the programs of Medicaid, even talking about 
taxing the poor for getting a manicure or getting a hairdo or for going 
to the movies. To say we are going to put them in jobs where they make 
$5.25 an hour and have to pay additional dollars for all of these 
things is just ludicrous.
  I encourage Members to vote against this legislation because it does 
not do what it is intended to do.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McKeon), the chairman of the Subcommittee on 21st 
Century Competitiveness.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4, the 
Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act. Six years ago, 
the Nation's welfare rolls bulged with more than 14 million 
individuals. Today the rolls have decreased significantly. In my home 
State of California, the welfare rolls decreased by more than one-half. 
More than 470,000 California families are free from the bondage of 
welfare thanks to welfare reform based on work.

                              {time}  1215

  Between 1996 and this very day, over 9 million individuals have left 
welfare for the satisfaction that can only come from working to support 
your family. H.R. 4 helps these families and builds on the success of 
the 1996 reforms.
  Mr. Chairman, today there are few who would argue about the success 
of the 1996 reforms, but 6 years ago the nay-sayers cried that if 
welfare recipients were required to work for their benefits, millions 
of families would be forced to live in the streets and millions of 
children would go hungry. But we know that, in the end, welfare reform 
based on work helped to reduce the child poverty rate in America to its 
lowest level in over 30 years. Child poverty among African American 
children is at its lowest rate ever.
  The bill before us requires that those who receive temporary 
assistance, those needy families that receive that temporary 
assistance, be involved in direct work for 24 hours a week and that 
they also spend 16 hours improving their abilities, getting educational 
instruction or job training that will lead to better marketability for 
them in the marketplace. The total combined hours for work and training 
equals just 40 hours a week, which is the average American workweek. 
For America's families to be ready to lead lives independent of 
welfare, they must become accustomed to the demands of the average 
workweek.
  But the work requirements coupled with ample job training and 
educational instruction are not the only ingredients to successful 
welfare reform. It is impossible to return to work or search for work 
if welfare recipients do not have adequate child care. H.R. 4 increases 
the already extremely high levels of funding for the child care 
development block grant. The high level of funding is increased by $2 
billion, even as the number of families being served has dropped by 
over 3 million.
  Mr. Chairman, the ultimate goal of welfare reform is fostering strong 
and healthy families. When you wade through the rhetoric, when you 
eliminate the sound bites, when the grand floor speeches are over and 
the only thing that remains is H.R. 4, Americans can be sure that this 
Congress has drafted a bill that will help build on the success of the 
1996 reform and will help lead families to independence. We re-enthrone 
work and help people attain the dignity that comes from providing for 
yourself and your family.
  I urge that all of us join in support of H.R. 4.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
  Mr. TIERNEY. I thank the gentlewoman for California for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have 
simply put a new number on last year's bill without any apparent 
attempt to address the new realities of this worsening economy. That 
bill is, in terms, harsh and seems to be divorced from today's reality. 
As written, the legislation will impact some 48,000 families in my

[[Page 3718]]

State of Massachusetts alone, which is now in its toughest economy in a 
decade. It would cost the State, which is already drowning in red ink, 
some $222 million over the next 5 years in order to implement what 
essentially are unfunded mandates. Health care and housing assistance 
are already being cut back, and in my district the unemployment rate is 
now 7.3 percent.
  In this type of an economy, we should be helping States, not putting 
a further strain on the safety net for America's families. Obviously, 
first we need a better policy to create jobs than the one being offered 
by this administration and the majority. But then we need this measure 
to be crafted so that it will actually help people qualify and enable 
them to fill jobs and to lift them out of poverty to self-
sustainability.
  In the current economic climate, we have to look at the principles 
that really work. Education and training have to count towards the work 
requirement more than the bill on the floor allows for. Common sense, 
educators and countless examples concur with that opinion. People have 
to be able to make contacts, develop skills and find careers, not just 
jobs, but jobs that bring them out of poverty. Working parents need 
child care.
  Our alternative keeps up with inflation and increased work habits and 
addresses that situation. The opponents' bill does not, adding $1 
billion; and a $1 billion promise does not meet the $11 billion that we 
are told is going to be impacted on the States and cost them to meet 
these requirements. We cannot be forcing parents to choose between 
leaving their children home alone and working to put food on the table 
or staying home with their children who are hungry.
  And we have to allow State flexibility. States like Massachusetts 
have effectively used those waivers, Mr. Chairman, to design their own 
versions of welfare, and they have worked in their economies. Those are 
the principles that have to underlie this bill. Those are the changes 
that have to be made. If they are not made, I would recommend that we 
vote against the bill, but for the alternative.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), a valued member of our 
committee.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4. This legislation 
will continue the remarkable success of welfare reform.
  I still cannot get over the statistics. Nationally, welfare caseloads 
have dropped more than 50 percent from the all-time high of 5.1 million 
families in March 1994 to 2.1 million in December 2001. Back in my home 
county of DuPage, there were 2,333 families on assistance in 1996. 
Today, there are only 419.
  Some may argue that caseloads are dropping because individuals have 
exhausted their eligibility, but the numbers show that this is not 
true. The most recent census figures show that employment by mothers 
most likely to go on welfare rose by 40 percent between 1995 and 2000.
  This legislation keeps our commitment to America's kids and to 
America's great promise of welfare reform. And with the addition of $2 
billion in extra funding for child care and development block grants, a 
very good bill is even better. I thank Chairman Thomas of the Committee 
on Ways and Means for including this funding, as well as my Republican 
women colleagues who have worked very hard for this.
  Why is this funding such good news? More funding means more kids 
covered, and it means that more parents will be able to afford better 
quality care. More kids covered means more parents working. That is our 
ultimate objective, to give every American the opportunity to work and 
to gain the dignity and self-respect that comes with providing for your 
own family.
  The past 6 years of welfare have shown us what works and what does 
not. When I meet with former welfare recipients throughout my 
congressional district, each and every one of them tells me that their 
success simply would not have been made possible without child care 
assistance.
  This is an outstanding bill that builds upon the welfare successes of 
the past 6 years. Let us get it to the President's desk and into law as 
quickly as possible.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to just make one remark before I yield time to the 
ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and 
that is that 20 States right now have a waiting list for child care, 
not just for welfare moms, but for the working poor and working 
families in general. We must not forget that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
George Miller), the ranking member of the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding 
me this time, and I want to thank her publicly for all of the work over 
the last several years that she has put into our Democratic substitute, 
trying to advance this discussion about our obligation to try and help 
those individuals who want to work to be able to go to work and to be 
able to get a job that not only takes them off of the public assistance 
rolls but it also takes them out of poverty. That has to be our goal.
  It is unbelievable that the Republicans would introduce the very same 
bill that they introduced almost a year and a half ago when the economy 
has changed entirely. During that time what we have seen is the highest 
unemployment rate since 1994. We have seen almost 1.7 million jobs lost 
since 2001. Almost 2 million jobs have disappeared.
  In those sectors of our economy where people are likely to go to get 
entry-level jobs, in the hospitality industry, in the retail industry, 
in the fast food industry, they are all in trouble. They are all laying 
workers off. Yet we want to act like today is how it was a year ago, 2 
years ago, 3 years ago.
  No. What we need is we need jobs and we need child care for those 
individuals who are seeking those jobs. The Republican bill fails to 
provide that. It fails to recognize how lousy the Bush economy is and 
how many people are in trouble.
  We have 1 million people who have exhausted their unemployment 
benefits and cannot find work. And somehow we are suggesting that these 
people just go out and look, that they will be able to find that work. 
I hope they are able to, but they will not unless we provide the kind 
of child care that is necessary.
  The gentlewoman from California has made it clear: In 20 States we 
have a waiting list of the working poor, of people trying to get off of 
welfare, of people who are working to try to find child care for their 
children. In California, 200,000 people are waiting for child care. The 
money they have in the bill will not take care of the problem in 
California, much less nationwide.
  The problem nationwide is $11 billion in child care. They put in $1 
billion in mandatory child care.
  The Republicans have got to wake up and understand what has happened 
to our economy. We want these people to be able to go to work. We want 
those people who are working now to be able to stay in the workplace. 
But the economy has to improve, and they have got to provide the 
underpinnings so these individuals can take advantage of those job 
opportunities should they come along.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Education Reform.
  Mr. CASTLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I have a 
statement which I will submit, Mr. Chairman, for the record.
  I would just like to say that I am in very strong support of this 
legislation. Welfare reform goes back a long time in this country, well 
before Congress actually got too involved in it. It goes back to the 
States in the 1980s in which a number of States came forward and said 
they could do something about welfare reform. Finally, in the Family

[[Page 3719]]

Support Act of 1988, the Federal Government got involved.
  Again, in 1996, we passed welfare reform legislation. We debated it 
last year and passed a bill, and now here we are again on the floor. 
Virtually every time we have done this, every single time, the 
opposition to it has gotten up and said, We can't do this. It's 
impossible. You can't get this much out of people. You can't get blood 
out of a stone.
  This is a human issue. If you go back into the jurisdictions where we 
all live and you see what they have done with welfare reform, if you 
see the opportunities that we have given to people who in many 
instances now are living middle-class lives because of a middle-class 
income, you see the real circumstances of what we can do to help 
people. There has been no social program that has uplifted people more 
in this country in a true sense of giving them an opportunity as 
America allows you to have as has welfare reform.
  This legislation continues a lot of the support systems which are 
necessary, including the educational components, the day care 
components, the transportation components in the things that have to be 
done.
  I too believe that we need to refine this somewhat. I am a little 
concerned about the transitional medical assistance in terms of 
Medicaid continuations. I do worry about transportation. We all worry 
about day care a little bit.
  I think there needs to be sufficient flexibility at the State and 
local levels to carry out what needs to be done in welfare reform, but 
I believe this legislation has the basic parameters which will allow 
this to happen, and I believe this is the next extension of what we 
have to do in the Congress to allow the States across America to 
continue their welfare reform programs.
  I, for one, believe it can be done. I grant you, the economy is not 
what I would like to see either, but I believe that it can be done 
sufficiently to help a lot of people, and then you will see all of 
those people whom I have seen who will say, Thank you for giving me the 
opportunity; I am able to help my family now.
  I support the legislation. I hope we all can support the legislation.
  The 1996 welfare reform law replaced a broken system with one of the 
most successful government programs in recent history.
  As Governor, I promoted work as the ladder to opportunity. Former 
recipients told me that they needed help breaking away from welfare 
dependency, but once they found their place in the workforce, they were 
able to create better lives for their families.
  For that reason, I was proud to make work the foundation of the 1996 
reform. Today, national data confirms our success. Caseloads are down. 
Household incomes are up.
  Welfare recipients now appreciate the value of work. We provide time 
and assistance, but understand that welfare cannot be an open-ended 
entitlement--or a way of life. We help those on assistance, but do not 
allow them to become passive dependents on the welfare system.
  Today's legislation strengthens and embraces these goals.
  In particular, H.R. 4 recognizes the education needs of children and 
includes my language to increase funding for quality initiatives, such 
as teacher training. H.R. 4 also provides historic funding levels for 
child care. Both mandatory and discretionary programs, now appropriated 
at $4.8 billion, will grow by $2 billion.
  Yet, these programs are only part of a larger picture. States spend 
TANF grants on child care--either directly or through funding 
transfers. And Congress supports child care through other programs like 
Head Start. Recent estimates show that annual child care funding 
exceeds $18 billion--a significant investment, by any measure.
  This bill also contains language from a bill I introduced, ``The 
Child Support Fairness and Tax Refund Intercept Act,'' to help 
custodial spouses collect past due child support even if their child is 
no longer a minor. A Wilmington, Delaware woman, Lisa McCave, was owed 
several thousands of dollars in past due child support. The Federal 
Government discovered that the father was about to receive several 
thousand dollars in a tax refund. However, because her son was no 
longer a minor, the IRS could not intercept that money for her. She had 
to work two jobs to raise her son and put him through college, while he 
waited out the clock until his son was no longer a minor so he could 
enjoy his tax refund. Thanks to Lisa McCave's willingness to step 
forward and ask for justice, millions of parents in the future will be 
able to intercept tax returns to pay the child support owed them, even 
if their child is no longer a minor.
  With all the improvements to our welfare system contained in this 
bill, I believe there are a few issues we should continue to review. I 
appreciate the one year extension of Transitional Medical Assistance, a 
program that provides continued health coverage for former welfare 
recipients, but I hope we can extend and simplify this authorization 
for five years as the President's FY 04 budget recommends--and do so in 
a way that does not effect Medicaid administrative funds. I have 
introduced legislation with Congressman Levin to extend this valuable 
program, and I look forward to working with the Senate and the 
President to accomplish this goal.
  Also, it is my hope that we can reinstate the state flexibility 
provisions and give our Governors the ability to find innovative ways 
to meet and exceed the goals of this legislation. State waivers were 
critical to Delaware's success in the past and they are critical to our 
continued success in the future.
  Finally, education is important to reducing unplanned pregnancies and 
achieving independence for working men and women. Abstinence education 
is an important part of this effort. Yet, the language in H.R. 4 
provides an overly simple solution to a complex problem. In my opinion, 
we cannot restrict access to basic health information if we are to 
promote responsibility.
  In conclusion, I support H.R. 4--the beginning of our efforts this 
year to create the next generation of welfare success stories.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Davis), a new member of the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I have always been told that when you begin with a 
faulty premise, you are likely to end up with a faulty conclusion. When 
you continue to give large, multiyear tax cuts to the most wealthy, how 
in the world do you expect to have enough real money to provide 
temporary assistance for needy families? When you allow companies to 
incorporate out of the country to avoid paying legitimate taxes, how in 
the world do you expect to have money for temporary assistance to needy 
families? When you give away billions of dollars in subsidies to 
agricultural and other big business interests, how in the world do you 
expect to have money to provide day care for children while their 
parents go to school or go out and look for a job?
  The fact of the matter, Mr. Chairman, is that poverty is on the rise 
and the need for public assistance is on the rise, while this bill will 
not do anything in the world to really slow it down or to help people 
get out of it. We know that TANF has not done enough to address the 
needs of the most vulnerable in our society. Reductions in poverty come 
as a result of economic growth. We know that more than 2 million people 
lost their jobs last year. We know that many people who get jobs 
through TANF end up working at low-income poverty wages, mired down at 
a level where they will never get out.
  I support the Cardin amendment. I support the Lee-Kucinich amendment. 
It is really our best hope. Reforming and reauthorizing a TANF program 
that not only takes people off welfare, but also takes people out of 
poverty should be the focus of this Congress, not simply passing a 
neatly packaged pig in a flight bag and calling it a welfare program.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the chairman of the Committee 
on Government Reform.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, we heard some of the same 
dire predictions from the other side when we passed this legislation 
originally in 1996. We heard predictions that the caseloads were going 
to rise, that unemployment was going to rise, that the child poverty 
level would reach all-time highs. In point of fact, the opposite has 
occurred. Instead, welfare rolls shrank as many Americans moved from 
welfare to work, from dependence to self-sufficiency.
  Over the last 6 years we have seen incredible results, results that 
need to

[[Page 3720]]

continue to spread for the benefit of our Nation as a whole. 3.6 
million fewer Americans live in poverty today than in 1996. Employment 
of single mothers is now more than 70 percent, which is an all-time 
high. Since 1994, welfare caseloads have fallen by 60 percent, today 
leaving less than 2 percent of the U.S. population on welfare. 
Moreover, crime has dropped, illegitimacy has declined, and abortions 
are rarer.
  A lot of good things came out of that legislation that we passed in 
1996.

                              {time}  1230

  We knew that the original system that was designed for a different 
time and a different era. It was designed for a time when most of the 
women were home. Most women did not work outside the home, and out-of-
wedlock births were rare; but times changed and we have reformed a 
system whose incentives were perverse that discouraged self-
sufficiency, that subsidized out-of-wedlock births, that trapped 
beneficiaries by making it too costly for them to go back to work 
because of the benefits that they would lose. By sharing this 
responsibility with the States, we are using the federalist model going 
back literally to a lot of innovation we get at the State level that is 
discouraged by Federal bureaucracies.
  This legislation takes us to the next step. I think it would return 
more people and move them off of the welfare rolls, on to payrolls, of 
building successful families and building a successful country. I want 
to thank the authors of this legislation, and I am proud to support it.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to just say that a lot of 
good things came out of the Clinton economy, and we can all be glad for 
what happened with that, but that economy is not the same.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Woolsey), my friend, for her persistence on this issue and her 
leadership on this issue.
  There is a national consensus in America that if people are able-
bodied to stay on welfare, they should have to work and the goal should 
be to work to get off of welfare. But there is also a national 
understanding, or there should be, that we cannot have a law that says 
people have to go to work if there are not any jobs for them to get. 
Today in America there are about 8 million people without a job looking 
for work and about 2\1/2\ million unfilled jobs being advertised. It 
makes no sense to tell people they must get a job that is not there. 
There is a national consensus that people should be good parents at the 
same time they are good workers. This bill would require people to hold 
down three full-time jobs if they want to really get out of poverty and 
advance their family: the job they have to hold down to stay off of 
welfare; the job they need to do to go to school on evenings or 
weekends or whatever time they can find to move out of poverty; and the 
job they need to do as a mom or a dad, which is their most important 
job. Requiring people to hold down three full-time jobs is a surefire 
recipe for more poverty and greater welfare rolls.
  And finally I thought there was a national consensus that we are 
going to stop telling State governments and State taxpayers what they 
had to do with their money. This bill contains $10 billion of unfunded 
mandates for the States at the time when they can least afford it. This 
bill violates an underlying bipartisan consensus for welfare reform. 
The Cardin bill, which the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) 
helped so actively to write, would instead carry out that bipartisan 
consensus. It deserves the support of every Member of this body.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Kingston), a member of our leadership team.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for 
yielding me this time.
  We have got a new freshman class this year; and a month ago one of 
the Members said to me, You have been in Congress 10 years. What is the 
most significant thing you have done?
  And I thought and I said, I believe it was supporting welfare reform. 
And here is why. In 1994 there were 14 million people on welfare. Today 
there are 5 million. Still too many, and yet 9 million people are now 
in the workplace, having a very positive effect, enjoying life and 
supporting themselves.
  Some of the principles that are very basic American principles in the 
welfare reform bill are promoting work, improving child care, promoting 
healthy marriages and strengthening families, fostering hope and 
opportunity. These are all basic American rights and giving those 9 
million people an opportunity to participate in them.
  Since 1996, work among welfare recipients has tripled. Employment of 
single mothers is now more than 70 percent, an all-time high. Since 
1994, welfare caseloads have fallen by 60 percent, leaving less than 2 
percent of the U.S. population on welfare. These are all significant 
and positive. The numbers go on: 3.6 million fewer Americans live in 
poverty today than they did in 1996; 2.7 million fewer children are in 
poverty today than in 1996. These are real changes, and we did this 
despite the rhetoric that we heard in 1996, which we are again hearing 
from the left who like status quo and do not like change. They address 
children.
  Look at the facts on children. This bill increases child care 
funding. It improves child care quality and strengthens child care 
support, and that is something that we could get into on another topic. 
Look at the numbers. The increase in child care expenditures under 
welfare reform goes from $3 billion to $9.7 billion. If the Members 
want to help children like those of Bruce Mullins, help pass this bill 
because these are real people. It has had a positive effect on them, 
and I believe that our actions today will not always be known by all 
the people who can benefit from it; but our actions will be felt by 
those, and therefore I support this bill and I thank the gentleman from 
Ohio.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Kildee), one of the leaders in education.
  Mr. KILDEE. I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Republican welfare bill and 
in support of the Cardin-Woolsey-Kind Democratic substitute. Mr. 
Chairman, much has changed from the last Congress when we last debated 
this legislation. Our States are facing deep financial deficits. States 
are cutting health care programs, funding for the schools and 
universities, and struggling to ensure their citizens have employment. 
The bill we are debating today does not recognize these dire times for 
our States.
  The Republican bill would increase work requirements when 8.3 million 
Americans are out of work. The Republican bill fails to provide 
adequate child care funding, relegating many of the children to 
substandard or unsafe child care arrangements. The Republican welfare 
bill actually reduces education and training opportunities for TANF 
recipients. Fortunately, the Democratic substitute offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Woolsey), and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) provides us 
with a viable alternative to improve this country's welfare system. The 
Cardin substitute would allow 24 months of education and training to 
permit a TANF recipient to get the skills they need to acquire a good-
paying job. The Cardin substitute would increase child care funding by 
$11 billion over the next 5 years. The Cardin amendment also ensures 
that TANF recipients do work by requiring that 70 percent of welfare 
recipients are engaged in work activities.
  Today's debate should not be a debate over whose bill forces more 
welfare recipients to work longer hours. Instead, we should be focused 
on how the system can help individuals to acquire long-term, high-
paying jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to defeat the Republican bill and to 
support the Cardin-Woolsey-Kind substitute.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
South

[[Page 3721]]

Carolina (Mr. Wilson), a valued member of our committee.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, it is an honor for me to be here today to speak on 
behalf of the reauthorization of welfare reform. I worked on welfare 
reform in the South Carolina State senate 7 years ago. I heard the same 
arguments, that it would not work; and we were able in South Carolina 
to enact welfare reform, and exactly like the Republican Congress in 
1996, reduce the caseload, provide jobs for people, provide training, 
the child care and the health care. It was the greatest experience, and 
it has been the most exciting activity. I agree with the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Kingston), it is the most exciting activity that I have 
participated in in legislation.
  Additionally, there has been some question as to whether we have had 
sufficient meetings. Last year I was very fortunate thanks to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) to be working on this 
issue. We met dozens of times. It was all very positive. And the effect 
has been, as the Savannah Morning News and the Carolina Morning News 
have reported, that welfare reform has been the most successful social 
program in the last 50 years. So I am excited to be here. It speaks for 
itself, and I urge a positive vote today on reauthorization.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), a valued member of the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce.
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4, the 
Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Protection Act. I opposed this 
bill last year when we had the same debate. Since then more workers 
have lost their jobs, more families have lost their homes, and more 
Americans are in need of Federal assistance. Jobs are scarce as 
businesses continue to fail. Instead of considering a new bill that 
reflects this new economic environment, the Republican leadership has 
brought to the floor the same inadequate bill from last year. Education 
and training should be the cornerstones upon which this legislation is 
written. We should be stressing basic literacy, English as a second 
language, GED completion, and on-the-job training, rather than 
cynically labeling them welfare scholarships.
  In my congressional district I have seen how education can bring 
economic prosperity to one of the poorest regions in the country. Our 
unemployment rates have dropped from over 20 percent to almost 10 
percent, and we lead the State of Texas in job creation. I urge my 
colleagues to vote against the Republican bill. It is the wrong bill at 
the wrong time.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), a valued member of the committee.
  Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to rise in support of H.R. 4. 
I think that H.R. 4 addresses some of the issues that have become 
increasingly problematic to our young people, and I observed some of 
these problems in over 36 years of coaching.
  Back in 1960 when I started out, roughly 5 percent of our athletes 
came from broken homes. Today, roughly one half of our marriages end in 
divorce. Fifty percent of our young people spend part or all of their 
childhood without both biological parents. So as time went on, I began 
to see more and more young men that I was working with carry a lot of 
emotional baggage, having their lives disrupted in various ways. 
Currently, we have 18 million fatherless children in our country, and 
when their dads do not care enough to stick around and see what they 
look like, they have a vacuum in their lives and they try to fill that 
vacuum with all the wrong stuff, gangs, drugs, promiscuity, and so on. 
So one of the aspects of H.R. 4 that I think is particularly important 
is the healthy marriage program. An example that happened in my 
district recently was a young couple who were pretty much thrown out of 
both houses, their homes, and an older couple mentored them and made a 
tremendous difference. So we think this is very important and certainly 
support H.R. 4.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman (Ms. 
Woolsey), my former colleague on the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce, for yielding me this time.
  I rise to voice my opposition to H.R. 4, the so-called Personal 
Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act. How our names sometimes 
get in the way! H.R. 4 is not the solution to what we need to do. There 
has been success in lowering welfare rolls since 1996, but it was the 
good economy that did this, not welfare reform; and I would love to see 
numbers for welfare recipients for 2002 instead of just going back to 
when our economy took the dip in 2001.
  We all know that education is the silver bullet and it is the key 
that helps individuals find higher-paying jobs which lift them out of 
poverty and achieve the American dream, but this bill makes the same 
mistakes as its predecessor by limiting recipients' access to education 
and training. Without these services, welfare beneficiaries are trapped 
in those low-paying jobs. The best solution to welfare is a job that 
pays a decent wage. This legislation will also have disastrous effects 
on our State budgets because it imposes strict new requirements but 
provides absolutely no funding. For example, it increases the work 
requirements to 70 percent, which philosophically I do not mind; but 
currently in my home State of Texas it is struggling to maintain its 
participation at 26 percent. It will cost the State of Texas $688 
million when we already have a $12 billion shortfall.

                              {time}  1245

  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to talk about a very large 
and important group of my constituents that the Republican TANF bill is 
completely ignoring.
  This Republican bill is completely ignoring legal immigrants. This 
bill denies even its smallest safety net for families who are 
diligently making their way through the legal immigration process 
towards becoming full citizens of our country. This bill is ignoring 
people across the U.S. who pay taxes, who support their communities 
and, according to Alan Greenspan yesterday, are a positive factor for 
U.S. economic growth.
  This bill is hurting children and families, especially in States with 
large immigrant populations like mine in New York. New York State, 
under a Republican governor, understands the necessary reality of 
providing some benefits to legal immigrants.
  Moreover, immigrants, on average, contribute more in tax dollars than 
they get back through government services and benefits, and the bulk of 
the dollars immigrants contribute in taxes go to the Federal 
Government. Yet, when immigrants fall on temporary hard times, the 
Federal Government chooses to ignore them, and this Republican bill 
today ignores them as well.
  If we are a nation of immigrants, then this Republican bill is not 
only irresponsible, it is also a slap in the face to our Nation's 
heritage. This Republican bill is not about finding a solution to 
poverty; it is about exacerbating the class warfare in this country, it 
is about dividing and conquering, and unfortunately they are conquering 
and winning.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
California for yielding the time, and for her great work on the effort 
to make this bill a better bill.
  Mr. Chairman, since the implementation of TANF, California has 
tripled the number of welfare recipients who are today working. Cash 
aid has decreased by 45 percent and caseloads

[[Page 3722]]

have declined more than 40 percent. H.R. 4 will not help California or 
any other State continue to make such progress.
  The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) and the others who have 
worked on this substitute are offering a good measure. The substitute 
calls for tough, real work requirements that move welfare recipients 
into meaningful employment. The substitute gives States flexibility to 
create programs that prioritize efficiency over the majority's one-
size-fits-all model.
  The substitute gives States the resources needed to enact these new 
tougher mandates, unlike the majority's bill that provides $11 billion 
in unfunded mandates that no State can afford. It will cost California 
alone $2.5 billion over the next 5 years.
  The substitute balances tough work requirements with financial 
resources that are necessary to move people into working jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to support the Cardin-Woolsey-
Kind substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The success of the 1996 welfare reform law is beyond dispute. Even 
the New York Times has called it an ``obvious success.'' The debate 
today has been about how to build on that success and how to put even 
more Americans on the path to self-reliance.
  While it is true that the 1996 reforms significantly reduced welfare 
caseloads, we still have a lot of work to do. A majority of TANF 
recipients today are still not working for their benefits.
  The Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act builds 
upon the best aspects of the 1996 welfare reform law. It strengthens 
work requirements, enhances flexibility for States and localities, and 
it does so while providing States with significantly more funding for 
child care, which is crucial for welfare families transitioning into 
the workforce.
  President Bush stated that no level of despair should be acceptable 
in our society. With this new legislation we help some of the most 
vulnerable members of our society achieve independence and self-
sufficiency.
  I urge my colleagues today to support the welfare reform law, H.R. 4.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Tauzin) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) each will control 15 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4, the Personal 
Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act of 2003. This bill does a 
number of things that are very important to the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce that I chair. It contains an extension of funding for the 
abstinence-only education, and also reauthorizes transitional medical 
assistance, and I want to speak to both of these issues briefly.
  The 1996 welfare reform law included a permanent appropriation of $50 
million over 5 years for abstinence-only education under title V of the 
Social Security Act. With tight State budgets and a requirement that 
States must match every 4 Federal dollars with 3 of their own, it is 
noteworthy that almost every State in the Union has now participated in 
this block grant program. The high rate of State interest suggests that 
abstinence-only education is indeed one of the ways to address the 
terrible problems of teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases 
in our society.
  Last year, my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Bilirakis), the chairman of our Subcommittee on Health, held a hearing 
on abstinence-only education. It was an eye opener.
  At that hearing we learned that problems stemming from increased 
sexual activity among teens has not abated at all in this country. Even 
though teen birth rates have declined, we still have the highest teen 
birth rates of any industrialized nation in the world, and sexually 
transmitted diseases have grown dramatically. Every day in America, 
10,000 young people contract a sexually transmitted disease, 2,400 
become pregnant, and 55 contract HIV.
  When we were growing up in the 1960s, there were really only two 
sexually transmitted diseases that were of a real concern. Now we are 
aware of more than 25, and the diseases that are primarily affecting 
young people today are now the viral diseases, such as human 
papillomavirus, herpes and chlamydia.
  Mr. Chairman, these viral diseases cannot be cured. They are 
incurable sexually transmitted diseases. Chlamydia, for example, a 
major cause of infertility in young women, is asymptomatic in up to 85 
percent of the cases. That means for 85 percent of the young women 
contracting this sexually transmitted disease, which is incurable, they 
may lose their opportunity ever to bear a child, ever to become a 
mother, ever to experience the joys and the tremendous rewards of 
motherhood.
  One of the other things we learned was that 50 percent of the 
sexually active young women between the ages of 18 and 22 are now 
infected with the papillomavirus, or HPV. Now, this is a virus, again 
we learn, that most young women do not realize they have, because again 
it is asymptomatic in most cases. But what we have learned about it is 
that it is a precursor, it is one of the incurable diseases that often 
leads to cervical cancer. And guess what else we learned? We learned 
that there is no evidence whatsoever that condoms reduce the sexual 
transmission of this infection.
  These statistics are terrifying. But they show that the safer sex 
model has not solved all of these problems despite more than 20 years 
of a variety of education programs aimed at promoting condom or 
contraception use.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues, for the sake of these young men 
and women in our society who are being infected by these incurable 
diseases, many of which will cause them incredible damage in their 
lives, and they are not aware, that we extend the abstinence-only 
education programs under H.R. 4. H.R. 4 simply maintains the status 
quo, extends the level of funding of $50 million each year through the 
year 2008.
  New research is beginning to suggest that abstinence-only education 
can effectively address the prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases 
among young people and the proportion of births occurring to unmarried 
mothers. We must continue indeed that effort begun in 1996 and support 
abstinence-only education programs that empower students to choose 
abstinence for themselves, while receiving the relevant facts and 
information that would make them want to make that choice.
  The 1996 welfare reform law also included a critical work support for 
former welfare recipients called transitional medical assistance.
  Former welfare recipients typically enter low-wage jobs that do not 
offer private health insurance coverage or offer coverage with very 
expensive premiums. Transitional medical assistance extends up to a 
year of Medicaid coverage to these individuals and their families. This 
is the bridge of health care coverage that helps take young people out 
of welfare and into the workforce with adequate medical coverage in the 
bridge years.
  There is strong bipartisan support for this assistance, which 
provides a valuable incentive for people to move off of welfare into 
work, and this 1 year reauthorization of transitional medical 
assistance will have a 5-year cost of $355 million.
  Because funding was not included, Mr. Chairman, in the last year's 
budget resolution, we had to find the money to pay for it, so H.R. 4 
includes a limited offset to do so.
  We recognize the Medicaid budget difficulties many States are 
currently experiencing and important functions that are funded with 
Medicaid administrative costs, and for that reason, the offset included 
in H.R. 4 is merely a partial adjustment that lasts for only 2 years 
and pays for the 1-year extension of this important program.

[[Page 3723]]

  Before 1996, common costs for administering food stamps, Medicaid and 
welfare were often charged to the AFDC program, the predecessor of the 
TANF program. These common costs have been included in the calculation 
of each State's TANF funds. The offset reduces Federal reimbursement 
for Medicaid administrative costs to reflect the portion of these costs 
that are already included in the TANF block grants the States receive.
  In effect, this offset for the 2-year period deals with a problem we 
already corrected in the food stamp program in 1998, this double 
reimbursement for administrative costs. This is a partial adjustment 
that lasts for only 2 years and then phases out.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 4, which indeed 
responsibly pays for the 1-year reauthorization of transitional medical 
assistance. I know there are many in this room who would like us to 
extend it for longer than a year. We simply have problems funding it in 
this bill at this time.
  We recognize the careful balance we have achieved between the offset 
and this 1-year reauthorization, and commit ourselves to revisiting the 
issue again next year so that this important program can be continued.
  I urge Members to join me in full support of this important 
legislation.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\3/4\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, we should pass a welfare reform bill that is realistic 
about what people need to transition from welfare to good, paying, 
lasting jobs. It is in no one's best interest to see people transition 
from welfare to work and back onto welfare. If we underinvest in job 
training and child care and other support services, we are setting 
welfare reform up for failure and wasting money.
  The Democrat bill invests in permanent change. The Republican bill 
does not. From a public policy perspective, from a fiscal perspective, 
the Democratic bill makes sense.
  Transitional medical assistance is a program that provides health 
coverage for families leaving welfare. Individuals moving off welfare 
wind up in jobs that do not offer health coverage, or if it is offered, 
it is simply too expensive. Transitional medical assistance allows 
these families to keep Medicaid coverage so that getting a job does not 
mean giving up one's health insurance.
  The Republican bill only extends the TMA program for 1 year. There is 
no logic for that. It is temporary assistance, not a temporary program. 
The Democratic bill is up front about this and makes transitional 
Medicaid assistance permanent.
  Of added concern, Republicans would cut other parts of Medicaid in 
order to pay for this extension. It makes no sense to take coverage 
from some people so that others can keep it. It is illogical.
  The second provision extends title V abstinence-only sex education, 
but locks States into a inflexible curriculum. It is controversial and 
rightly so. The President and House Republicans' message on welfare for 
years has been loud and clear, States need greater flexibility. But 
when it comes to another critically important program, abstinence 
education, Republicans are unwilling to afford the States the same 
flexibility. Let me make that clear.
  The substitute bill we are offering today supports abstinence 
education. No one disputes the benefits of teaching abstinence. Under 
our substitute, if a State chooses to continue its abstinence-only 
education program, it can. But our substitute offers States the right, 
the States' rights, if you will, the right to develop an education 
program that teaches abstinence and comprehensive contraception.
  Our substitute requires any curriculum funded with Federal dollars to 
be scientifically and medically accurate. On that, again my Republican 
friends fall far short.
  The Democratic substitute requires Federal dollars fund only programs 
proven to be effective in delaying sex. It requires a report to 
Congress comparing abstinence-only education to programs that teach 
about abstinence and contraceptives. We should listen to the needs of 
parents and children; 80 percent of them support abstinence and 
contraceptive education for their children.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
4, the Personal Responsibility, underlined, the Personal 
Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act of 2003. In particular, I 
would like to lend my strong support to provisions in the welfare bill 
that our committee included in the package last year, and I am 
speaking, of course, of the abstinence-only education funds which are 
provided through title V of the Social Security Act and a 1-year 
extension of transitional medical assistance.
  Last year, the Committee on Energy and Commerce approved a 5-year 
reauthorization of the title V abstinence-only education funding, and I 
am pleased to see that this language is again included in this year's 
reauthorization of welfare reform. This important program provides $50 
million in annual funding to States for abstinence education. These 
abstinence-only education funds were first included as part of the 1996 
welfare reform law; and today, 49, 49 of the 50 States have elected to 
participate in this very important program.
  I am pleased that my own State of Florida has elected to participate 
also. In fact, during my subcommittee's hearing last year, we heard 
just how effective these programs can be. Participants in ReCapturing 
the Vision, a program that operates in an impoverished area of Miami-
Dade County, have only a 1.1 percent teen pregnancy rate, a 1.1 percent 
teen pregnancy rate.
  By continuing title V funding for another 5 years, we can encourage 
the development of more successful programs like ReCapturing the 
Vision. This is so critically important, because the consequences of 
ill-advised sexual activity by young people is certainly severe. As we 
all agree, abstinence is the only sure way to prevent the spread of 
sexually transmitted diseases as well as out-of-wedlock pregnancies.
  The bill also reauthorizes the Transitional Medical Assistance 
program, or TMA. TMA ensures that low-income individuals who are 
leaving welfare and entering the workforce will continue to have access 
to health insurance for an additional, let us be clear, for an 
additional year past, past when they would normally become ineligible 
for Medicaid. This removes a powerful disincentive to leaving welfare 
and provides numerous low-income individuals with critical support as 
they work towards economic self-sufficiency. This provision is even 
more important today as we see the number of uninsured increasing.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to vote for this bill. It has been 
proven, it has worked, and we have to continue it.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), a registered nurse.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. 
We cannot ask mothers with small children to put in more hours of work 
without ensuring that their children will be cared for. This bill does 
not do that. It is unreasonable and flies in the face of family values.
  We must increase funding for child care to ensure that we do not harm 
poor families and single parents. Additionally, the abstinence-only 
provisions of this bill should be removed. Our children should be 
taught abstinence, yes; but they also need to learn the facts about sex 
so that they know how to make good choices to protect themselves. 
Otherwise they will simply get misinformation from television, the 
movies, and their friends. We must trust parents and teachers to know 
how to educate their own children.
  This morning at a hearing here on Capitol Hill, I heard the Secretary 
of State, Colin Powell, address the Global AIDS Initiative. He said 
that in addition to promoting abstinence, our U.S. AIDS programs abroad 
also emphasize full education and protection. If these

[[Page 3724]]

are our policies abroad, should they not also be our policies here at 
home?
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from the great State of Florida (Mr. Stearns), the 
distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and 
Consumer Protection.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, we talk here about abstinence. We have to 
look no further than Uganda for proof of the effectiveness of 
abstinence in the fight against HIV and AIDS.
  Riddled with HIV infections since the 1970s, Uganda took the first 
step. It found that through community education efforts, they could 
develop a strategy to prevent more HIV/AIDS patients; and in fact, a 
study done by Harvard University has proven that promotion of 
abstinence through billboards, radio programs, and school sex education 
curricula has resulted in a slow and steady drop in HIV infection 
rates, as well as new attitudes about conquering AIDS in Uganda. So we 
have proof positive from this study that abstinence works.
  When the program started in the late 1980s, the number of pregnant 
women infected with HIV was 21.2 percent. By 2001, the number had 
dropped dramatically to 6.2 percent. The Harvard study also reported 
Uganda adults are not having as much risky sex. Of women 15 and older, 
those reporting many sexual partners dropped from 18.4 percent in 1989 
to 2.5 percent in the year 2000. The emphasis is on abstinence in 
Uganda's program. It is unique all through Africa.
  In other nations where HIV infections are high, such as Zimbabwe, 
condoms have been promoted as an answer to ending the AIDS crisis. But 
we cannot ignore, we just cannot ignore this study from Harvard or 
ignore the success of the abstinence program in Uganda.
  Mr. Chairman, the welfare reform package we consider today goes a 
long way in achieving our goal of empowering families, promoting 
independence through work and lifting millions of Americans out of 
poverty. One particular aspect that is of great encouragement to me is 
that this bill includes $50 million to provide for abstinence 
education. Educators, health workers, government officials, 
entertainment and news media outlets bombard children with the wrong 
messages. It is increasingly clear that unbridled sexual activity is 
hurting our youth: sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), AIDS, 
abortion, unintended pregnancy, fatherlessness, crime, welfare, 
violence and poverty are rampant social diseases. According to a survey 
by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, most Americans 
support abstinence for teens as a way of diffusing these damaging 
messages.
  We need look no further than Uganda for proof of the effectiveness of 
abstinence in the fight against HIV/AIDS. Riddled with HIV infections 
since the 1970s, Uganda has found miraculous success by using 
abstinence as its prevention strategy. A study done by Harvard 
University has proven that promotion of abstinence through billboards, 
radio programs and school sex education curricula has resulted in a 
slow and steady drop in HIV infection rates, as well as new attitudes 
about conquering AIDS in Uganda. When the program started in the late 
1980s, the number of pregnant women infected with HIV was 21.2 percent. 
By 2001, the number was 6.2 percent. The Harvard study also reported 
Ugandan adults are not having as much risky sex: of women 15 and older, 
those reporting many sexual partners dropped from 18.4 percent in 1989 
to 2.5 percent in 2000.
  The emphasis on abstinence in Uganda's program is unique. In other 
nations with high HIV infections, such as Zimbabwe and Botswana, 
condoms have been promoted as the answer to ending the AIDS crisis. In 
Botswana, 38 percent of pregnant women were HIV positive last year, 
contrasted with 6.2 percent of Ugandan women. We cannot ignore the 
success of abstinence programs in our country and throughout the world 
and for this reason we must explore this option.
  Sexual disease and the negative results from unwanted pregnancies 
cross physical borders, and are a recognizable concern for all nations 
and all people. This problem can only be addressed through the 
exploration of proven and effective methods of sexual education. It is 
time we give serious thought to the unique initiative of abstinence-
based health education.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4, and I do 
so with extreme disappointment today.
  As one that worked awfully hard in 1996 with both sides of the aisle 
in coming up with a welfare reform bill, working with my own State, 
working with the providers of welfare, working with the recipients of 
welfare, working with the business community, we came up with a good 
compromise bill.
  Now, I am disappointed that we are taking the same bill that was 
passed last year, without legislative input, and bringing the same bill 
up today without committee action and the nonrecognition that the 
economy has changed since last year.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4 would severely restrict the flexibility of 
States such as Texas to continue the activities that have been 
successful in their welfare reform bills. According to CBO, it will 
cost Texas $688 million over 5 years to pay for the Washington-mandated 
policies in this bill. Texas cannot afford these enormous expenses at 
the same time that we face a $9.9 billion budget shortfall and a 
sagging economy that continues to reduce State revenue. This will force 
Texas to drastically cut back on basic services or raise taxes, and 
they are not going to do that. It would be the height of arrogance for 
me to stand here in Washington and vote to require Texas to increase 
taxes or cut spending on other programs to implement policies that the 
Texas legislature has already considered and rejected in favor of other 
policies which have been proven to work.
  Vote down H.R. 4; support the Cardin substitute. It will be much 
better for the State of Texas and other States.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from the great State of Michigan (Mr. Upton), 
the chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4.
  Mr. Chairman, welfare reform in the past did not work. We did not 
have it. It was welfare under the old system. We did not have reform. 
We passed welfare reform then; and President Clinton, after a couple of 
vetoes, ended up signing the bill, and we established a base to get our 
States out of the trouble that they were in.
  Last year, this House passed a bipartisan proposal to again move the 
process forward, but there were some in the other body who chose not to 
take that legislation up. This year, we are acting a little quicker.
  There are two very important components of this legislation. One is 
the abstinence-only education which provides $50 million each year to 
the States under a matching program. It does not take away from other 
programs, it works, and we have seen teen pregnancy rates drop 
dramatically in those States that have used it. In my State, a 40 
percent drop.
  The second thing that we did was we removed the incentive for people 
to stay on welfare in lots of ways. Primarily what we did, though, 
through TMA, transitional medical assistance, we are able to say to 
those folks that were on welfare and knew that by taking a job they 
would lose their Medicaid for themselves and their kids, that that is 
not going to happen, that we provided the transition so that those 
families could take a job, get into the workforce, move up the ladder, 
that they would not lose that provision that would otherwise have taken 
away their health insurance. We changed that. TMA is in this bill, it 
was the bill that we helped write in our subcommittee, it was done, and 
it is part of this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support it and 
move the bill again to the other body so that we can see this 
legislation reach the President's desk.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4, legislation 
reauthorizing the very successful 1996 welfare reform act. As a senior 
member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Education and 
the Workforce Committee, two of the three House committees with 
jurisdiction over welfare reform, I have worked closely with my 
colleagues to further strengthen this legislation so that more families 
can know the benefits of personal responsibility, work, and stronger 
family units.

[[Page 3725]]

  I'd like to focus today on two key components of the 1996 law that I 
have taken the lead on--the reauthorization of the Transitional Medical 
Assistance program and the Title V abstinence education block grant 
program.
  One of the greatest disincentives to leaving the welfare rolls is the 
loss of Medicaid coverage for oneself and one's family. H.R. 4 
reauthorizes the Transitional Medical Assistance program, which will 
ensure that individuals leaving welfare for employment have guaranteed 
health care coverage for up to one year.
  H.R. 4 also reauthorizes the Title V abstinence education program at 
the current funding level of $50 million a year. When we passed welfare 
reform, we emphasized work and personal responsibility. We have made 
great strides in promoting work, but too many of young people's dreams 
are still being cut short by poor personal decisions that dramatically 
affect the course of their lives. Teen birth rates have been falling, 
but nearly \1/2\ million teens in this country give birth each year--a 
rate higher than those of most industrialized nations. And 8,519 births 
are to girls under the age of 15. We know that out-of-wedlock births 
and teen births take a high toll--on the child, the teen mother, and 
our society as a whole.
  Further, sexually transmitted diseases have reached epidemic 
proportions, placing the health and very lives our young people in 
serious peril. In the 1960s, one in 47 sexually active teens was 
infected with a sexually transmitted disease. Today, one in four is 
infected.
  It is important to note that State participation in the Title V 
abstinence education program is voluntary, and this is not free money 
to the States. States have to match every 4 federal dollars they 
receive with three dollars of their own. Yet today, 49 of the 50 states 
are participating.
  Anyone who doesn't think abstinence education works has only to 
examine my State of Michigan's record. The State began its own program 
in 1993--the Michigan Abstinence Partnership program. One reason that 
it works so well is its emphasis on involving entire communities--
parents, teachers, health professionals, youth leaders, youth 
organizations, and community leaders--in developing programs tailored 
to their unique needs. Michigan's teen pregnancy rates have dropped 40 
percent in the targeted group of 15-17 year olds, and for the last 
several years, Michigan has been one of up to five states rewarded by 
the Department of Health and Human Services for achieving the largest 
decrease in their ratios of out-of-wedlock to total births while also 
experiencing a reduction in their abortion rates.
  Abstinence education programs are much more than ``just say no'' 
programs. They are positive, motivational programs that give young 
people the information and inspiration they need to think of their 
futures and abstain not only from sexual activity but also from drug 
and alcohol use.
  Mr. Chairman, President Bush got it exactly right when he said that 
abstinence is not just about saying no to sex, it is about saying yes 
to a happy, healthier future.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the underlying bill 
and in support of the Cardin substitute and in outrage for the 
circumvention of the committee process.
  Mr. Chairman, last year in the Education and the Workforce Committee, 
we sat down and discussed TANF reauthorization extensively. We had 
several days' worth of hearings at both the committee and subcommittee 
level before a two-day markup in full committee. Two other committees--
Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce--worked on the bill at the same 
time. Then the leadership of the majority party brought the bill to the 
floor, they only allowed two hours of debate and no amendments were 
permitted. This was an egregious example of the political partisanship 
and poor procedure that has dominated the House in recent years. But 
this year, the situation is even worse; no committees looked at the 
bill. The entire committee process was ignored, and again we have is no 
opportunity for real debate or amendment on the floor.
  Mr. Chairman, I don't know if some of my colleagues have noticed, but 
since we last looked at TANF reauthorization, we've had an election. 
Aren't the new members of this body entitled to hear more this bill? 
Aren't they entitled to their say in committee? We've also seen our 
economic situation get worse last year. Unemployment has gone up. 
Wouldn't it be a good idea for the committees to discuss the effects of 
these factors? Is it wise to ignore any potential new research that may 
have been conducted?
  I'm not going to speculate as to why the leadership found it 
necessary to circumvent the committee process. But this is a dangerous 
precedent to set, and we should do more than give a cursory examination 
when we reauthorize the program providing assistance to the neediest of 
our families.
  Not only should we have looked at this bill in committees, but we 
should also be focusing more on trying to find the facts behind 
temporary assistance in this country. Welfare reform is still an 
experiment in progress. We still do not know what happens to people who 
leave the welfare rolls. Are they working? Are the unemployed? Are they 
simply off the rolls? What factors contribute to the ability of people 
to comply with TANF work requirements? No one knows for sure.
  That's why as we go through this reauthorization process, it is 
vitally important that we improve the research and data reporting in 
TANF. In order to make informed decisions on the directions that TANF 
and CCDBG should take we need more information on the issue.
  I believe that while maintaining pressure on the states to move 
people from welfare to work, the renewed TANF should also help families 
move up the job and income ladders. We should eliminate the caseload 
reduction credit and phase in an employment credit. For each 1% of the 
caseload that obtains employment, the work participation rate would be 
reduced by 1%. In addition, there would be extra credit for recipients 
who obtain higher paying jobs. Another way of assisting families in 
moving up the income ladder is giving people the tools to get a good 
job with the potential for advancement, not a dead-end make-work job. 
We need to provide the training for individuals trying to get jobs. 
This is how we can ensure that families will not return to the welfare 
rolls.
  We must also give parents what they need to achieve the work 
requirements. First and foremost, this means providing funding for 
quality childcare. A parent will not make a reliable employee if he or 
she is always concerns about the quality of their child's care, or 
cannot get childcare at all. If welfare recipients are going to get 
real jobs that uplift their self-sufficiency and if children are going 
to have the care and attention they need to grow positively, we must 
need good childcare programs.
  Mr. Chairman, all these issues could have been brought up in 
committee. All of them could have been considered during markup or 
addressed by witnesses during hearings. But we never got the chance. 
And while I laud the goal of providing TANF recipients with the 
resources to move from welfare to work. I cannot support this bill and 
I cannot condone the circumvention of the legislative process.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), who establishes his health care 
credentials very well.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Cardin substitute 
on the basis that not all welfare reform plans are created equal. The 
Cardin plan, I believe, is the superior plan for one basic reason. That 
reason is that it will work. It will work where the rubber meets the 
road, which is actually getting people to have livable-wage jobs, 
rather than to put them in temporary make-work positions where they are 
going to wind up right back up on the public assistance program.
  The reason I believe it will fundamentally succeed is that the Cardin 
plan recognizes the reality that without providing people child care 
while they are going to school, while they are going to vocational 
school, while they are going to community college, they will not 
succeed in breaking the chains of poverty. The Cardin plan makes 
allotments to States to allow that to happen.
  I have to tell my colleagues, the States are in big trouble and they 
are incapable of doing this job right now without assistance. In my 
area, at the Edmonds Community College, Shoreline Community College, we 
have enrollments at Shoreline Community College of thousands of 
students over-enrolled in this program to break the chains of poverty. 
We need to give these students child care to make sure kids are not 
waiting in the parking lot while mothers are in, or fathers are in, 
retraining but, in fact, are cared for during their development years.
  I have to say that this is going to cost the State of Washington $144 
million. Where is the help from Uncle Sam? The Cardin bill will do it. 
It will make welfare reform work.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). The Chair would advise the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) that he has 1 minute remaining

[[Page 3726]]

and the right to close, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) has 8 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson), and I am reminded that 
Governor Davis has talked about the inflexibility and mandates of the 
Republican plan.
  Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, the bill that is on the floor today comes 
without any committee consideration by either the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce or the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Yesterday, I testified before the Committee on Rules on two 
amendments that would ensure fair and equitable access to ex-drug 
offenders, since the President pointed out in his State of the Union 
that we need to do more to rehabilitate ex-drug offenders, and also one 
that would protect the Federal civil rights and workplace rights for 
welfare recipients. Like so many other amendments, they were summarily 
rejected. My bills were fair and reasonable, and I believe they 
deserved a chance.
  H.R. 4 imposes massive and costly new mandates on States that they 
cannot afford. My State alone has a $35 billion shortfall. The billions 
of new costs that States are being asked to burden will force many 
States to raise taxes and cut necessary services. Cutting services will 
include a reduction in welfare programs such as child care, 
transportation, and skills training to make welfare recipients job-
ready. Is this reform? No, it is not.
  Implementing the Republican proposals in California will cost our 
State an additional $2.8 billion over the next 5 years, and we do not 
have the money.

                              {time}  1315

  Without additional funding, the costs for child care in California 
alone are projected to increase by $130 million. Reject this bill.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford).
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, the crux of a lot of this, no one disagrees 
with a lot of what the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) has touted 
in terms of this abstinence program, there may be some issues that need 
to be worked through, but all of us are in support of curtailing the 
transmission of sexually transmitted disease.
  The challenge, I think, that many of us have with this is that the 
Republican approach, in addition to some of the procedural challenges 
raised most recently by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson), 
is that many of the freshman Members have never had an opportunity to 
hear this committee or hear a debate or to have hearings to talk a 
little bit about what the bill will accomplish. We did not even have it 
marked up.
  Some may say we focus too much on process, but it is important for 
those who have only been here a little over a month now to have that 
opportunity.
  Two, we constantly complain in this Chamber about imposing unfunded 
mandates on States. Coupled with the fact that so many States as has 
already been mentioned, including my home State of Tennessee, faced 
with some $350 to $400 million in shortfall which pales in comparison 
to California, Florida, Texas and New York, nonetheless these are real 
dollars for real people. Here we are now imposing another unfunded 
mandate on the States.
  As much as I appreciate the vigor, the zeal of many of my friends on 
the other side of the aisle, and many on this side who support the 
abstinence programs and other aspects of the this bill, we need not kid 
ourselves. Unemployment is up. Many of the economic factors and 
indicators of the past 4 to 6 years that have moved in the right 
direction are not moving in the right direction for a variety of 
reasons.
  It is my hope that we can all see fit to support the Cardin 
substitute, not because it is a Democratic substitute or because it is 
not the Republican bill; because it actually provides States with the 
resources to do all of the things that all of us hope we can do, which 
is move people from welfare to work.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I oppose H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility, 
Work and Family and Promotion Act.
  I opposed this bill during the last Congress and I oppose it now. For 
as long as I remain in this House, I will oppose any bill that claims 
to help American families while punishing them. I oppose H.R. 4 because 
it offers no educational opportunities, and I state, no educational 
opportunities. It does not provide for adequate funding for child care, 
for child care, I state. It is very important to a lot of us.
  It does not restore the benefits to legal permanent residents.
  I am tired of bills that pretend to promote families, that pretend to 
promote families. I am tired of bills that tell the unemployed that you 
are just lazy.
  Unemployment rates are steadily climbing in our country. It is time 
we get serious about fixing our problem. If you ask any person on 
welfare in this country if they would be rather working, overwhelmingly 
the majority would say yes. They desire to work and we should make sure 
we do increase the workforce.
  We are at a time in our country where we do not have the employment 
right now, and more and more people are in poverty. And yet we are 
asking many of these individuals to go out and fight for this country. 
And yet we are willing to put more people out in the streets and not 
provide jobs. We should be providing jobs.
  We should be providing educational training, vocational programs. We 
need to have access to English language training. We needs more access 
to literacy programs. Jobs in this country are becoming scarce. We need 
to provide help for people.
  I oppose this legislation.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). The gentleman from Ohio has 
3\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) has 
1 minute remaining.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, 
and I associate myself with his opening remarks.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to try to inject a heavy dose of economic 
reality into what has been a morning of self-congratulation. TANF was 
not a success because of our brilliance, Mr. Chairman. The economy more 
than any other factor made TANF a success, yet this bill ignores the 
economic cycles and is on automatic pilot going in precisely the wrong 
direction.
  This is the worst economy in 15 years. Yet we are increasing the 
hours of work for those who receive TANF and increasing the percentage 
of families in work-related activities. We have got 6 percent 
unemployment for those who are already in the workforce with skills. 
What worries me most, Mr. Chairman, is that TANF has already creamed 
off the most ready to work, yet we are raising requirements for the 
hardest to place. This is nuts.
  This bill is a recipe for failure, not the success we have enjoyed. 
Look at the racial composition. We are told, hey, we have reduced the 
rolls. Are the rolls really down? For whites, they are down 5.8 
percent; for blacks, they are up 2.1 percent. This is since 1996. And 
for Hispanics they are up 5.2 percent. In the third quarter, 39 States 
had increased welfare rolls.
  In the face of these difficulties, we need more flexibility, not 
less. Less prescriptiveness, this is the opposite of what this bill is 
giving us. We know how to respond to economic cycles when it comes to 
business and when it comes to those who have been in the workforce. We 
must respond in the same rational way to those left on TANF, 
particularly considering that they are the hardest to place.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman from Louisiana 
(Mr. Tauzin) have the right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Yes, that is correct.

[[Page 3727]]


  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) who is a new member of the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4 and in support of 
the Cardin-Kind-Woolsey substitute and the Mink properly named 
substitute, which both take a giant leap forward in addressing the 
needs of the poor.
  Let us talk about jobs. President Bush and the Republicans want to 
eliminate a tax on dividends when the only work involved in that is 
opening up an envelope. People who go to work every single day, who 
earn the same amount of money, now they are going to have to pay taxes 
on that. And let us try and instill then a work ethic in poor people.
  Well, I want to say, poor people want to work. Where are those jobs? 
Poor people want to take care of their children. Where is the money for 
the child care? We want to invest in families. Poor people want to 
better themselves. They do not want just a job. They want to be out of 
poverty, and that should be our goal too.
  That is what we do. We expand opportunity for education, provide $11 
billion in child care funding, restore benefits to legal immigrants, 
include poverty reduction, not just simply caseload reduction as a new 
purpose of TANF.
  I would contend that H.R. 4 grossly underfunds child care. It would 
cost $7 billion over the next 5 years just to keep up with inflation. 
It is an unfunded mandate to the States when, again, the plan by the 
Republicans does not help the States.
  That is bad bill. Support the substitutes.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, welfare reform passed by this Congress, signed so 
reluctantly by Bill Clinton, has been an unmitigated success. It was 
built on one premise. You do not love people by condemning them to a 
lifetime of poverty and dependence. You love them by giving them a 
chance for independence and self-dignity.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) who will close for this side.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of success stories 
today, but what is important is that we build on these successes and 
that we give even more Americans this dream of moving from dependency 
to dignity and moving to hope and to freedom. Now we must offer this 
opportunity to all Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman and all of those who have 
worked in concert to make this a possibility to bring this bill to the 
floor and to free Americans from the oppression of unemployment to give 
them the skills and the abilities they need and the opportunity to move 
from welfare to dignity and to hope and to freedom.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to revise 
and extend my remarks.
  I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4 and in support of the Cardin-
Kind-Woolsey substitute amendment.
  In its current state, this bill will not only put great strains on 
the families and individuals we set out to protect in every other 
aspect of life, but adds unbearable strains on States that already 
suffer from shortfalls and unfunded mandates. These new requirements 
could cost states up to $11 billion over the next 5 years. in addition 
to the $50 to $70 billion in shortfalls estimated by the National 
Conference of State Legislators.
  It is important that we write and support laws that have positive 
effects on our nation's families. Now, while Florida's efforts at 
welfare reform are by no means perfect, it has at least recognized that 
a well-trained adult is a self-sufficient adult. Instead of focusing on 
keeping participants busy for precisely 40 hours per week while they 
are on welfare, Florida and other States have recently placed a greater 
emphasis on structuring programs that provide the types of activities 
needed to move participants into paid employment and off of welfare, 
like training programs and educational incentives. Also, Florida 
determined that providing supports to low-income families, such as 
child care and transportation assistance, before they resort to 
welfare, is an essential part of work-based welfare reform. By 
increasing work program costs for families on welfare, a 40-hour 
requirement would limit the resources states have to help other low-
income working families stay off of welfare.
  The bill would reduce the flexibility states now have to tailor work 
activities to the individual needs of parents and families. In 
particular, States would have less ability to place recipients in 
vocational education programs because such activities generally would 
not count toward the first 24 hours of participation required of 
parents. The bill also would limit significantly States' ability to 
engage recipients in activities designed to address various barriers to 
employment--such as physical, mental, and learning disabilities, 
domestic violence, and substance abuse--because these activities would 
not count for the bulk of the mandated hours of participation.
  I wonder how many children will continue to be alone or with 
inadequate care while parents are forced to increase their hours of 
work. In the State of Florida and throughout this country, we have 
issues in our child protective services, because many poor or near poor 
parents are working and children are left to fend for themselves. While 
this bill fosters and promotes marriages by giving States grants for 
research, technical assistance and promotional activities, it diverts 
$200 million from current bonus to States. All while hurting the single 
parent trying to make a living and care for their family without any 
additional programs.
  We should have looked at this reform from the point of view of both 
the family and States in implementing change. We cannot use the carrot 
and the stick approach and not allow the States the flexibility to 
administer this Federal program.
  States will be required to have 70 percent of their welfare caseload 
working within the next 5 years, up from the current work participation 
rate of 50 percent while keeping TANF block grants at $16.5 billion 
annually for the next 5 years.
  Section 8 housing vouchers for low-income families will be replaced 
with a block grant program. These vouchers were targeted to welfare 
recipients for whom housing assistance is critical to obtaining or 
retaining employment. HUD provided 50,000 vouchers at a cost of $283 
million. The program allowed families to rent apartments near available 
jobs, transportation or childcare. The vouchers were targeted to 
families who are currently receiving, are eligible for, or have left 
the welfare roll within the last 2 years.
  But, instead, this bill fails at every turn:
  Instead of increasing access to education and training, this bill 
requires that such activities would count for up to 24 months against a 
State's participation requirement.
  Instead of increasing mandatory funding for child care by $11 billion 
over the next 5 years, and restoring the Social Services Block Grant 
funding to $2.8 billion per, this bill will cost states $11 billion 
over the next 5 years, and still sacrifice support services that would 
allow parents to maintain working hours.
  Instead of removing barriers to serving legal immigrants, including 
the current ban on States providing Federally funded TANF benefits to 
immigrant families, the bar on serving pregnant women and children 
under Medicare, and the bar on disabled children under SSI, this bill 
retains the discriminatory restrictions despite bipartisan support for 
removing them.
  Instead of providing States with the flexibility to tailor programs 
to their clients, while maintaining some minimum level of support, this 
bill takes away the ability to help people how they need to be helped, 
all the while saying that Federal agencies can choose not to help them 
at all by implementing a superwaiver overriding most Federal laws 
related to low-income programs.
  We had an opportunity today to help the hardest to help find a way to 
self-sufficiency. Instead, we have forced States to go deeper into 
fiscal crisis or cut programs that could actually aid reform. Webster's 
defines reform as improvement by alteration, correction of errors, or 
removal of defects. I don't think there will be a picture of this 
legislation by definition.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4 reflects the President's and 
Congress' proposals to move more Americans off government dependence 
toward individual financial freedom. Prior to the passage of the 1996 
welfare law, many mistakenly forecast that welfare reform would place 
more people in poverty. Instead, welfare rolls were cut by more than 
half and more than 9 million recipients left the welfare rolls and 
began collecting paychecks. In fact, one of the greatest success 
stories of the 1996 welfare reform law has been my home State of 
Georgia. Some have stated that States will not be able to meet the new 
work requirements in this legislation; this is not the case with the 
state of Georgia. Last year, as

[[Page 3728]]

the House was considering welfare reauthorization legislation, I had 
the opportunity to speak with Georgia's Labor Commissioner Michael 
Thurmond about the increased work requirements in this legislation. 
Before serving as Labor Commissioner, then Governor Zell Miller 
selected Michael Thurmond to direct Georgia's Workfirst program to move 
Georgians from welfare to work. It was this program that laid the 
foundation for Georgia's success in moving so many from welfare to 
work. In our conversation, Commissioner Thurmond stated with the 
confidence that Georgia will be able to meet these standards. By 
passing this legislation today, this House is both honoring and 
building on the success of States like Georgia who are breaking the 
cycle of dependence and placing more Americans on the road to financial 
independence. Through the passage of H.R. 4, my home State of Georgia, 
and other States, will be able to build on the success of the 1996 law 
and place more Georgians and more Americans on the road to self-
sufficiency.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this tax and 
spend bill before us today. This bill will force States to increase 
taxes to pay for the increased spending necessary to meet the costs of 
the bill's unfunded mandates.
  The Republican bill would impose mandates that would force States to 
change their existing welfare programs. Welfare reform has been a 
success in Texas and across the country in large part because of the 
State flexibility. I do not understand why the majority wants to force 
States to scrap the programs that have produced this success in order 
to comply with a Washington-knows-best approach. The States and folks 
at the local level know what works and what doesn't work in their local 
communities. They do not need Washington telling them how to run 
things.
  According to a survey conducted by the National Governor's 
Association, 41 out of 47 States who responded would have to 
significantly alter their welfare program in order to comply with the 
requirements of the bill. This will require a costly redirection of 
resources. States will have to dismantle effective programs that have 
met the individual needs of their citizens.
  For example, Texas's program helped them achieve a 61 percent 
reduction in welfare recipients since 1996. The Texas welfare program 
establishes time-limited benefits and requires welfare recipients to 
participate in work activities. The Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) 
oversees the Choices employment program, as well as child care, through 
a system of 28 local workforce development boards. The Department of 
Human Service is responsible for client eligibility determinations.
  If the bill proposed by the majority passes, Texas will have to 
dismantle this successful program. They would have to drastically scale 
back its vocational education program which has been successful in 
matching welfare recipients with business needs, and implement a 
subsidized wage program that the State previously rejected as being 
ineffective. Texas would have to end its current practice of levying a 
reduction in cash benefits in order to comply with the mandate that 
States terminate assistance completely for families out of compliance 
with work requirement.
  The Republican plan proposes radical waivers and block grant options 
what would affect the basic structure of the Food Stamp Program. It 
puts at risk the Program's effectiveness as a work support for families 
leaving cash assistance, ignores the considerable flexibility States 
currently have to run the program, and would undermine essential 
protections for the program's vulnerable clients. Congress instead 
should maintain the Food Stamp Program structure affirmed in last 
year's bipartisan farm bill reauthorization.
  The Republican bill would create an unfunded mandate of $8 billion 
over 5 years according to the Congressional Budget Office to meet the 
work requirements in the bill. CBO estimated that if States actually 
meet the 40 hour work requirement with meaningful, structured 
requirements instead of self-reported activities, the unfunded mandate 
would increase to $11 billion. For Texas, this equates to a sum of up 
to $668 million over 5 years. Texas cannot absorb these costs. Faced 
with a $9.9 billion budget shortfall, and now a sagging economy that 
continues to reduce state revenue, the State will have no other option 
than to explore alternative ways to fund the government. This will mean 
cutting back on basic services or raising taxes.
  In would be the height of arrogance for me to stand here in 
Washington and vote to require Texas to increase taxes or cut spending 
on other programs to implement policies that the Texas legislature has 
already considered and rejected in favor of other policies which have 
been proven to work. Many other States will face the same problem, as 
they face an $85 billion combined budget shortfall.
  Republicans do not often like the term ``unfunded mandate'' because 
States would have the option of terminating current, nonmandatory 
services like child care to working families to cover the additional 
costs, rather than spending new State dollars. However, child care is a 
necessary component of a welfare-to-work program, and terminating these 
programs are not a real option for States who want to help working 
families afford child care.
  The Democratic substitute increases funding to States for child care 
assistance to match the CBO estimate of increased child care costs 
resulting from the work requirements in the Democratic substitute. The 
Democratic bill provides an additional $11 billion for mandatory child 
care over 5 years.
  The Democratic plan focuses on moving welfare recipients into work 
and keeping them employed. The majority talks about their bill being 
tougher on work because of the 40 hour work requirement, but the 
reality is that 16 hours of that work is in unsupervised, unstructured 
activities that are not defined and could include helping children with 
homework or other self-reported activities. On the core work 
requirements, the Democratic substitute matches the Republican bill 
with 24 hours of work. More importantly, the Democratic substitute 
provides a credit for moving welfare recipients into employment, 
whereas the Republican bill allows States to reduce the work 
participation requirements simply by reducing the caseload for any 
reason.
  The Democratic plan aims to equip welfare recipients with the 
knowledge and skills necessary to escape from poverty and welfare, and 
into a paying job, while the Republican bill does not. The Democratic 
plan allows for education and training to count toward the 
participation rate for up to 24 months, while the Republican plan 
limits them to 4 months. Republican plan eliminates vocational 
education from the list of work-related activities that count toward 
the State's participation rate--for the first 24 hours a week.
  If you want States to be able to continue succeeding at the necessary 
job of helping folks get back to work, vote no on H.R. 4.
  Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the 
Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act of 2003. Since 
Congress passed historic welfare reform legislation in 1996 with work 
at the centerpiece of the initiative the results have been irrefutable. 
3.6 million fewer Americans live in poverty today than in 1996 and 
welfare caseloads have fallen by 60 percent, since 1994.
  In my home State of South Carolina, 70,043 people left welfare 
between 1996 and 2001. 70,043 people who now know the feeling of 
independence, self-worth and accomplishment that comes with getting a 
job and supporting ones family. It pleases me even more to be able to 
say that 82,000 South Carolinians left poverty between 1996 and 2000. 
Providing job training and education, increasing funding for child care 
programs and providing incentives to strengthen families allows people 
to leave welfare programs and leave poverty behind. The results have 
been remarkable, but there is more to be done. We need to ensure that 
when a person leaves the welfare system they do not return. We live a 
wonderful country full of promise and opportunity for everyone, anyone 
can do anything in this country--it's the American dream, and in many 
ways a job is at the heart of that dream.
  The Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act of 2003 
will ensure parents will have the opportunity to tap into reliable 
child care so they can have the peace of mind that comes with knowing 
their children are safe while they train for, find, and keep a job. 
It's important once an individual is able to find a job they continue 
to train so they have the opportunity to further their career. Another 
key component is a stable home life because it is so important to set 
the stage for a child's future. American families do not want a hand 
out and they don't want a system that offers a life of poverty. They 
want a helping hand when it's needed and more importantly, they want a 
chance to rebuild their lives so they can provide a brighter future for 
themselves and their loved ones, on their own.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I've been looking forward to today for 
quite some time. Today we will pass a welfare reform bill that will 
build upon the successes of our historic 1996 reforms. In the past 7 
years I have heard numerous success stories that arose from the 1996 
Welfare Reform legislation that touched the lives of millions.
  Our great former president Ronald Reagan once said, ``We should 
measure welfare's success by how many people leave welfare, not by how 
many are added.''
  In 1996, there were over 14 million welfare cases. Since then, 
however, that number has been reduced by 9 million. But this debate is

[[Page 3729]]

about more than just numbers--it is about people. Statistics don't do 
justice to the smiling faces of success.
  I am often asked what I consider my proudest accomplishment as a 
Congressman. I am extremely proud to have been a Member of the historic 
105th Congress that passed the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. Perhaps more 
than anything else we have accomplished during my time in Washington, 
reforming welfare has had a positive impact on American families.
  Families have achieved independence: Welfare caseloads fell by 9 
million--from 14 million recipients in 1994 to just 5 million today.
  Promoting work has delivered results: Employment by mothers most 
likely to go on welfare rose by 40 percent between 1995 and
  Child poverty fell dramatically: Since 1996, nearly 3 million 
children have been lifted from poverty, and the black child poverty 
rate is now at a record low.
  The success of the 1996 welfare reform law is beyond dispute. Our 
challenge and great opportunity now is to build on that success--by 
putting even more Americans on the path to self-reliance. I urge my 
colleagues to vote in favor of this bill, and help the most desperate 
in our society realize their dreams.
  Mr. CASE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the democratic 
alternatives to H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility, Work and Family 
Promotion Act, and in opposition to the underlying bill.
  I support what is widely referred to as Patsy Mink Memorial TANF 
Reauthorization substitute introduced offered by Representatives 
Kucinich, Lee, McGovern, and, Lantos for two principal reasons. First, 
I owe it to my distinguished predecessor, the late Congresswoman Patsy 
T. Mink, to vote to support her legacy of work on welfare reform. This 
substitute is based on H.R. 3113, which was introduced by Congresswoman 
Mink in the 107th Congress, and reflected her deeply-held belief that 
education was the key to enabling poor women and children escape 
poverty. Indeed, improving welfare law in these respects was her major 
legislative priority during her last term in Congress.
  Second, I believe that the States should have very broad authority on 
how to spend their TANF funds, including decisions on whether to 
provide benefits to legal permanent residents and educational 
opportunities beyond basic vocational training. The principal bill does 
exactly the opposite.
  I am also voting for the Cardin-Kind-Woolsey substitute, which 
retains the State flexibility contained in current welfare law and 
provides States with the option of allowing recipients up to 24 months 
of education, doubling the provision in current law.
  I am voting against H.R. 4 because it reduces State flexibility 
provided under the current law and imposes an unfunded mandate on 
States. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that implementing the 
expanded work requirements for welfare mothers--up from 30 hours to 40 
hours per week--will cost the States $8 to $11 billion to create make-
work jobs and to provide for increased child care.
  I am supportive of reasonable, fair welfare reform that moves people 
from welfare to work. But I reject Federal mandates that limit the 
States' flexibility and unnecessarily harm people who are trying to 
improve their futures and that of their children through education.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of 
strong, meaningful welfare reform.
  I was not a member of this body when welfare reform was first debated 
in 1996. But, the changes that came about as a result of that debate 
have brought significant and positive developments to my home state of 
California.
  Under TANF, California has tripled the number of welfare recipients 
working and their average monthly earnings have significantly 
increased. Cash aid has decreased by 45 percent and caseloads have 
declined more than 40 percent.
  These are the types of results that the 1996 reforms intended our 
states to achieve and we must build upon them in a way that will 
continue to bring people out of poverty and into meaningful employment.
  Unfortunately, the bill that we debate today places unrealistic 
expectations on both our states and our welfare recipients. Worse, it 
calls for the enactment of work requirements that cannot be met without 
enhancing childcare, job training and transportation benefits--but 
minimal funds are provided for these support services.
  Tough work requirements are a critical component of any welfare 
reform legislation and I strongly support strengthening our current 
provisions. But, I cannot support a plan that shifts a disproportionate 
financial responsibility onto our states simply because the federal 
government has squandered our surplus.
  The underlying legislation contains approximately $11 billion in 
unfunded mandates--costs that our states will have to bear alone in 
order to comply with these new provisions. These mandates will cost 
California almost $2.5 billion--a tremendous hit particularly at a time 
when the state is struggling with a budget shortfall of $35 billion.
  Mr. Chairman, as evidenced by the Cardin/Kind/Woolsey substitute, we 
can balance tougher work requirements with the financial resources 
necessary to truly move people from welfare to work.
  This substitute calls for tough, real work requirements that move 
welfare recipients into meaningful employment.
  This substitute gives states the flexibility to create programs that 
prioritize efficiency over the majority's ``one-size-fits-all'' model. 
Flexibility has enabled California to implement individual 
responsibility plans following job search and job preparation 
activities.
  We have been very successful in placing people into work first, 
rather than wasting both funds and time to develop plans for 
individuals who have already attained employment.
  These innovative approaches are supported by this substitute, which 
encourages states to implement sensible reforms and to tailor their 
programs to the needs of their beneficiaries--combining though work 
requirements with vocational training or ESL education.
  Finally, this substitute gives states the resources they need to 
enact these new, tougher mandates--providing the $11 billion in 
additional child care funding that CBO has indicated states will need 
in order for recipients to meet these new work requirements. By 
preventing unfunded mandates and promoting flexibility, this substitute 
ensures universal engagement and continued success in transitioning 
people from welfare into gainful employment.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this substitute, which will 
build upon the accomplishments our states have already achieved.
  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4, the 
Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act. This bill, 
which is similar to the welfare reform bill passed by the House in the 
last session, extends the authorization for the Temporary Assistance 
for Needy Families (TANF) block grant program through FY 2008.
  While I welcome the possibility of reauthorizing this vital program, 
I am frustrated by the way in which this legislation was brought to the 
floor--without any markup in the three committees that share 
jurisdiction on the issue. Furthermore, the House of Representatives 
has had ample time to rewrite this bill and present a meaningful 
proposal that will address the needs of low-income families and the 
states that administer these programs. The bill before us today is 
nearly identical to last year's legislation and does little to help 
those most in need of services. The goal of this bill should be to 
assist welfare recipients in finding employment while transitioning out 
of poverty. In order to do so, we should be focusing on adjusting the 
grants for inflation, providing additional funding for childcare and 
retaining the current thirty-hour workweek requirement while allowing 
flexibility for education and training programs.
  This bill comes at a time when states are experiencing unprecedented 
budget shortfalls. The economy is sluggish and the unemployment rate 
has risen from 3.9 percent to 6 percent. Without additional funding, 
states will be forced to cut important services, including child care 
and transportation benefits. I cannot support a bill that increases the 
work requirement for those most difficult to place in employment while 
failing to provide adequate child care funding. If we demand that 
people must work for their benefits, we need to provide those 
individuals with the resources necessary to do so. Massachusetts 
currently has more than 17,000 children on its child care waiting list. 
An additional $111 million in childcare funding is needed over the next 
five years to implement this legislation in Massachusetts alone. The 
Democrats have responded to this crisis by offering an alternative 
reauthorization bill. The Cardin substitute provides states with the 
resources they need to meet these new requirements. It increases 
childcare by $11 billion over the next five years, while allowing more 
flexibility to count education and training as work requirements. It 
retains the current thirty-hour work week rule and allows states to use 
federal cash assistance for legal immigrants.
  The TANF program has been successful in helping to move families off 
the welfare and into work. It is our job to ensure that states have the 
resources to continue this important work. I urge my colleagues to 
support working families and vote against the Republican bill and for 
the Democratic substitute.
  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
reauthorization of a welfare program that has brought confidence and 
helped

[[Page 3730]]

restore a sense of self-worth and freedom to thousands of my 
constituents who have fallen on hard times. Reauthorizing the Temporary 
Assistance to Needy Families, or TANF, program is and should be a top 
priority, both for my state and our country. We have come far in giving 
Americans better opportunities but there is much left to do.
  The landmark welfare reform Congress undertook seven years ago has 
been a success. Caseloads have gone down. And states now have the 
flexibility to spend the money in areas where it is most needed. But 
even more important is the fact that welfare reform has brought to 
millions of American citizens economic and social freedom, the feeling 
of self-satisfaction that comes with a job well done and a goal or 
milestone reached.
  And though this reform has enjoyed a strong show of success, we 
should not be content to rest until all our work is done. This bill 
offers such a commitment. States will receive each and every year 
between now and 2008 $16.6 billion. This includes an increase in the 
Child Care and Development Block Grant, which goes directly to helping 
mothers and fathers provide better opportunities to their children, as 
well a measure to provide financial support to mothers newly off 
welfare.
  This welfare program has been a success nationally and in 
Connecticut.
  I speak of Richard Morgan, a 32-year-old resident of North 
Stonington. Richard enrolled in the Job Search Skills Training (JSST) 
class offered through the state welfare office. ``It was very good, 
excellent,'' he said. ``I learned some things I hadn't known before, 
like how to market myself. I learned how to write a resume, how to make 
goals.'' Richard now has the liberty to pursue the job and a life of 
his choosing.
  I speak of Milagros Medina, a 28-year-old single mother of three. As 
a requirement of her federal welfare assistance, Medina went to a Jobs 
First orientation at the Connecticut Works Center in New London. After 
this training, Medina interviewed with Brian Kingsley, a Food Service 
Director, trying to get a job as a nutritionist. ``Now whenever I have 
a job opening,'' he says, ``I go the Connecticut Works Center first. I 
see them as a pre-screening support agency.'' Milagros now has the 
freedom to use her own merits as an asset.
  In Connecticut, federal action and reform has made possible our Jobs 
First Employment Services Program, a resource to those out of work who 
need guidance, training and the tools to find their path. As Richard 
and Milagros will tell you, this program works.
  If we search, we can find proof in the numbers. Connecticut caseloads 
have gone from 38,891 families in 1997 to nearly 12,000 in 2002. Over 
60 percent of our state's families on welfare are engaged in some form 
of work activity. But numbers are not the true merit of this program. 
The heart of welfare is in its ability to offer these are men and women 
with new opportunities, new freedoms a new sense of self-determination. 
Every American has the chance, the right, to know that the doorways to 
success are open to him or her. This action we are taking the reforms 
we have put into place is that doorway.
  Mr. Chairman, this welfare offers hope where there was none. It helps 
develop the skills, the motivation, and more importantly, the 
confidence and freedom to reenter the workforce. That is a right that 
should be available to all hard-working men and women in America. Our 
state programs and local officials are getting the job done. It is time 
for Congress to do the same.
  Mr. CHOCOLA. Mr. Chairman, today, I rise in support of the Personal 
Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2003.
  Over the last decade, many in this Congress have worked to turn the 
welfare system around. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
Act of 1996 has been an enormous success. All across America, the 
welfare rolls are down, and many young people have returned to lives of 
self-reliance and dignity.
  The 1996 welfare reform law expired at the end of last year. Congress 
must now act to maintain and expand the success of welfare reform by 
promoting work, strengthening families, and helping more welfare 
recipients move toward independence and self-reliance.
  The bipartisan bill before us today helps welfare recipients follow a 
responsible path toward independence by increasing minimum work 
requirements, providing additional opportunities for education and 
training, and making health benefits available to individuals leaving 
welfare as they transition to self-sufficiency.
  This legislation takes important steps to strengthen families and 
protect children by increasing funding for childcare, so single parents 
can go to work. It also provides financial incentives for states to 
return more money collected from past-due child support to mothers and 
children. And, as soon as the legislation becomes law, it makes 
available up to $300 million annually for programs that encourage 
healthy, stable marriages.
  Finally, this bill frees states to seek out new and innovative 
approaches to serve those in need. It allows states greater flexibility 
and encourages projects to improve program effectiveness and to improve 
service delivery.
  I am proud to have co-sponsored this bipartisan bill. H.R. 4 
maintains and strengthens the 1996b reforms, while providing a sensible 
plan that promotes work, requires responsibility, strengthens families, 
and protects children.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, today, I voted against passage of H.R. 
4, the Welfare Reform Reauthorization. I opposed passage of the bill 
last session and today for the same reasons.
  First, the Republican bill has weak educational opportunities for 
welfare recipients, it places unfunded mandates on States, and 
implements stricter requirements without taking into account increases 
for inflation. This puts States in a very compromising position. 
Furthermore, this bill only includes $1 billion in additional funding 
over five years for childcare. It is general knowledge that there is 
insufficient money provided for childcare to meet the current needs of 
our nation. Moreover, the Republican bill places harsher work 
requirements on mothers with young children, without providing for a 
sufficient increase in childcare funding. How are families to cope?
  Additionally, the Republican bill is only concerned about the numbers 
looking good on paper. The majority points to the success of the 
reduction of welfare rolls with the Welfare Reform Law of 1996; 
however, they fail to take into account the number of welfare 
recipients that have moved off the welfare rolls straight into low-
income, minimum wage jobs. Many families still must rely on government 
assistance to stay afloat. Their measure of success is terribly flawed.
  Providing government assistance to needy families should not be based 
on unlimited assistance--this is something that those of us on both 
sides of the aisle can agree on. However, this bill should be directed 
at providing fair and meaningful assistance that will help lift 
families out of poverty. This objective is at the heart of both the 
Kucinich and Cardin Substitutes that I supported. Both of these 
alternatives to H.R. 4 put a greater emphasis on educational 
opportunities and programs--an approach that would ensure that families 
are able to move up the economic ladder. Without the opportunity to 
learn a trade or pursue post-secondary educational options, the outlook 
for families being able to move off of welfare and improve their 
economic status is bleak.
  Welfare reform should include policies that provide real solutions to 
helping families leave and stay off of welfare. Helping families to 
succeed is the Democratic approach--and the right approach. If we fail 
to enact policies that give families a real chance to create a better 
life, we fail families and we fail children.
  Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4, the 
Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2003 and in 
support of the Cardin/Kind/Woolsey alternative.
  I supported the 1996 Welfare Reform bill (P.L. 104-193). States like 
Missouri have made great progress in moving 100,000 individuals from 
welfare to work. Ms. Jones is one of Missouri's success stories. When 
she was called into Department of Family Services (DFS) case management 
she had numerous barriers keeping her from employment. She had three 
children, ages 9, 10, and 11. Ms. Jones had no driver's license, no 
automobile license, no insurance for her car, and the car needed 
mechanical repairs. Before she could get a job these barriers had to be 
addressed. She received Temporary Assistance. With the creative 
collaboration of DFS and the Welfare to Work consultants, Ms. Jones is 
no longer receiving Temporary Assistance, has employment paying her 
$8.50 per hour, has her driver's license, transportation and some new 
uniforms to wear.
  To continue moving individuals from assistance to gain employment 
maintaining state flexibility is critical to the success of welfare 
reform. State like mine have been the laboratories for change and 
success in moving people from government assistance to self-
sufficiency. The state of Missouri utilizes an innovative case by case 
assessment in providing temporary assistance. We participate in 
effective community based partnerships that foster independence from 
public assistance and improve family well being. We have award winning 
programs that promote and provide youth mentoring, extended school 
days, parenting skills, child development, job training, post-secondary 
education, and job placement services that are effective at moving 
welfare recipients into self-sufficiency.
  H.R. 4 jeopardizes the flexibility that Missouri utilizes in 
providing personalized case

[[Page 3731]]

management through these programs. H.R. 4 eliminates Missouri's 
flexibility in vocational education training by stipulating only four 
months of education and training. In a time when states like mine are 
already facing serious deficits and cut in spending, this bill 
exacerbates their budget woes by providing no new money to implement 
its stricter work and participation requirements, and states currently 
cannot balance their budgets as required by their constitutions. 
Missouri would have to come up with over $200 million dollars to 
implement to inflexible changes in H.R. 4 when it is already facing 
$814 million in deficits. This does not include the $116.5 million 
Missouri would need in additional child care money to ensure the 
children affected will have access to safe and nurturing care. The bill 
before us today funds the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families--
TANF--block grant at the 1995 level and proposes barely enough funding 
for childcare to keep up with inflation.
  The Cardin/Kind/Woolsey substitute both provides an inflationary 
increase in the TANF block grant (an additional $6 billion over five 
years) and increases child care funding by $11 billion over five years. 
If my colleagues on both sides of the aisle truly want to promote self-
sufficiency and encourage more single mothers like Ms. Jones, who has 
moved off of temporary assistance, then we must adopt the Cardin/Kind/
Woolsey substitute because it provides the resources that promote 
working toward self sufficiency.
  Mr. Chairman, stricter work requirements with fewer resources is a 
losing equation for the welfare mothers and children of metropolitan 
Kansas City and for our nation.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4, 
the Republican welfare bill, and in support of the Democratic 
alternative offered by my colleagues Representatives Cardin, Kind, and 
Woolsey.
  To paraphrase baseball great Yogi Berra, this legislation ``is like 
deja vu all over again.''
  Indeed, the bill we are considering today is almost identical to the 
flawed welfare bill we debated last May. Since then, our national 
economy has continued to stagnate, unemployment has risen sharply, and 
our states have fallen further into fiscal crisis. In light of this, 
one would think that the Republican Leadership would take some time to 
re-think their welfare bill and write a better one. Instead, they offer 
today the same welfare bill that failed to pass Congress last year. 
What wasn't good enough for America's working families then, is worse 
for America now.
  There are three main problems with H.R. 4. First, it burdens the 
states with a large unfunded mandate. Second, it fails to provide 
welfare participants with adequate access to education and job 
training. And finally, it significantly underfunds childcare.
  I strongly support putting people to work to help them obtain self-
sufficiency. While the Republican bill requires more work hours, H.R. 4 
does not provide the states with the resources to implement these 
additional work requirements. According to the Congressional Budget 
Office, it will cost $8-11 billion to comply with these new provisions. 
In North Carolina, which is in the midst of a severe budget crisis, 
H.R. 4 would cost $222 million.
  Additionally, welfare reform should not limit one's opportunity to 
succeed and care for one's family. Under the Republican welfare bill, 
education initiatives that allow welfare recipients to take community 
college classes or obtain their GED are eliminated. That's 
unacceptable. As the former Superintendent of North Carolina's public 
schools, I understand how important education is to finding and keeping 
a good job. Education is the key to a successful future. Many of the 
folks who remain on the welfare rolls today are the least prepared to 
enter the workforce, and we must provide them with the tools they need 
to lift themselves and their families out of poverty.
  Finally, the republican bill also requires parents to work ten more 
hours per week, yet it does not provide enough resources for childcare. 
Finding quality childcare is one of the most daunting challenges with 
which welfare recipients must contend. Good childcare helps young 
children develop and keeps older children in positive, productive 
environments. It keeps children off the streets while their parents are 
at work. This is common sense. If you require folks to spend more time 
working, you must give them an avenue for caring for their children.
  I support the Democratic alternative to this bill. As a member of the 
New Democratic Coalition, I especially want to commend the good work 
done by my colleague Congressman Kind on this alternative. Mr. Kind's 
leadership has produced a far superior bill. Like H.R. 4, our plan 
requires more work hours, but it goes much further in providing the 
resources necessary to make welfare reform work. It also allows states 
to count education and job training as work related activities, which 
help welfare recipients prepare to get good jobs and permanently leave 
the welfare rolls. Further, this alternative makes reducing poverty a 
core purpose of the welfare program. And most importantly, this plan 
invests significant resources for childcare.
  Mr. Chairman, I've lived all of my life in the rural communities 
located in the heart of North Carolina. There we share common values 
that stress the importance of family and hard work. Welfare reform 
should provide families with the tools to lift themselves out of 
poverty to self-sufficiency. Disappointingly, the Republican welfare 
bill will not work; it will fail our families. Conversely, the 
Democratic alternative honors hard work and provides our families with 
opportunities to find hope and achieve success.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 4 and to support the Democratic 
alternative.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman. I rise today in opposition to H.R. 
4, a bill to reauthorize the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families 
Program.
  The purpose of this program is to move people from welfare to work; 
however Democrats and Republicans approach this effort very 
differently. The Democratic plan moves welfare recipients into real 
jobs and out of poverty. Republicans focus only on adding work hours, 
even if it means pushing recipients into minimum wage jobs that keep 
them in poverty.
  The Democratic plan provides education and training to workers, so 
they can move up the economic ladder into decent paying jobs. The 
Republican plan ignores the need for training.
  The Democratic plan increases access to quality child care, which is 
critical for families moving from welfare to work. The Republicans 
underfund child care programs by 9 billion dollars.
  Finally, the Democratic plan provides States with the flexibility to 
tailor their services based on past experience. The Republican plan 
forces states into a one-size-fits-all program full of unfunded 
mandates that ignores the unique needs of individual states.
  Mr. Chairman, it is clear that the Democrat approach will reform 
welfare in a way that helps move people from welfare to work with the 
hope of improving their quality of life. I urge my colleague to vote 
against this punitive Republican bill that fails to offer hope, and 
support the Democratic substitute.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, today we are considering 
critically important legislation to reauthorize the Temporary 
Assistance for Needy Families, TANF, block grant program for another 
five years. This is an incredibly important task made even more so in 
light of the difficult economic circumstances our country is currently 
facing. In light of the fact that there are over 8 million Americans 
out of work. And in light of the fact that nearly all of the states are 
facing serious fiscal crises.
  Unfortunately, I believe that H.R. 4 fails to take into consideration 
the particularly difficult times facing some of the most vulnerable 
individuals in our society and those becoming increasingly more 
vulnerable in these times of economic uncertainty. Now is not the time 
to impose more restrictions and costs on states and TANF recipients, 
yet that is precisely what H.R. 4 does. And it does so without 
providing any additional funding, which does not fit my definition of 
compassionate conservativism.
  Seven years ago, when TANF was created to replace the AFDC program, 
the bill was funded at $16.5 billion per year. Today we are considering 
a bill that not only provides only the exact same amount of money as 
the 1996 welfare reform bill, disregarding inflation, but also 
increases TANF recipients' required work hours from 30 hours to 40 
hours a week. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this 
provision alone will cost the states $8 to $11 billion over the next 
five years, and will cost my home state of New Mexico an estimated $100 
million to implement the work participation requirements. These 
additional mandates that lack the funds to accompany them will 
exacerbate already dire fiscal crises in the states. The combined 2002-
2005 state budget gap is projected to be $189 billion. Add the 
additional costs associated to implement the work requirements and the 
states are staring a combined budget gap of $200 billion right in the 
face.
  In addition, H.R. 4 also fails to help working mothers with the 
increasing cost of childcare. Though the bill does include $1 billion 
in new mandatory child care funding--the only new funding in this 
legislation--this amount is not nearly enough to help cover the 
additional child care funds that states would need to implement the 
child care provisions in H.R. 4. New Mexico alone would require an 
additional $50 million over 5 years to implement the childcare 
provisions of this legislation.
  I do strongly support, however, the substitute legislation being 
offered by Mr. Cardin,

[[Page 3732]]

and Mr. Kind, and Ms. Woolsey. Not only does this legislation 
strengthen current work requirements and provide states with the 
flexibility and freedom to innovate, but also provides sufficient 
funding necessary to help states with additional requirements.
  The substitute being offered today increases work participation rates 
from its current level of 50 percent by 5 percent a year to reach 70 
percent by 2007. It increases the number of work-focus activity hours 
from 20 to 24 hours, and provides states the option of increasing the 
number of required hours of work from 30 hours to 40 hours a week if 
they so desire. However, unlike H.R. 4, the substitute provides the 
states with the resources necessary to meet these changes. The Cardin-
Kind-Woolsey substitutes provides inflationary increases for the TANF 
block grant, which equals an additional $6 billion over five years, as 
well as an additional $11 billion for mandatory childcare funding over 
five years to meet the requirements.
  Mr. Chairman, as President Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said, and 
which is engraved on a wall at the FDR memorial not 15 minutes walking 
distance from here, ``The test of our progress is not whether we add 
more to the abundance of those who have much, it is whether we provide 
enough for those who have too little.'' Today, as we consider this 
legislation to provide a safety net for our great country's poorest and 
most vulnerable population, as the income disparity between the rich 
and poor continues to grow, this quote from a great man and great 
leader should resonate loudly throughout the chambers of the capitol 
and throughout the land. We need to help provide opportunities for 
people to get out of poverty and off of TANF. H.R. 4 does not do this, 
but instead imposes unfunded mandates on states. H.R. 4 focuses on 
caseload reductions, not poverty reduction, which should be the true 
standard by which a successful welfare program should be measured.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 4 and support the Cardin-
Kind-Woolsey substitute.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
support the Cardin Democratic alternative on the Welfare 
Reauthorization bill. This bill would reduce poverty, promote State 
flexibility, and help move welfare recipients into real jobs.
  It adds a strong new work requirement, but it also provides welfare 
recipients with support through education, training, and childcare, and 
it gives states adequate resources to fund these programs.
  In contrast, H.R. 4 would leave Maine with a $56 million dollar 
unfunded mandate over five years. Just as bad, right now, a Maine 
family of three receiving the maximum benefit only reaches 39 percent 
of the federal poverty level.
  H.R. 4 doesn't give any new resources to change that. Instead, it 
simply asks states and welfare recipients to meet new goals, without 
giving them a real change to achieve them.
  So let's support the alternative, and pass welfare reform that works.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I stand before you today to show the 
American people what the Republicans in Congress really stand for. This 
welfare reform bill perpetuates the misconception of the stereotypical 
welfare recipient and does little to actually help those on the welfare 
rolls gain economic independence. H.R. 4 does nothing to help people 
move into real jobs providing livable wages.
  One of the key factors in moving recipients from welfare to work is 
the ability to obtain education and job training. This legislation 
ignores the reality of the situation: education is imperative to propel 
those on the welfare rolls into higher paying jobs that are the real 
road to self-sufficiency. In the current state of our economy, now more 
than ever, we need to provide job skills and training to the poorest 
families. Even skilled workers are having a difficult time finding 
employment, and it would be ruthless for us to turn our backs on those 
with less skills in their time of need.
  Mr. Chairman, this Republican bill's extended work provisions are 
extremely troubling. Mandating a 40-hour work week for single parents 
on welfare without providing the needed monies for child care is 
reprehensible. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that $11 
billion will be needed to fund for child care in order to make this 
extended-work mandate feasible. H.R. 4 allows only $1 billion for this 
care, thus leaving our already financially-strapped states in a serious 
predicament.
  Further, this legislation lacks alternatives to abstinence-only 
education. It is irresponsible that we are not providing monies for 
comprehensive sex education program that would help reduce teen 
pregnancy, reduce sexually transmitted diseases and promote sexual 
health.
  I support the Democratic substitute that understands and provides for 
the real purpose contained in the title: Temporary Assistance to Needy 
Families. These alternatives give recipients a hand up, not a hand out. 
By extending the definition of work to include job training, getting a 
GED, and care for a child under 6 or the disabled, my Democratic 
colleagues and I show our compassion for the poor in their time of 
need.
  Republicans are showing their true colors by introducing this 
legislation: a sincere lack of understanding of the factors that lead 
people to seek government assistance and a lack of mercy for those down 
on their luck in this time of economic recession. We need a fair and 
decent method of helping those who need our help the most. I urge my 
colleagues to vote against H.R. 4.
  Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, the proposal before us today to 
reauthorize Temporary Assistance to Needy Families TANF, is one that 
falls short of providing temporary assistance or focusing on needy 
families. While there are aspects of H.R. 4 that should be applauded, 
such as increasing overall funding, restoring federal support for the 
Social Services Block Grant, removing the disincentives for two parents 
families, and approaching welfare cases with a family-oriented 
perspective, this legislation falls short on providing the real 
solutions that families struggling in Utah require.
  There are several essential elements for welfare reform that are 
lacking in H.R. 4. First, is state flexibility. H.R. 4 would limit 
state flexibility and subsequently undermine the welfare successes that 
Utah has experienced. The whole concept of the 1996 reforms was for 
states to tailor services. Over the last six years, it has been the 
ability of the states to adapt programs to meet the needs of 
populations with multiple barriers that has allowed caseloads to 
decline. Developing true self-sufficiency requires state flexibility. 
It means looking towards the long-term and providing credit for 
educational and vocational training, and it requires state alternatives 
to increase participation rates.
  At the same time that H.R. 4 limits state flexibility, it fails to 
even provide adequate funding for the increased requirements it 
entails. H.R. 4 would require the states to do more with fewer 
resources. It increases the mandates on the states to increase 
participation rates and work hours, but does not provide the resources 
to implement these changes. It leaves the states without the ability to 
cover the increased costs related to stricter work requirements and 
removes the credits available to the states for decreasing caseloads 
without providing other benefits. This unfunded mandate cannot be 
supported by Utah, and will not provide the temporary assistance 
required at this time.
  H.R. 4 also falls short on supporting families. It requires parents 
to go to work without any resources to care for their children. The 
Congressional Budget Office has estimated that new work requirements 
would require $44 million dollars more for child care in Utah. H.R. 4 
does not provide these resources. In addition, H.R. 4 would no longer 
allow single mothers with children under age six to be fully compliant 
if they work 20 hours a week. Instead, they would be required to work 
40 hours a week, despite the young children they have at home, and then 
would be provided with no additional resources to help them obtain 
child care. Such actions are not pro-child and are not pro-family.
  I cannot support legislation that falls short on providing for the 
real people that I represent in Utah. They deserve more. That is why I 
support reauthorization of TANF that is built on sound principles: 
flexibility for the states, reasonable requirements, real work that 
will lead to long-term self-sufficiency, educational and vocational 
training, and adequate resources for childcare. Such a proposal would 
recognize the real needs of real Utahns and provide needy families with 
real, temporary assistance.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, especially in these troubled economic 
times, the safety net, in the words of President Reagan, is critical 
for many families in Oregon and across America. Unfortunately, after 
months of delay, we are being presented with a TANF Reauthorization 
that shows little improvement from the bill presented to us almost a 
year ago, even though the economic situation has deteriorated 
dramatically in the last year, putting millions of Americans out of 
work. This bill does little to recognize the needs and challenges 
facing a growing number of Americans.
  In Oregon, the new welfare system is getting its most severe test. 
Our statewide jobless rate is now 7.1 percent, the highest in the 
nation. Oregon's budget is in shambles, but we are not alone. At least 
46 states are struggling to close a combined budget gap of $37 billion

[[Page 3733]]

in the most recent fiscal year. Budget shortfalls are reaching record 
levels, and are projected to approach $85 billion. Some states have 
already made cuts to TANF-funded programs, including Ohio, the 
homestate of the author of this bill. At a time when states are facing 
serious budget crises and are being asked to do even more on hometown 
security, the federal government should be giving assistance, not 
retreating. Instead, this bill would create a series of unfunded 
mandates that in Oregon alone are expected to cost $100 million over 
the next five years.
  This proposal also fails to address the critical need for childcare 
among families receiving assistance. A recent report by the Children's 
Defense Fund found that budget shortfalls have forced a number of 
states to reduce funding for child care, despite the pressing need for 
these services as economic circumstances worsen. Asking for increases 
in make-work hours without significantly increased childcare funding is 
shortsighted and ultimately destructive in the fight to help these 
families achieve self-sufficiency.
  Finally, this bill fails to recognize the fiscal realities facing 
states and the mounting challenges facing a growing number of 
Americans. Instead of targeted tax cuts to those who are least in need; 
the federal government should step up to the plate and support welfare 
reform that will achieve a real reduction in poverty.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4, 
the Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2003. 
While proponents of H.R. 4 argue that they are building upon the 
successes of the sweeping 1996 welfare reform plan by promoting 
independence through work and lifting millions of Americans out of 
poverty--they in fact promote helplessness and misery for millions.
  They fail to recognize that while research tells us that even though 
poverty levels are down, hunger, utility cut-offs, and hopelessness 
have increased among former Temporary Assistance of Needy Families 
(TANF) recipients. Within these poor families many children suffer 
because poverty prevents them from having basic needs met. When the 
prevalence of poverty is combined with the fact that less than one 
fourth of children eligible for a range of government subsidies receive 
any of them, we are failing to protect our most important and 
vulnerable assets--our children.
  H.R. 4 does not provide sufficient funding for programs essential to 
reaching the goal of reducing poverty. It would freeze the amount of 
the TANF block grant at current funding levels for the next five years. 
These funding limitations are especially critical during these times of 
increasing unemployment and State budget deficits. The reality is that 
the value of the TANF block grant has fallen by 13.5 percent between 
fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 2002. In my home State of Texas alone 
it would take $688 million, over the next five years, in addition 
funding to implement the work participation requirements in H.R. 4. 
Forcing States to implement new provision in the welfare bill, while 
providing no new resources for either TANF block grants or child care, 
is a recipe for disaster and not a responsible approach to 
reauthorizing TANF.
  States should be provided appropriate funding to ensure that TANF 
recipients receive the assistance they need to become self-sufficient. 
H.R. 4 does not provide states with the financial support, or the 
programmatic flexibility needed to tailor work activities to the 
individual needs of parents and families to overcome workplace 
barriers. Instead it imposes harsh work requirements that are recipes 
for failure and restricts States' ability to operate education and 
training programs that prepare TANF recipients for long term, well 
compensated employment.
  Finally, an important component of any proposed reauthorization of 
TANF must ensure access to job and health care programs for this 
Nation's legal immigrants. Despite widespread support for providing 
hardworking, tax paying legal immigrants with the opportunity to apply 
for safety-net programs, H.R. 4 continues the unfair ban on providing 
such critical services to legal immigrant families with children. 
Medicaid and CHIP eligibility should be based on need, not the date one 
enters the country. States should be allowed to continue to use state 
funds to provide primary and preventative care to immigrants.
  I will only support a welfare reauthorization bill with the true 
purpose of reducing poverty, and one which provides its participants 
with real opportunities and with the self-dignity to pursue the 
necessary tools to ensure future success.
  I will support the amendments presented to this bill, made in the 
form of substitutes, which increase childcare funding, which allow 
States more flexibility to count education and training and other work 
preparation towards more realistic work requirements, that restore 
eligibility and benefits to legal immigrants and that reward States 
that place parents in real, long term employment.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to lend my full support to H.R. 4 the 
reauthorization of the Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family 
Promotion Act of 2003.
  Before 1996 there were many cases of honest, hard-working individuals 
on the welfare rolls, who, faced with hard times, were forced to rely 
on our government in order to help provide for themselves and their 
families. Unfortunately, there were also many cases of individuals who 
in the past abused this system set up to help those in need. I believe 
that individuals who choose to live off of government welfare, with no 
intention of leaving the rolls, not only cheat the American taxpayer, 
they also cheat their children and grandchildren who often live their 
lives trapped in a cycle of receiving government handouts.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill we are considering on the floor today 
gradually raises work requirements over the next five years and 
continues to award States that are successful at moving people from 
welfare to work. This bill protects children with a $2 billion increase 
in childcare funding. The bill allows States greater flexibility in 
providing care for children of low-income working families. This keeps 
with the idea that those closer to a problem know best how to fix it. 
The plan also includes $300 million annually to encourage healthy 
marriages and two-parent married families, through programs such as 
pre-marital education and counseling.
  Let me briefly say that despite my support for the measure, I remain 
concerned about some of the provisions in the legislation. While the 
measure does improve upon work requirements from the 1996 Temporary 
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) bill, in some cases it does not go 
far enough. For instance, H.R. 4 increases the number of hours a 
welfare beneficiary must work and spend in job training programs, but 
it allows the states to define ``work'' in practically any way they see 
fit for these additional hours. Mr. Speaker, I am in favor of allowing 
States flexibility in administering welfare programs--flexibility is, 
after all, the linchpin of the reforms we enacted in 1996--but in my 
view we should set some sort of minimal standard and let the States 
implement them as they see fit.
  Mr. Chairman, TANF has shown how, through simple common sense means, 
the lives of millions of Americans can change from a cycle of poverty 
and dependence to lives that are happier and more productive. They have 
shown how expecting more from our fellow citizens can lift the Nation 
as a whole. I am happy to support this measure and encourage my 
colleagues to vote in favor of this important legislation.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, no one can deny that welfare programs have 
undermined America's moral fabric and constitutional system. Therefore, 
all those concerned with restoring liberty and protecting civil society 
from the maw of the omnipotent State should support efforts to 
eliminate the welfare state, or, at the very least, reduce Federal 
control over the provision of social services. Unfortunately, the 
misnamed Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act (H.R. 
4) actually increase the unconstitutional Federal welfare state and 
thus undermines personal responsibility, the work ethic, and the 
family.
  H.R. 4 reauthorizes the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) 
block grant program, the main Federal welfare program. Mr. Speaker, 
increasing Federal funds always increases Federal control, as the 
recipients of the funds must tailor their programs to meet Federal 
mandates and regulations. More importantly, since Federal funds 
represent resources taken out of the hands of private individuals, 
increasing Federal funding leaves fewer resources available for the 
voluntary provision of social services, which, as I will explain in 
more detail later, is a more effective, moral, and constitutional means 
of meeting the needs of the poor.
  H.R. 4 further increases Federal control over welfare policy by 
increasing Federal mandates on welfare recipients. This bill even goes 
so far as to dictate to States how they must spend their own funds! 
Many of the new mandates imposed by this legislation concern work 
requirements. Of course, Mr. Speaker, there is a sound argument for 
requiring recipients of welfare benefits to work. Among other benefits, 
a work requirement can help a welfare recipient obtain useful job 
skills and thus increase the likelihood that they will find productive 
employment. However, forcing welfare recipients to work does raise 
valid concerns regarding how much control over one's life should be 
ceded to the government in exchange for government benefits.

[[Page 3734]]

  In addition, Mr. Chairman, it is highly unlikely that a ``one-size-
fits-all'' approach dictated from Washington will meet the diverse 
needs of every welfare recipient in every State and locality in the 
Nation. Proponents of this bill claim to support allowing States, 
localities, and private charities the flexibility to design welfare-to-
work programs that fit their particular circumstances. Yet, this 
proposal constricts the ability of the States to design welfare-to-work 
programs that meet the unique needs of their citizens. I also question 
the wisdom of imposing as much as $11 billion in unfunded mandates on 
the States at a time when many States are facing a fiscal crisis.
  As former Minnesota Governor, Jesse Ventura pointed out, in reference 
to this proposal's effects on Minnesota's welfare-to-welfare work 
program, ``We know what we are doing in Minnesota works. We have 
evidence. And our way of doing things has broad support in the State. 
Why should we be forced by the Federal Government to put our system at 
risk?'' Why indeed, Mr. Speaker, should any State be forced to abandon 
its individual welfare programs because a group of self-appointed 
experts in Congress, the Federal bureaucracy, and inside-the-beltway 
think tanks have decided there is only one correct way to transition 
people from welfare to work?
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4 further expands the reach of the Federal 
Government by authorizing approximately $10 million for new ``marriage 
promotion'' programs. I certainly recognize how the welfare state has 
contributed to the decline of the institution of marriage. As an ob-gyn 
with over 30 years of private practice, I know better than most the 
importance of stable, two parent families to a healthy society. 
However, I am skeptical, to say the least, of claims that government 
education programs can fix the deep-rooted cultural problems 
responsible for the decline of the American family.
  Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, Federal promotion of marriage opens the 
door for a level of social engineering that should worry all those 
concerned with preserving a free society. The Federal Government has no 
constitutional authority to promote any particular social arrangement; 
instead, the founders recognized that people are better off when they 
form their own social arrangements free from Federal interference. The 
history of the failed experiments with welfarism and socialism shows 
that government can only destroy a culture; when a government tries to 
build a culture, it only further erodes the people's liberty.
  H.R. 4 further raises serious privacy concerns by expanding the use 
of the ``New Hires Database'' to allow States to use the database to 
verify unemployment claims. The New Hires Database contains the name 
and social security number of everyone lawfully employed in the United 
States. Increasing the States' ability to identify fraudulent 
unemployment claims is a worthwhile public policy goal. However, every 
time Congress authorizes a new use for the New Hires Database it takes 
a step toward transforming it into a universal national database that 
can be used by government officials to monitor the lives of American 
citizens.
  As with all proponents of welfare programs, the supporters of H.R. 4 
show a remarkable lack of trust in the American people. They would have 
us believe that without the Federal Government, the lives of the poor 
would be ``nasty, brutish and short.'' However, as scholar Sheldon 
Richman of the Future of Freedom Foundation and others have shown, 
voluntary charities and organizations, such as friendly societies that 
devoted themselves to helping those in need, flourished in the days 
before the welfare state turned charity into a government function.
  Today, government welfare programs have supplemented the old-style 
private programs. One major reason for this is that the policy of high 
taxes and the inflationary monetary policy imposed on the American 
people in order to finance the welfare state have reduced the income 
available for charitable giving. Many over-taxed Americans take the 
attitude toward private charity that ``I give at the (tax) office.''
  Releasing the charitable impulses of the American people by freeing 
them from the excessive tax burden so they can devote more of their 
resources to charity, is a moral and constitutional means of helping 
the needy. By contract, the Federal welfare state is neither moral or 
constitutional. Nowhere in the Constitution is the Federal Government 
given the power to level excessive taxes on one group of citizens for 
the benefit of another group of citizens. Many of the founders would 
have been horrified to see modern politicians define compassion as 
giving away other people's money stolen through confiscatory taxation. 
In the words of the famous essay by former Congressman Davy Crockett, 
this money is ``Not Yours to Give.''
  Voluntary charities also promote self-reliance, but government 
welfare programs foster dependency. In fact, it is the self-interests 
of the bureaucrats and politicians who control the welfare state that 
encourage dependency. After all, when a private organization moves a 
person off welfare, the organization has fulfilled its mission and 
proved its worth to donors. In contrast, when people leave government 
welfare programs, they have deprived Federal bureaucrats of power and 
of a justification for a larger amount of taxpayer funding.
  In conclusion, H.R. 4 furthers Federal control over welfare programs 
by imposing new mandates on the States which furthers unconstitutional 
interference in matters best left to State, local governments, and 
individuals. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose it. Instead, I 
hope my colleagues will learn the lessons of the failure of the welfare 
state and embrace a constitutional and compassionate agenda of 
returning control over the welfare programs to the American people 
through large tax cuts.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong opposition 
to H.R. 4, the Republican Welfare Reform bill that would push millions 
of American families deeper into a life of poverty.
  I represent Santa Clara County, California, which has an unemployment 
rate of 8.2 percent. In a shrinking job market with an intensely 
competitive workforce, it makes no sense for H.R. 4 to require an 
increase to a 40-hour workweek. Many welfare recipients are already 
working two to three jobs trying to make ends meet.
  Santa Clara County has one of the most diverse immigrant populations 
in the Nation. A third of current welfare recipients in the county lack 
basic education, and almost half lack vocational skills. Over 60 
percent of current recipients have difficulty speaking and reading 
English.
  While employers demand basic language training for these individuals, 
H.R. 4 eliminates any vocational education as a primary work activity. 
In effect, this change penalizes non-English speaking immigrants all 
across our Nation. I find it untenable that under H.R. 4, the road to 
self-sufficiency will not be paved with education and training.
  H.R. 4 unreasonably increases work requirements and irrationally 
restricts training. It undermines TANF's goal of self-sufficiency and, 
most disturbingly, places harsh burdens on American families in a time 
of economic uncertainty.
  It is even more distressing that on such a crucial issue, House 
Members will not be given a chance to offer amendments that would 
improve upon the bill. It is apparent that there are legitimate 
concerns with several provisions of H.R. 4--concerns that translate 
into real consequences for our constituents. Now should not be the time 
to disregard the families and children who need our leadership the 
most.
  Mr. Chairman, in substance and in process, I adamantly oppose H.R. 4 
and I urge my colleagues to support a Democratic substitute.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Democratic 
substitute to H.R. 4, which reauthorizes welfare reform. H.R. 4 is a 
step in the wrong direction. It replaces State flexibility with 
unfunded mandates, it promotes make-work at the expense of wage-paying 
employment, and does nothing to help families escape poverty when they 
leave welfare for work. I worked closely, however, with representatives 
Cardin, and Woolsay, in crafting a Democratic substitute that better 
assists the States in moving families from welfare to work and I am 
pleased to be a lead sponsor of this legislation.
  Furthermore, as co-chair of the New Democratic Coalition, I am 
satisfied that our substitute incorporated many of the new Democrats' 
suggestions based on the principle of ``work first.''
  The successful welfare legislation passed in 1996 was one of the 
signature New Democrat initiatives and succeeded where previous 
attempts to reform welfare failed.
  Welfare reform, however, now faces its stiffest test since its 
enactment. The roaring 90's--the decade during which more than 22 
million new jobs were created--are long gone. Our economy today is 
stagnating. The unemployment rate and welfare rolls are up. An 
estimated 8.6 million Americans are out of work, including 166,000 in 
my home State Wisconsin.
  Adding insult to injury, the States, which took responsibility under 
the 1996 law for administering assistance programs, are in the grips of 
their worst fiscal crisis in 50 years. They are being forced to cut 
back services--services that provided critical supports for welfare 
recipients and the working poor and, as many recipients reach the five-
year benefits limit, States increasingly will find themselves providing 
very basic supports for their citizens through food programs and 
homeless shelters.

[[Page 3735]]

  Unfortunately, our changing economic fortune has not stopped the 
House leadership from pushing welfare reform legislation that fails to 
help those who are struggling to make end meets and imposes even more 
unfunded mandates on the States.
  The GOP plan, for example, would drastically increase the number of 
house that mothers with young children will be required to work, 
without a corresponding increase in child care funds. In fact, House 
leadership would freeze funding for welfare and child care at current 
levels, even though the Congressional Budget Office estimates that 
implementing the new work requirements will cost the States an 
additional $8 billion to $11 billion over five years. In Wisconsin 
alone, this would add another $89 million to our State's projected $3.2 
billion budget deficit.
  Thus, the Democratic substitute is a better alternative that places 
welfare recipients on the path to independence from public assistance 
by preparing them for good paying, private-sector jobs. Our alternative 
reform provides the States with flexibility and freedom to be 
innovative in moving families from welfare to work and empowering 
individuals to become self-sufficient.
  Currently, the most promising State programs that help welfare 
recipients obtain and advance in a job, combine a ``work first'' 
approach with supplements training and education. Our plan helps these 
States by providing employment credits and allowing them to count 
education and training towards their participation rate for up to 24 
months. Finally, our plan combines heightened work requirements with an 
addition $2.2 billion per year in childcare funding to ensure that 
families transitioning off of welfare can afford to work.
  In addition to the Democratic Substitute, I offered two amendments 
during Rules Committee yesterday, which, unfortunately, were not 
accepted by the House leadership and were kept from being debated on 
the floor today.
  The first amendment was an employment credit that I offered with 
Congressman Levin. Currently, States have the option of taking 
advantage of the caseload reduction credit that rewards States with 
credit against its participation rate just for moving people off 
welfare. Our amendment, however, would have replaced the caseload 
reduction credit with an employment credit, thus, rewarding States for 
moving people into jobs, with a bonus for moving them into high paying 
jobs. Last year, even the Administration's plan eliminated the caseload 
reduction credit and replaced it with its own employment credit.
  The second amendment I offered gave States incentives to put fathers 
to work. It rewarded States with a credit towards its worker 
participation rate if they worked with fathers to increase their 
employment and pay child support. While very little research exists 
about marriage and its direct benefit to children, substantial research 
shows a working father most effectively improves children's emotional 
and financial well-being.
  Again, I am pleased to have sponsored the Democratic substitute with 
Representatives Cardin and Woolsey. Our alternative is a step forward 
in the right direction. Today, while facing a stagnant economy coupled 
with unprecedented budget deficits, our welfare reform legislation 
ensures that families are strengthened, companies well served, and 
individual futures improved. By building on our past success, we can 
continue to help millions of Americans once and for all gain a foothold 
on the first rung of the career ladder.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 4 and support the 
Democratic substitute offered by Representatives Cardin, Woolsey and 
myself. Finally, I regret that this legislation was pushed through the 
House so quickly without any consideration from the committees of 
jurisdiction. Acting with such haste completely ignored the process and 
shut out all our new Members. Such an important issue should have 
received more thought and consideration.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4--the ``Personal 
Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2003.''
  The Committee on Financial Services approves H.R. 4's State 
flexibility authority that would cut across jurisdictional lines, both 
statutory and regulatory, to allow States and/or local governments to 
conduct demonstration projects to integrate Federal programs and funds. 
Under the plan, entities, such as the public housing authority, and the 
local and State governments would petition a Federal review board for 
this broadened waiver, with the appropriate Secretary exercising veto 
authority over the plan.
  An example of this waiver could be a child-care center and a local 
public housing agency jointly petitioning the Federal Review Board to 
waive the regulations and requirements of their applicable programs to 
achieve a certain purpose. H.R. 4 will knock down firewalls and 
bureaucratic obstacles that many housing organizations complain about 
when attempting to blend programs from different agencies.
  This proposal is an opportunity to allow some demonstration programs 
to see different ways of tackling the problem of service delivery, 
poverty, and a permanent underclass that should have the opportunity to 
move beyond public housing and homeless shelters to fully integrate in 
the private sector through rental and homeownership opportunities. We 
have heard time and time again that we need to blend more of the 
programs from HHS and HUD, for example, to tackle homelessness. H.R. 4 
gives us that opportunity.
  Moreover, to ensure that residents in public housing have an 
opportunity to comment and participate in the development's strategic 
plan, H.R. 4 requires that the concerns of the residents be 
incorporated into not only the annual strategic plan submitted by the 
Public Housing Authority, but also the application for State 
flexibility. This will provide a significant opportunity for 
collaboration between the public housing authority management, 
residents and the administrators of other entities to craft 
demonstrations that will achieve meaningful results, as opposed to a 
dictate from top-management only. I can't underscore the importance of 
resident/tenant participation to the eventual success of these 
applications and demonstrations. For that purpose, H.R. 4 is 
noteworthy.
  One of the reasons the '96 welfare reforms were so successful is that 
States had the flexibility and leeway to shape their welfare programs 
in innovative ways. This bill enhances that flexibility, offering 
``flexibility'' to allow States to integrate funding to improve 
services. As Health & Human Services Secretary and former Wisconsin 
Gov. Tommy Thompson said, flexibility is ``what the governors need and 
that's what the governors will have.''
  This new flexibility will help States create broad, comprehensive 
assistance programs for needy families--as long as they achieve the 
purpose of the underlying program and continue to target those in need. 
This new flexibility will help States design fully integrated 
assistance programs that could revolutionize service delivery. The 
exemptions included in H.R. 4 should alleviate any concerns that 
fundamental rights and protections are jeopardized. Those exemptions 
are: (1) civil rights; (2) purposes or goals of any program; (3) 
maintenance of effort requirements; (4) health and safety; (5) labor 
standards under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938; or (6) 
environmental protection.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4, the 
Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2003.
  The welfare reform law of 1996 is a resounding success. The welfare 
rolls have been cut in half, the number of welfare recipients working 
for pay has more than doubled, the employment rate of single mothers 
has nearly doubled, and child poverty has reached a 25-year low. 
Millions of families have been freed from the shackles of government 
dependency. They are holding their heads up high as they earn a living, 
care for themselves and their families, and improve the future for 
their children.
  Today we have the opportunity to help more families escape from the 
vicious cycles of poverty and despair. I am a proud cosponsor of H.R. 
4, which continues the truly compassionate policy of providing a hand-
up instead of just a hand-out. By coupling temporary financial 
assistance with opportunities for higher education and vocational 
skills training, more families will achieve financial independence and 
improve their quality of life. As the saying goes, you can give a man a 
fish and feed him for a day, or teach a man to fish and feed him for a 
lifetime.
  H.R. 4 also continues the landmark program which has dramatically 
lowered teenage pregnancies in our nation. This program provided $250 
million over five years for states to educate teenagers about 
abstaining from sex until marriage and remaining faithful afterwards. 
From 1994 to 2000, the number of unwed teenagers who became pregnant 
fell from 46.6 to 39.6 per thousand. The abstinence movement profoundly 
influenced this trend.
  Newsweek magazine recently reported that ``more than one-third of 
U.S. high schools teach abstinence until marriage and 700 abstinence 
programs spread the sex-can-wait gospel in all 50 states.'' The 
majority of these programs are a result of the 1996 welfare reform law. 
Their success can be measured by new Federal data revealing that 
virginal teenagers now outnumber sexually-active ones. The Youth Risk 
Behavior survey found that the number of teenagers who say they have 
never had sexual intercourse rose by 10 percent between 1991 and 2001. 
We must improve upon

[[Page 3736]]

this success to give more teenagers the positive message of abstinence 
until marriage.
  There is a great need for this message. According to the Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention, three million teenagers contract a 
sexually-transmitted disease each year, and over half of high-school 
seniors lose their virginity before graduation. This is a tragedy of 
epic proportions. Thousands of young women are sterile for life after 
contracting the sexually-transmitted disease Chlamydia. Many will enter 
marriage without knowing they cannot conceive children.
  Abstinence until marriage education will save millions of teenagers 
from the heartache of infertility, the pain of having an incurable STD, 
the regret of giving too much of themselves too soon, and the anguish 
of being sexually abused. Many abstinence programs help teenagers 
protect themselves from sexual abuse by teaching them to recognize 
emotional blackmail and inappropriate sexual pressure.
  Failed ``comprehensive sex education'' and misleading ``abstinence 
plus'' programs have for too long given teenagers the message that 
``anything goes'' as long as a contraceptive is used. These destructive 
programs have done incalculable damage by failing to inform teenagers 
about the full risks of STDs, the failure rates of contraceptives, and 
the strong emotional bonds formed during intercourse. Authentic 
abstinence education programs give teenagers the full truth: there is 
no contraceptive for a broken heart, and no guaranteed protection 
against pregnancy or STDs except abstinence until marriage and fidelity 
afterwards.
  Presdient Bush has rightly said that ``for children to realize their 
dreams, they must learn the value of abstinence. We must send them the 
message that of the many decisions they will make in their lives, 
choosing to avoid early sex is one of the most important. We must 
stress that abstinence isn't just about saying no to sex; it's about 
saying yes to a happier, healthier future.''
  I am proud that H.R. 4 continues this commitment to our children. I 
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation to help 
lift more families out of poverty and protect more teenagers from the 
dangers of sexual activity outside of marriage.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4, the 
welfare reauthorization bill.
  H.R. 4 is much the same as the legislation opposed by 197 Members 
last year. It imposes enormous unfunded mandates on State governments, 
while requiring States to make fundamental changes to their welfare 
systems. It caps the amount of rehabilitative services a State can 
provide and imposes inflexible work requirements that restrict States' 
ability to respond effectively to their populations.
  A little known fact about TANF is that 44 percent of families in the 
program include a person with a physical or mental impairment. Not 
surprisingly, studies show that families including a person with a 
disability disproportionately lose TANF assistance through sanctions. 
Increased demands on States and families of the disabled heighten their 
already extraordinary risk of inappropriate sanctions.
  It is our responsibility to incorporate safeguards for families 
caring for individuals with special needs. I urge my colleagues to act 
responsibly by supporting the alternative, Democratic substitute, which 
allows for State flexibility in meeting the needs of people with 
disabilities by leaving in place mechanisms for a real chance at 
rehabilitation.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to insert into the 
Congressional Record this letter from the Consortium for Citizens with 
Disabilities.
  I urge my colleagues to read this letter, which provides important 
reasons why they should vote against H.R. 4, the Personal 
Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2003.
  This letter suggests needed changes to the TANF law that would help 
many welfare recipients with barriers to work to get and maintain 
employment.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the Democratic alternative welfare 
reauthorization that includes many of these important changes.

                                           Consortium for Citizens


                                            with Disabilities,

                                                February 11, 2003.
       Dear Representative: The Consortium for Citizens with 
     Disabilities (CCD) is a coalition of national consumer, 
     advocacy, provider and professional organizations 
     headquartered in Washington, DC. We work together to advocate 
     for national public policy that ensures the self 
     determination, independence, empowerment, integration and 
     inclusion of children and adults with disabilities in all 
     aspects of society. The CCD TANF Task Force seeks to ensure 
     that families that include persons with disabilities are 
     afforded equal opportunities and appropriate accommodations 
     under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block 
     grant. We are very concerned that the provisions in H.R. 4 
     will greatly harm, rather than help, families in which there 
     is an adult or a child with disabilities. We are writing to 
     urge you to vote ``no'' on H.R. 4, the ``Personal 
     Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2003.''
       Some argue that those who are concerned about the needs of 
     people with disabilities should welcome the emphasis in H.R. 
     4 upon higher work participation rates and increased hours of 
     work, because then states will be required to work with 
     parents with disabilities. Unfortunately, the exact opposite 
     is true. It is important to understand that, without some 
     flexibility, higher work requirements for states and for 
     families will prevent states from helping move families with 
     disabilities from welfare to work--at a pace that works best 
     for the individual family and will have long-term benefits. 
     If states face more rigid rules on rates and hours of 
     participation, sanction rates will climb and people with 
     disabilities and their families will continue to be heavily 
     represented in their numbers.
       Over 40 percent of TANF recipients have a disability, yet 
     this important fact is largely unknown. In July 2002, GAO 
     reported that overall, 44 percent of TANF recipients have 
     impairments or are caring for a child with impairments, 
     compared with 15 percent of the non-TANF population. Many 
     face multiple barriers. GAO also reported that, in eight 
     percent of TANF families, there is both a parent and a child 
     with disabilities, compared to only one percent in non-TANF 
     families. Also in July 2002, the HHS Office of the Inspector 
     General agreed with GAO's findings.
       What should this mean for TANF reauthorization? The 
     problems facing TANF parents with disabilities are 
     significant. But, just because a person has a disability 
     which may be a barrier to work, this does not mean that she 
     cannot work. With appropriate services and supports, 
     including accommodations in state policies and procedures and 
     in the work place, most parents with disabilities should be 
     able to work and would very much like the opportunity to so. 
     While their policies vary, many states have taken some steps 
     to help families with disabilities. Comgress must encourage 
     states to continue to develop their programs to serve people 
     with disabilities--both adults and children--on TANF. We are 
     very concerned that H.R. 4 does not do this.
       Listed below are the key components that people with 
     disabilities need in TANF reauthorization.
       1. Permit states to determine how long a family will need 
     rehab services and allow participation in rehab services to 
     meet the full weekly work requirement for as long as the 
     state determines the family needs. HR 4 provides that only 
     three months of rehabilitative services can be counted as 
     work activity. After three months, a person with a disability 
     must climb a steep mountain of 24 hours of work before the 
     state will get credit for providing her with any additional 
     rehabilitative services. This is a formula for failure. To 
     suggest that this will work because 16 hours of 
     rehabilitative services can still be provided misses the 
     point: people with disabilities and other barriers often are 
     going to need intensive help--including mental health 
     treatment, training that accommodates their learning 
     disabilities, substance abuse treatment, services that 
     address other barriers--before any other work activity will 
     be appropriate. Many times, this help will take in excess of 
     a year to result in good, long-lasting outcomes. This will 
     not be possible under H.R. 4.
       2. Protect families with barriers from unnecessary and 
     inappropriate sanctioning. The 1996 law requires states to 
     impose sanctions where a parent ``refuses'' to comply with a 
     state work requirement. Unfortunately, many of those who are 
     being sanctioned cannot comply--they are not refusing to 
     comply, they simply cannot because of a disability or other 
     barrier, or may not even understand what is being required of 
     them. Efforts to increase the number of hours of required 
     work activity and states' overall work participation rates 
     are likely to harm these same families. Without strong 
     protections against inappropriate sanctioning, it is likely 
     that the number of inappropriate sanctions will increase. 
     States should be required to have procedures that review a 
     family's circumstances prior to the imposition of a sanction 
     and determine whether modifications are needed to the 
     requirements so that the family is better able to comply. 
     Fairness dictates that all states have such basic policies. 
     H.R. 4 does not include this protection.
       3. Permit states to exempt parents caring for a child with 
     a disability from the work requirement and time limit. States 
     should have the option to exempt from the work requirement 
     and time limit parents caring for a child with a disability 
     if caring for the child prevents the parent from meeting the 
     state's work requirement. Some states already do this. 
     Appropriate, safe child care for children with disabilities 
     is very difficult to find. In many areas, it is non-existent. 
     The medical needs of some children require frequent medical 
     visits and care. If the need for such care becomes 
     unnecessary, parents then can be brought more fully into the 
     program with their allotted time for receipt of benefits 
     still intact.

[[Page 3737]]


       4. For the previous provisions to be effective in helping 
     families move from welfare to work and avoid inappropriate 
     sanctioning, states must have screening and assessment 
     policies and procedures that identify a family's barriers and 
     the steps needed to assist the family to move to greater 
     independence. Assessments should be done by qualified 
     personnel. Because all later decisions hinge on the quality 
     of the assessments, it is important that they be done by 
     qualified personnel. Family self-sufficiency plans developed 
     without meaningful assessments are all too likely to be 
     ineffective, wasting state and federal resources and 
     preventing families from receiving the assistance needed to 
     move successfully from welfare to work.
       As a result of all of the concerns raised above, we urge 
     you to vote ``NO'' on H.R. 4. We also urge you to raise 
     concerns about how families with disabilities will fare under 
     this bill and to suggest that changes be made before the bill 
     leaves conference.
       For further information, please contact members of the 
     Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD) TANF Task 
     Force, including any of the co-chairs: Laurel Stine, Bazelon 
     Center for Mental Health Law, 202-467-5730, 
     [email protected]; Donna Meltzer, Association of University 
     Centers on Disability, 301-593-8549, [email protected]; and 
     Sharon McDonald, National Alliance to End Homelessness, 202-
     638-1526, ext. 109, [email protected].
       Thank you for considering our concerns.
           Sincerely,
       Adapted Physical Activity Council.
       American Association on Mental Retardation.
       American Association of People with Disabilities.
       American Network of Community Options and Resources.
       Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs.
       Association for Persons in Supported Employment.
       Association of University Centers on Disabilities.
       Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law.
       Brain Injury Association of America.
       Council for Exceptional Children.
       Council of State Administrators of Vocational 
     Rehabilitation.
       Learning Disabilities Association of America.
       National Alliance to End Homelessness.
       National Association of Developmental Disabilities 
     Councils.
       National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems.
       National Association of School Psychologists.
       National Association of Social Workers.
       National Mental Health Association.
       National Respite Coalition.
       NISH--creating employment opportunities for people with 
     severe disabilities.
       Research Institute for Independent Living.
       Spina Bifida Association of America.
       The Arc of the United States.
       United Cerebral Palsy.

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice grave concerns about 
this bill. This bill reflects a steady erosion of the federal 
government's commitment to provide a safety net for low-income working 
families.
  States now face a severe fiscal crisis due to the slack economy. This 
bill imposes expensive new requirements on states, without providing 
sufficient funding to help states meet these requirements. The 
Congressional Budget Office estimated that the additional costs to 
states of meeting the increased work requirements in this bill are 
between eight billion and eleven billion dollars over five years.
  This bill largely mirrors the welfare plan that President Bush first 
put forth last year and proposed again this year. The President's 2004 
budget makes clear that the President's welfare plan is just one part 
of a larger drive to abandon the Federal government's traditional role 
of providing a safety net for society's most vulnerable members. The 
budget also includes plans to recast several other major federal 
programs for low-income individuals and families as block grants to 
states. The President offers states increased program flexibility and 
administrative streamlining, but requires in exchange that states give 
up the traditional assurance that future federal funding will keep pace 
with the estimated need for these programs. The programs affected by 
these policies provide health care and housing to low-income children, 
elderly, persons with disabilities, and low-wage workers.
  If the President's proposal for welfare reform is any indication, 
these other block grant proposals point the way toward a shrinking 
federal financial commitment to the poor. States will be left to figure 
out how to fill the fiscal hole. This raises very serious concerns that 
I encourage my colleagues to consider long and hard before heading down 
this path.
  The President's block grant proposals are likely to lead to enormous 
inequities across states as to who gets assistance and who does not. A 
major role of federal income security policy is to provide a level 
playing field by offering a safety net to all citizens. Under the 
president's plan, low-income individuals and families will be at the 
mercy of geography.
  Income security programs are sensitive to economic conditions. Need 
increases disproportionately when the economy is slack and state 
budgets are tight. Only the federal government has the ability to 
borrow when times are bad. Block grant funding will give states the 
incentive to respond to hard times by cutting low-income benefits more 
than they would choose to do otherwise.
  I voted for welfare reform, and I along with Members of both parties 
have cheered the progress of former AFDC beneficiaries into work during 
the prosperous 1990s. But that progress requires support in the form of 
child care and other vital services. Penny-wise but pound-foolish 
policies now threaten that vital underpinning and they risk all our 
recent progress against dependence.
  Finally, I believe the President's overall priorities deserve serious 
questioning. At the same time he proposes to shrink the federal 
commitment to the poor, he proposes $1.5 trillion in new tax cuts that 
largely benefit our nation's most prosperous, create record deficits, 
and burden working families with a growing debt tax. The Administration 
now argues that its tax-cut plan is really an anti-poverty plan because 
it will stimulate growth and create jobs. This is the old theory of 
trickle-down economics that has been discredited time and time again. 
Tax policy does not exist in a vacuum. The point of safety-net programs 
is to support people when the economy falters, or when circumstances in 
their own lives make it difficult or impossible for them to participate 
fully in the economy.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, today, we are debating the re-
authorization of the welfare program. It is a repeat of the debate we 
had last Congress, when Republican ideology prevented a common-sense 
reauthorization. I believe that we have a responsibility to help 
families transition into the workforce and provide essential support to 
make work pay. The Cardin substitute will do that. Regrettably, the 
Republican bill will not.
  Two provisions within this re-authorization are in the jurisdiction 
of the Committee on Energy and Commerce: transitional medical 
assistance (TMA) and abstinence-only education. The Republican versions 
are inadequate; the Cardin substitute fixes both.
  First, TMA is a program that provides health insurance coverage for 
families leaving welfare to go back to work. It is a program that makes 
good sense. Individuals moving off welfare often wind up in jobs that 
do not offer health insurance coverage or find that employer-sponsored 
coverage is too costly on the family's limited budget. TMA allows these 
families to keep their health insurance coverage in Medicaid so that 
getting a job doesn't mean losing health coverage. The Republican bill, 
however, only extends this program for one year; many of us prefer 
making this common-sense program permanent, as the Cardin substitute 
provides. In addition, the Republican bill does not include the 
simplifications that would help families get coverage and keep 
coverage. These provisions were in the President's budget this year, 
and are in the Cardin substitute. They should also be in H.R. 4, but 
they are not.
  Of added concern, Republicans would cut other parts of the Medicaid 
program in order to pay for this extension. For some reason, 
Republicans believe the only way they can afford to help working 
families is if they cut other parts of safety net programs that truly 
allow the poor to work. This is illogical and I oppose it.
  Second, the bill extends the Title V abstinence-only sex education 
program, but locks states into an inflexible curriculum; it is 
controversial, and rightly so. The Cardin substitute to this bill 
provides states with the flexibility to offer programs that are best 
suited to the needs and desires of their citizens and to ensure that 
Federal funds are spent on effective programs that provide medically 
accurate information. State flexibility allows each state to use 
Federal funds to support the abstinence-based comprehensive sex 
education program it determines will be most effective in protecting 
its young people's health. Many leading public and private sector 
health experts, including the National Institutes of Health, the 
American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and 
the American Public Health Association, recommend school-based 
comprehensive sex education programs, yet states are unable to fund 
these types of programs with Federal dollars.
  The Cardin substitute also contains a requirement that Title V 
programs provide information that is determined to be ``medically 
accurate'' by leading medical, psychological, psychiatric, and public 
health organizations. Some abstinence-only programs are actually 
harmful to teenagers because they provide incomplete, inaccurate, and 
misleading information with regard to contraceptives, pregnancy,

[[Page 3738]]

and sexually transmitted diseases. Depriving teens of medically 
accurate information will not protect them; it will only make them more 
vulnerable.
  The Cardin substitute also requires Title V programs be based on 
models that have demonstrated effectiveness in reducing teen 
pregnancies or the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases or 
HIV/AIDS, and calls for a comparative evaluation of programs so 
policymakers can determine the relative merits of abstinence-only 
programs versus comprehensive school-based, age-appropriate, sex 
education curricula. Advocates of abstinence-only programs oppose any 
realistic and objective look at those programs, apparently content to 
waste Federal dollars in the name of ideology.
  The Cardin substitute maintains state flexibility, helps welfare 
recipients to find real work, helps families escape poverty, removes 
the sunset on TMA, and makes important changes in the abstinence 
education provisions. I support it.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this bill, which 
will build upon the tremendous successes of the 1996 welfare reforms. 
When those reforms were enacted, opponents predicted apocalyptic scenes 
of poverty and suffering among America's low-income families. Time has 
proven, however, that those reforms were right. Child poverty is at its 
lowest level in 25 years and poverty among African-American children is 
at its lowest level in history. By requiring welfare beneficiaries to 
work and engage in productive activities, Congress helped change 
society. Former welfare beneficiaries now testify that by being pushed 
into work activities, they are now better members of society and better 
parents to their children.
  Although we have moved millions of families off welfare and into 
work, the road to advancement and self-sufficiency remains a difficult 
challenge. For a long time I have been concerned by the disincentives 
to working hard, earning more money, and getting married that we have 
created over time. The lack of coordination between federal programs 
directed toward low-income families has resulted in what I call the 
``Poverty Trap.'' As the earnings of low-income families increase, most 
of their benefits, such as housing, food stamps, child-care co-
payments, and the Earned Income Tax Credit, phase-out in a manner that 
discourages working harder and advancing in a job. In some cases a pay 
raise of a dollar an hour can mean the loss of benefits at a rate that 
exceeds that raise. This effective marginal tax can exceed 100 percent 
and trap families in poverty. I am pleased that this bill requires the 
General Accounting Office to undertake a comprehensive study of the 
obstacles created by the combined phase-outs of low-income support 
programs and recommend ways to coordinate and reform these programs.
  Because of this ``Poverty Trap,'' I also enthusiastically support 
provisions within this bill which provide states and local governments 
with the flexibility to implement demonstration projects that 
coordinate multiple low-income support programs. Under these provisions 
states can integrate eligible programs as long as those projects serve 
the populations and achieve the purposes of the underlying programs. 
This requirement further ensures that beneficiaries of these underlying 
programs are going to gain, not lose, as a result of these 
demonstration projects. While I wish these flexibility provisions went 
further, they are an important step that will enable needed innovation 
at the state and local level to help families escape poverty. The 
states have proven to be laboratories for successful change in our 
welfare system, and this flexibility will enhance their capabilities.
  I urge all my colleagues who want to help low-income families leave 
welfare and achieve self-sufficiency to support this bill and the state 
and local flexibility provisions within it.
  Mr. Tauzin. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, this bill is considered read for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  The text of H.R. 4 is as follows:

                                 H.R. 4

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Personal Responsibility, 
     Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       The table of contents of this Act is as follows:

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

                             TITLE I--TANF

Sec. 101. Purposes.
Sec. 102. Family assistance grants.
Sec. 103. Promotion of family formation and healthy marriage.
Sec. 104. Supplemental grant for population increases in certain 
              States.
Sec. 105. Bonus to reward employment achievement.
Sec. 106. Contingency fund.
Sec. 107. Use of funds.
Sec. 108. Repeal of Federal loan for State welfare programs.
Sec. 109. Universal engagement and family self-sufficiency plan 
              requirements.
Sec. 110. Work participation requirements.
Sec. 111. Maintenance of effort.
Sec. 112. Performance improvement.
Sec. 113. Data collection and reporting.
Sec. 114. Direct funding and administration by Indian tribes.
Sec. 115. Research, evaluations, and national studies.
Sec. 116. Studies by the Census Bureau and the General Accounting 
              Office.
Sec. 117. Definition of assistance.
Sec. 118. Technical corrections.
Sec. 119. Fatherhood program.
Sec. 120. State option to make TANF programs mandatory partners with 
              one-stop employment training centers.
Sec. 121. Sense of the Congress.
Sec. 122. Extension through fiscal year 2003.

                          TITLE II--CHILD CARE

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

                        TITLE III--CHILD SUPPORT

Sec. 301. Federal matching funds for limited pass through of child 
              support payments to families receiving TANF.
Sec. 302. State option to pass through all child support payments to 
              families that formerly received TANF.
Sec. 303. Mandatory review and adjustment of child support orders for 
              families receiving TANF.
Sec. 304. Mandatory fee for successful child support collection for 
              family that has never received TANF.
Sec. 305. Report on undistributed child support payments.
Sec. 306. Use of new hire information to assist in administration of 
              unemployment compensation programs.
Sec. 307. Decrease in amount of child support arrearage triggering 
              passport denial.
Sec. 308. Use of tax refund intercept program to collect past-due child 
              support on behalf of children who are not minors.
Sec. 309. Garnishment of compensation paid to veterans for service-
              connected disabilities in order to enforce child support 
              obligations.
Sec. 310. Improving Federal debt collection practices.
Sec. 311. Maintenance of technical assistance funding.
Sec. 312. Maintenance of Federal Parent Locator Service funding.

                        TITLE IV--CHILD WELFARE

Sec. 401. Extension of authority to approve demonstration projects.
Sec. 402. Elimination of limitation on number of waivers.
Sec. 403. Elimination of limitation on number of States that may be 
              granted waivers to conduct demonstration projects on same 
              topic.
Sec. 404. Elimination of limitation on number of waivers that may be 
              granted to a single State for demonstration projects.
Sec. 405. Streamlined process for consideration of amendments to and 
              extensions of demonstration projects requiring waivers.
Sec. 406. Availability of reports.
Sec. 407. Technical correction.

                 TITLE V--SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME

Sec. 501. Review of State agency blindness and disability 
              determinations.

                 TITLE VI--STATE AND LOCAL FLEXIBILITY

Sec. 601. Program coordination demonstration projects.
Sec. 602. State food assistance block grant demonstration project.

                    TITLE VII--ABSTINENCE EDUCATION

Sec. 701. Extension of abstinence education program.

              TITLE VIII--TRANSITIONAL MEDICAL ASSISTANCE

Sec. 801. Extension of medicaid transitional medical assistance program 
              through fiscal year 2004.

[[Page 3739]]

Sec. 802. Adjustment to payments for medicaid administrative costs to 
              prevent duplicative payments and to fund extension of 
              transitional medical assistance.

                        TITLE IX--EFFECTIVE DATE

Sec. 901. Effective date.

     SEC. 3. REFERENCES.

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

     SEC. 4. FINDINGS.

       The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) 
     Program established by the Personal Responsibility and Work 
     Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-193) 
     has succeeded in moving families from welfare to work and 
     reducing child poverty.
       (A) There has been a dramatic increase in the employment of 
     current and former welfare recipients. The percentage of 
     working recipients reached an all-time high in fiscal year 
     1999 and continued steady in fiscal years 2000 and 2001. In 
     fiscal year 2001, 33 percent of adult recipients were 
     working, compared to less than 7 percent in fiscal year 1992, 
     and 11 percent in fiscal year 1996. All States met the 
     overall participation rate standard in fiscal year 2001, as 
     did the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.
       (B) Earnings for welfare recipients remaining on the rolls 
     have also increased significantly, as have earnings for 
     female-headed households. The increases have been 
     particularly large for the bottom 2 income quintiles, that 
     is, those women who are most likely to be former or present 
     welfare recipients.
       (C) Welfare dependency has plummeted. As of June 2002, 
     2,025,000 families and 5,008,000 individuals were receiving 
     assistance. Accordingly, the number of families in the 
     welfare caseload and the number of individuals receiving cash 
     assistance declined 54 percent and 58 percent, respectively, 
     since the enactment of TANF. These declines have persisted 
     even as unemployment rates have increased: unemployment rates 
     nationwide rose 50 percent, from 3.9 percent in September 
     2000 to 6 percent in November 2002, while welfare caseloads 
     continued to decline.
       (D) The child poverty rate continued to decline between 
     1996 and 2001, falling 20 percent from 20.5 to 16.3 percent. 
     The 2001 child poverty rate remains at the lowest level since 
     1979. Child poverty rates for African-American and Hispanic 
     children have also fallen dramatically during the past 6 
     years. African-American child poverty is at the lowest rate 
     on record and Hispanic child poverty is at the lowest level 
     reported in over 20 years.
       (E) Despite these gains, States have had mixed success in 
     fully engaging welfare recipients in work activities. While 
     all States have met the overall work participation rates 
     required by law, in 2001, in an average month, only just over 
     \1/3\ of all families with an adult participated in work 
     activities that were countable toward the State's 
     participation rate. Five jurisdictions failed to meet the 
     more rigorous 2-parent work requirements, and 19 
     jurisdictions (States and territories) are not subject to the 
     2-parent requirements, most because they moved their 2-parent 
     cases to separate State programs where they are not subject 
     to a penalty for failing the 2-parent rates.
       (2) As a Nation, we have made substantial progress in 
     reducing teen pregnancies and births, slowing increases in 
     nonmarital childbearing, and improving child support 
     collections and paternity establishment.
       (A) The teen birth rate has fallen continuously since 1991, 
     down a dramatic 22 percent by 2000. During the period of 
     1991-2000, teenage birth rates fell in all States and the 
     District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. 
     Declines also have spanned age, racial, and ethnic groups. 
     There has been success in lowering the birth rate for both 
     younger and older teens. The birth rate for those 15-17 years 
     of age is down 29 percent since 1991, and the rate for those 
     18 and 19 is down 16 percent. Between 1991 and 2000, teen 
     birth rates declined for all women ages 15-19--white, African 
     American, American Indian, Asian or Pacific Islander, and 
     Hispanic women ages 15-19. The rate for African American 
     teens--until recently the highest--experienced the largest 
     decline, down 31 percent from 1991 to 2000, to reach the 
     lowest rate ever reported for this group. Most births to 
     teens are nonmarital; in 2000, about 73 percent of the births 
     to teens aged 15-19 occurred outside of marriage.
       (B) Nonmarital childbearing continued to increase slightly 
     in 2001, however not at the sharp rates of increase seen in 
     recent decades. The birth rate among unmarried women in 2001 
     was 4 percent lower than its peak reached in 1994, while the 
     proportion of births occurring outside of marriage has 
     remained at approximately 33 percent since 1998.
       (C) The negative consequences of out-of-wedlock birth on 
     the mother, the child, the family, and society are well 
     documented. These include increased likelihood of welfare 
     dependency, increased risks of low birth weight, poor 
     cognitive development, child abuse and neglect, and teen 
     parenthood, and decreased likelihood of having an intact 
     marriage during adulthood.
       (D) An estimated 24,500,000 children do not live with their 
     biological fathers, and 7,100,000 children do not live with 
     their biological mothers. These facts are attributable 
     largely to declining marriage rates, increasing divorce 
     rates, and increasing rates of nonmarital births during the 
     latter part of the 20th century.
       (E) There has been a dramatic rise in cohabitation as 
     marriages have declined. Only 40 percent of children of 
     cohabiting couples will see their parents marry. Those who do 
     marry experience a 50 percent higher divorce rate. Children 
     in single-parent households and cohabiting households are at 
     much higher risk of child abuse than children in intact 
     married and stepparent families.
       (F) Children who live apart from their biological fathers, 
     on average, are more likely to be poor, experience 
     educational, health, emotional, and psychological problems, 
     be victims of child abuse, engage in criminal behavior, and 
     become involved with the juvenile justice system than their 
     peers who live with their married, biological mother and 
     father. A child living in a single-parent family is nearly 5 
     times as likely to be poor as a child living in a married-
     couple family. In 2001, in married-couple families, the child 
     poverty rate was 8 percent, and in households headed by a 
     single mother, the poverty rate was 39.3 percent.
       (G) Since the enactment of the Personal Responsibility and 
     Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, child support 
     collections within the child support enforcement system have 
     grown every year, increasing from $12,000,000,000 in fiscal 
     year 1996 to nearly $19,000,000,000 in fiscal year 2001. The 
     number of paternities established or acknowledged in fiscal 
     year 2002 reached an historic high of over 1,500,000--which 
     includes more than a 100 percent increase through in-hospital 
     acknowledgement programs to 790,595 in 2001 from 324,652 in 
     1996. Child support collections were made in well over 
     7,000,000 cases in fiscal year 2000, significantly more than 
     the almost 4,000,000 cases having a collection in 1996.
       (3) The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
     Reconciliation Act of 1996 gave States great flexibility in 
     the use of Federal funds to develop innovative programs to 
     help families leave welfare and begin employment and to 
     encourage the formation of 2-parent families.
       (A) Total Federal and State TANF expenditures in fiscal 
     year 2001 were $25,500,000,000, up from $24,000,000,000 in 
     fiscal year 2000 and $22,600,000,000 in fiscal year 1999. 
     This increased spending is attributable to significant new 
     investments in supportive services in the TANF program, such 
     as child care and activities to support work.
       (B) Since the welfare reform effort began there has been a 
     dramatic increase in work participation (including 
     employment, community service, and work experience) among 
     welfare recipients, as well as an unprecedented reduction in 
     the caseload because recipients have left welfare for work.
       (C) States are making policy choices and investment 
     decisions best suited to the needs of their citizens.
       (i) To expand aid to working families, all States disregard 
     a portion of a family's earned income when determining 
     benefit levels.
       (ii) Most States increased the limits on countable assets 
     above the former Aid to Families with Dependent Children 
     (AFDC) program. Every State has increased the vehicle asset 
     level above the prior AFDC limit for a family's primary 
     automobile.
       (iii) States are experimenting with programs to promote 
     marriage and father involvement. Over half the States have 
     eliminated restrictions on 2-parent families. Many States use 
     TANF, child support, or State funds to support community-
     based activities to help fathers become more involved in 
     their children's lives or strengthen relationships between 
     mothers and fathers.
       (4) Therefore, it is the sense of the Congress that 
     increasing success in moving families from welfare to work, 
     as well as in promoting healthy marriage and other means of 
     improving child well-being, are very important Government 
     interests and the policy contained in part A of title IV of 
     the Social Security Act (as amended by this Act) is intended 
     to serve these ends.

                             TITLE I--TANF

     SEC. 101. PURPOSES.

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

     SEC. 102. FAMILY ASSISTANCE GRANTS.

       (a) Extension of Authority.--Section 403(a)(1)(A) (42 
     U.S.C. 603(a)(1)(A)) is amended--

[[Page 3740]]

       (1) by striking ``1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 
     2002'' and inserting ``2004 through 2008''; and
       (2) by inserting ``payable to the State for the fiscal 
     year'' before the period.
       (b) State Family Assistance Grant.--Section 403(a)(1) (42 
     U.S.C. 603(a)(1)) is amended by striking subparagraphs (B) 
     through (E) and inserting the following:
       ``(B) State family assistance grant.--The State family 
     assistance grant payable to a State for a fiscal year shall 
     be the amount that bears the same ratio to the amount 
     specified in subparagraph (C) of this paragraph as the amount 
     required to be paid to the State under this paragraph for 
     fiscal year 2002 (determined without regard to any reduction 
     pursuant to section 409 or 412(a)(1)) bears to the total 
     amount required to be paid under this paragraph for fiscal 
     year 2002 (as so determined).
       ``(C) Appropriation.--Out of any money in the Treasury of 
     the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are 
     appropriated for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008 
     $16,566,542,000 for grants under this paragraph.''.
       (c) Matching Grants for the Territories.--Section 
     1108(b)(2) (42 U.S.C. 1308(b)(2)) is amended by striking 
     ``1997 through 2002'' and inserting ``2004 through 2008''.

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

       (a) State Plans.--Section 402(a)(1)(A) (42 U.S.C. 
     602(a)(1)(A)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(vii) Encourage equitable treatment of married, 2-parent 
     families under the program referred to in clause (i).''.
       (b) Healthy Marriage Promotion Grants; Repeal of Bonus for 
     Reduction of Illegitimacy Ratio.--Section 403(a)(2) (42 
     U.S.C. 603(a)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Healthy marriage promotion grants.--
       ``(A) Authority.--The Secretary shall award competitive 
     grants to States, territories, and tribal organizations for 
     not more than 50 percent of the cost of developing and 
     implementing innovative programs to promote and support 
     healthy, married, 2-parent families.
       ``(B) Healthy marriage promotion activities.--Funds 
     provided under subparagraph (A) shall be used to support any 
     of the following programs or activities:
       ``(i) Public advertising campaigns on the value of marriage 
     and the skills needed to increase marital stability and 
     health.
       ``(ii) Education in high schools on the value of marriage, 
     relationship skills, and budgeting.
       ``(iii) Marriage education, marriage skills, and 
     relationship skills programs, that may include parenting 
     skills, financial management, conflict resolution, and job 
     and career advancement, for non-married pregnant women and 
     non-married expectant fathers.
       ``(iv) Pre-marital education and marriage skills training 
     for engaged couples and for couples or individuals interested 
     in marriage.
       ``(v) Marriage enhancement and marriage skills training 
     programs for married couples.
       ``(vi) Divorce reduction programs that teach relationship 
     skills.
       ``(vii) Marriage mentoring programs which use married 
     couples as role models and mentors in at-risk communities.
       ``(viii) Programs to reduce the disincentives to marriage 
     in means-tested aid programs, if offered in conjunction with 
     any activity described in this subparagraph.
       ``(C) Appropriation.--
       ``(i) In general.--Out of any money in the Treasury of the 
     United States not otherwise appropriated, there are 
     appropriated for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2008 
     $100,000,000 for grants under this paragraph.
       ``(ii) Extended availability of fy2003 funds.--Funds 
     appropriated under clause (i) for fiscal year 2003 shall 
     remain available to the Secretary through fiscal year 2004, 
     for grants under this paragraph for fiscal year 2003.''.
       (c) Counting of Spending on Non-Eligible Families to 
     Prevent and Reduce Incidence of Out-of-Wedlock Births, 
     Encourage Formation and Maintenance of Healthy, 2-Parent 
     Married Families, or Encourage Responsible Fatherhood.--
     Section 409(a)(7)(B)(i) (42 U.S.C. 609(a)(7)(B)(i)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

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

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

       Section 403(a)(3)(H) (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(3)(H)) is amended--
       (1) in the subparagraph heading, by striking ``of grants 
     for fiscal year 2002'';
       (2) in clause (i), by striking ``fiscal year 2002'' and 
     inserting ``each of fiscal years 2004 through 2007'';
       (3) in clause (ii), by striking ``2002'' and inserting 
     ``2007''; and
       (4) in clause (iii), by striking ``fiscal year 2002'' and 
     inserting ``each of fiscal years 2004 through 2007''.

     SEC. 105. BONUS TO REWARD EMPLOYMENT ACHIEVEMENT.

       (a) Reallocation of Funding.--
       (1) In general.--Section 403(a)(4) (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(4)) is 
     amended--
       (A) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``high 
     performance states'' and inserting ``employment 
     achievement'';
       (B) in subparagraph (D)(ii)--
       (i) in subclause (I), by striking ``equals $200,000,000'' 
     and inserting ``(other than 2003) equals $200,000,000, and 
     for bonus year 2003 equals $100,000,000''; and
       (ii) in subclause (II), by striking ``$1,000,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$900,000,000''; and
       (C) in subparagraph (F), by striking ``$1,000,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$900,000,000''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraph (1) 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     or September 30, 2003, whichever is earlier.
       (b) Bonus to Reward Employment Achievement.--
       (1) In general.--Section 403(a)(4) (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(4)) is 
     amended by striking subparagraphs (A) through (F) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall make a grant 
     pursuant to this paragraph to each State for each bonus year 
     for which the State is an employment achievement State.
       ``(B) Amount of grant.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii) of this 
     subparagraph, the Secretary shall determine the amount of the 
     grant payable under this paragraph to an employment 
     achievement State for a bonus year, which shall be based on 
     the performance of the State as determined under subparagraph 
     (D)(i) for the fiscal year that immediately precedes the 
     bonus year.
       ``(ii) Limitation.--The amount payable to a State under 
     this paragraph for a bonus year shall not exceed 5 percent of 
     the State family assistance grant.
       ``(C) Formula for measuring state performance.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), not later than 
     October 1, 2003, the Secretary, in consultation with the 
     States, shall develop a formula for measuring State 
     performance in operating the State program funded under this 
     part so as to achieve the goals of employment entry, job 
     retention, and increased earnings from employment for 
     families receiving assistance under the program, as measured 
     on an absolute basis and on the basis of improvement in State 
     performance.
       ``(ii) Special rule for bonus year 2004.--For the purposes 
     of awarding a bonus under this paragraph for bonus year 2004, 
     the Secretary may measure the performance of a State in 
     fiscal year 2003 using the job entry rate, job retention 
     rate, and earnings gain rate components of the formula 
     developed under section 403(a)(4)(C) as in effect immediately 
     before the effective date of this paragraph.
       ``(D) Determination of state performance.--For each bonus 
     year, the Secretary shall--
       ``(i) use the formula developed under subparagraph (C) to 
     determine the performance of each eligible State for the 
     fiscal year that precedes the bonus year; and
       ``(ii) prescribe performance standards in such a manner so 
     as to ensure that--

       ``(I) the average annual total amount of grants to be made 
     under this paragraph for each bonus year equals $100,000,000; 
     and
       ``(II) the total amount of grants to be made under this 
     paragraph for all bonus years equals $600,000,000.

       ``(E) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
       ``(i) Bonus year.--The term `bonus year' means each of 
     fiscal years 2004 through 2009.
       ``(ii) Employment achievement state.--The term `employment 
     achievement State' means, with respect to a bonus year, an 
     eligible State whose performance determined pursuant to 
     subparagraph (D)(i) for the fiscal year preceding the bonus 
     year equals or exceeds the performance standards prescribed 
     under subparagraph (D)(ii) for such preceding fiscal year.
       ``(F) Appropriation.--
       ``(i) In general.--Out of any money in the Treasury of the 
     United States not otherwise appropriated, there are 
     appropriated for fiscal years 2004 through 2009 $600,000,000 
     for grants under this paragraph.
       ``(ii) Extended availability of prior appropriation.--
     Amounts appropriated under section 403(a)(4)(F) of the Social 
     Security Act (as in effect before the date of the enactment 
     of this clause) that have not been expended as of such date 
     of enactment shall remain available through fiscal year 2004 
     for grants under section 403(a)(4) of such Act (as in effect 
     before such date of enactment) for bonus year 2003.
       ``(G) Grants for tribal organizations.--This paragraph 
     shall apply with respect to tribal organizations in the same 
     manner in which this paragraph applies with respect to 
     States. In determining the criteria under which to make 
     grants to tribal organizations under this paragraph, the 
     Secretary shall consult with tribal organizations.''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1), 
     except for section

[[Page 3741]]

     403(a)(4)(F)(ii) of the Social Security Act as inserted by 
     the amendment, shall take effect on October 1, 2003.

     SEC. 106. CONTINGENCY FUND.

       (a) Deposits Into Fund.--Section 403(b)(2) (42 U.S.C. 
     603(b)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002'' 
     and inserting ``2004 through 2008''; and
       (2) by striking all that follows ``$2,000,000,000'' and 
     inserting a period.
       (b) Grants.--Section 403(b)(3)(C)(ii) (42 U.S.C. 
     603(b)(3)(C)(ii)) is amended by striking ``fiscal years 1997 
     through 2002'' and inserting ``fiscal years 2004 through 
     2008''.
       (c) Definition of Needy State.--Clauses (i) and (ii) of 
     section 403(b)(5)(B) (42 U.S.C. 603(b)(5)(B)) are amended by 
     inserting after ``1996'' the following: ``, and the Food 
     Stamp Act of 1977 as in effect during the corresponding 3-
     month period in the fiscal year preceding such most recently 
     concluded 3-month period,''.
       (d) Annual Reconciliation: Federal Matching of State 
     Expenditures Above ``Maintenance of Effort'' Level.--Section 
     403(b)(6) (42 U.S.C. 603(b)(6)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)(ii)--
       (A) by adding ``and'' at the end of subclause (I);
       (B) by striking ``; and'' at the end of subclause (II) and 
     inserting a period; and
       (C) by striking subclause (III);
       (2) in subparagraph (B)(i)(II), by striking all that 
     follows ``section 409(a)(7)(B)(iii))'' and inserting a 
     period;
       (3) by amending subparagraph (B)(ii)(I) to read as follows:

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

       (4) by striking subparagraph (C).
       (e) Consideration of Certain Child Care Expenditures in 
     Determining State Compliance With Contingency Fund 
     Maintenance of Effort Requirement.--Section 409(a)(10) (42 
     U.S.C. 609(a)(10)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(other than the expenditures described in 
     subclause (I)(bb) of that paragraph)) under the State program 
     funded under this part'' and inserting a close parenthesis; 
     and
       (2) by striking ``excluding any amount expended by the 
     State for child care under subsection (g) or (i) of section 
     402 (as in effect during fiscal year 1994) for fiscal year 
     1994,''.
       (f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2003.

     SEC. 107. USE OF FUNDS.

       (a) General Rules.--Section 404(a)(2) (42 U.S.C. 604(a)(2)) 
     is amended by striking ``in any manner that'' and inserting 
     ``for any purposes or activities for which''.
       (b) Treatment of Interstate Immigrants.--
       (1) State plan provision.--Section 402(a)(1)(B) (42 U.S.C. 
     602(a)(1)(B)) is amended by striking clause (i) and 
     redesignating clauses (ii) through (iv) as clauses (i) 
     through (iii), respectively.
       (2) Use of funds.--Section 404 (42 U.S.C. 604) is amended 
     by striking subsection (c).
       (c) Increase in Amount Transferable to Child Care.--Section 
     404(d)(1) (42 U.S.C. 604(d)(1)) is amended by striking ``30'' 
     and inserting ``50''.
       (d) Increase in Amount Transferable to Title XX Programs.--
     Section 404(d)(2)(B) (42 U.S.C. 604(d)(2)(B)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(B) Applicable percent.--For purposes of subparagraph 
     (A), the applicable percent is 10 percent for fiscal year 
     2004 and each succeeding fiscal year.''.
       (e) Clarification of Authority of States To Use TANF Funds 
     Carried Over From Prior Years To Provide TANF Benefits and 
     Services.--Section 404(e) (42 U.S.C. 604(e)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(e) Authority To Carryover or Reserve Certain Amounts for 
     Benefits or Services or for Future Contingencies.--
       ``(1) Carryover.--A State or tribe may use a grant made to 
     the State or tribe under this part for any fiscal year to 
     provide, without fiscal year limitation, any benefit or 
     service that may be provided under the State or tribal 
     program funded under this part.
       ``(2) Contingency reserve.--A State or tribe may designate 
     any portion of a grant made to the State or tribe under this 
     part as a contingency reserve for future needs, and may use 
     any amount so designated to provide, without fiscal year 
     limitation, any benefit or service that may be provided under 
     the State or tribal program funded under this part. If a 
     State or tribe so designates a portion of such a grant, the 
     State shall, on an annual basis, include in its report under 
     section 411(a) the amount so designated.''.

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

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

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

       (a) Modification of State Plan Requirements.--Section 
     402(a)(1)(A) (42 U.S.C. 602(a)(1)(A)) is amended by striking 
     clauses (ii) and (iii) and inserting the following:
       ``(ii) Require a parent or caretaker receiving assistance 
     under the program to engage in work or alternative self-
     sufficiency activities (as defined by the State), consistent 
     with section 407(e)(2).
       ``(iii) Require families receiving assistance under the 
     program to engage in activities in accordance with family 
     self-sufficiency plans developed pursuant to section 
     408(b).''.
       (b) Establishment of Family Self-Sufficiency Plans.--
       (1) In general.--Section 408(b) (42 U.S.C. 608(b)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Family Self-Sufficiency Plans.--
       ``(1) In general.--A State to which a grant is made under 
     section 403 shall--
       ``(A) assess, in the manner deemed appropriate by the 
     State, the skills, prior work experience, and employability 
     of each work-eligible individual (as defined in section 
     407(b)(2)(C)) receiving assistance under the State program 
     funded under this part;
       ``(B) establish for each family that includes such an 
     individual, in consultation as the State deems appropriate 
     with the individual, a self-sufficiency plan that specifies 
     appropriate activities described in the State plan submitted 
     pursuant to section 402, including direct work activities as 
     appropriate designed to assist the family in achieving their 
     maximum degree of self-sufficiency, and that provides for the 
     ongoing participation of the individual in the activities;
       ``(C) require, at a minimum, each such individual to 
     participate in activities in accordance with the self-
     sufficiency plan;
       ``(D) monitor the participation of each such individual in 
     the activities specified in the self sufficiency plan, and 
     regularly review the progress of the family toward self-
     sufficiency;
       ``(E) upon such a review, revise the self-sufficiency plan 
     and activities as the State deems appropriate.
       ``(2) Timing.--The State shall comply with paragraph (1) 
     with respect to a family--
       ``(A) in the case of a family that, as of October 1, 2003, 
     is not receiving assistance from the State program funded 
     under this part, not later than 60 days after the family 
     first receives assistance on the basis of the most recent 
     application for the assistance; or
       ``(B) in the case of a family that, as of such date, is 
     receiving the assistance, not later than 12 months after the 
     date of enactment of this subsection.
       ``(3) State discretion.--A State shall have sole 
     discretion, consistent with section 407, to define and design 
     activities for families for purposes of this subsection, to 
     develop methods for monitoring and reviewing progress 
     pursuant to this subsection, and to make modifications to the 
     plan as the State deems appropriate to assist the individual 
     in increasing their degree of self-sufficiency.
       ``(4) Rule of interpretation.--Nothing in this part shall 
     preclude a State from requiring participation in work and any 
     other activities the State deems appropriate for helping 
     families achieve self-sufficiency and improving child well-
     being.''.
       (2) Penalty for failure to establish family self-
     sufficiency plan.--Section 409(a)(3) (42 U.S.C. 609(a)(3)) is 
     amended--
       (A) in the paragraph heading, by inserting ``or establish 
     family self-sufficiency plan'' after ``rates''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``or 408(b)'' after 
     ``407(a)''.

     SEC. 110. WORK PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Elimination of Separate Participation Rate Requirements 
     for 2-Parent Families.--
       (1) In general.--
       (A) Section 407 (42 U.S.C. 607) is amended in each of 
     subsections (a) and (b) by striking paragraph (2).
       (B) Section 407(b)(4) (42 U.S.C. 607(b)(4)) is amended by 
     striking ``paragraphs (1)(B) and (2)(B)'' and inserting 
     ``paragraph (1)(B)''.
       (C) Section 407(c)(1) (42 U.S.C. 607(c)(1)) is amended by 
     striking subparagraph (B).
       (D) Section 407(c)(2)(D) (42 U.S.C. 607(c)(2)(D)) is 
     amended by striking ``paragraphs (1)(B)(i) and (2)(B) of 
     subsection (b)'' and inserting ``subsection (b)(1)(B)(i)''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraph (1) 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2002.
       (b) Work Participation Requirements.--Section 407 (42 
     U.S.C. 607) is amended by striking all that precedes 
     subsection (b)(3) and inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 407. WORK PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS.

       ``(a) Participation Rate Requirements.--A State to which a 
     grant is made under section 403 for a fiscal year shall 
     achieve a minimum participation rate equal to not less than--
       ``(1) 50 percent for fiscal year 2004;
       ``(2) 55 percent for fiscal year 2005;
       ``(3) 60 percent for fiscal year 2006;
       ``(4) 65 percent for fiscal year 2007; and
       ``(5) 70 percent for fiscal year 2008 and each succeeding 
     fiscal year.
       ``(b) Calculation of Participation Rates.--
       ``(1) Average monthly rate.--For purposes of subsection 
     (a), the participation rate of a State for a fiscal year is 
     the average of the participation rates of the State for each 
     month in the fiscal year.

[[Page 3742]]

       ``(2) Monthly participation rates; incorporation of 40-hour 
     work week standard.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the 
     participation rate of a State for a month is--
       ``(i) the total number of countable hours (as defined in 
     subsection (c)) with respect to the counted families for the 
     State for the month; divided by
       ``(ii) 160 multiplied by the number of counted families for 
     the State for the month.
       ``(B) Counted families defined.--
       ``(i) In general.--In subparagraph (A), the term `counted 
     family' means, with respect to a State and a month, a family 
     that includes a work-eligible individual and that receives 
     assistance in the month under the State program funded under 
     this part, subject to clause (ii).
       ``(ii) State option to exclude certain families.--At the 
     option of a State, the term `counted family' shall not 
     include--

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

       ``(iii) State option to include individuals receiving 
     assistance under a tribal family assistance plan or tribal 
     work program.--At the option of a State, the term `counted 
     family' may include families in the State that are receiving 
     assistance under a tribal family assistance plan approved 
     under section 412 or under a tribal work program to which 
     funds are provided under this part.
       ``(C) Work-eligible individual defined.--In this section, 
     the term `work-eligible individual' means an individual--
       ``(i) who is married or a single head of household; and
       ``(ii) whose needs are (or, but for sanctions under this 
     part that have been in effect for more than 3 months (whether 
     or not consecutive) in the preceding 12 months or under part 
     D, would be) included in determining the amount of cash 
     assistance to be provided to the family under the State 
     program funded under this part.''.
       (c) Recalibration of Caseload Reduction Credit.--
       (1) In general.--Section 407(b)(3)(A)(ii) (42 U.S.C. 
     607(b)(3)(A)(ii)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(ii) the average monthly number of families that received 
     assistance under the State program funded under this part 
     during the base year.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 407(b)(3)(B) (42 U.S.C. 
     607(b)(3)(B)) is amended by striking ``and eligibility 
     criteria'' and all that follows through the close parenthesis 
     and inserting ``and the eligibility criteria in effect during 
     the then applicable base year''.
       (3) Base year defined.--Section 407(b)(3) (42 U.S.C. 
     607(b)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) Base year defined.--In this paragraph, the term `base 
     year' means, with respect to a fiscal year--

       ``(I) if the fiscal year is fiscal year 2004, fiscal year 
     1996;
       ``(II) if the fiscal year is fiscal year 2005, fiscal year 
     1998;
       ``(III) if the fiscal year is fiscal year 2006, fiscal year 
     2001; or
       ``(IV) if the fiscal year is fiscal year 2007 or any 
     succeeding fiscal year, the then 4th preceding fiscal 
     year.''.

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

       ``(I) substance abuse counseling or treatment;
       ``(II) rehabilitation treatment and services;
       ``(III) work-related education or training directed at 
     enabling the family member to work;
       ``(IV) job search or job readiness assistance; and

       ``(V) any other activity that addresses a purpose specified 
     in section 401(a).

       ``(iii) Limitation.--

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

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

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

       ``(ii) if the failure is total and persists for at least 2 
     consecutive months, terminate all cash payments to the family 
     including qualified State expenditures (as defined in section

[[Page 3743]]

     409(a)(7)(B)(i)) for at least 1 month and thereafter until 
     the State determines that the individual has resumed full 
     participation in the activities, subject to such good cause 
     exceptions as the State may establish.
       ``(B) Special rule.--
       ``(i) In general.--In the event of a conflict between a 
     requirement of clause (i)(II) or (ii) of subparagraph (A) and 
     a requirement of a State constitution, or of a State statute 
     that, before 1966, obligated local government to provide 
     assistance to needy parents and children, the State 
     constitutional or statutory requirement shall control.
       ``(ii) Limitation.--Clause (i) of this subparagraph shall 
     not apply after the 1-year period that begins with the date 
     of the enactment of this subparagraph.''.
       (g) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 407(f) (42 U.S.C. 607(f)) is amended in each of 
     paragraphs (1) and (2) by striking ``work activity described 
     in subsection (d)'' and inserting ``direct work activity''.
       (2) The heading of section 409(a)(14) (42 U.S.C. 
     609(a)(14)) is amended by inserting ``or refusing to engage 
     in activities under a family self-sufficiency plan'' after 
     ``work''.
       (h) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     (other than subsection (a)) shall take effect on October 1, 
     2003.

     SEC. 111. MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT.

       (a) In General.--Section 409(a)(7) (42 U.S.C. 609(a)(7)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``fiscal year 1998, 
     1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, or 2003'' and inserting ``fiscal year 
     2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, or 2009''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B)(ii)--
       (A) by inserting ``preceding'' before ``fiscal year''; and
       (B) by striking ``for fiscal years 1997 through 2002,''.
       (b) State Spending on Promoting Healthy Marriage.--
       (1) In general.--Section 404 (42 U.S.C. 604) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(l) Marriage Promotion.--A State, territory, or tribal 
     organization to which a grant is made under section 403(a)(2) 
     may use a grant made to the State, territory, or tribal 
     organization under any other provision of section 403 for 
     marriage promotion activities, and the amount of any such 
     grant so used shall be considered State funds for purposes of 
     section 403(a)(2).''.
       (2) Federal tanf funds used for marriage promotion 
     disregarded for purposes of maintenance of effort 
     requirement.--Section 409(a)(7)(B)(i) (42 U.S.C. 
     609(a)(7)(B)(i)), as amended by section 103(c) of this Act, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

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

     SEC. 112. PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT.

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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 113. DATA COLLECTION AND REPORTING.

       (a) Contents of Report.--Section 411(a)(1)(A) (42 U.S.C. 
     611(a)(1)(A)) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding clause (i), by inserting ``and 
     on families receiving assistance under State programs funded 
     with other qualified State expenditures (as defined in 
     section 409(a)(7)(B))'' before the colon;
       (2) in clause (vii), by inserting ``and minor parent'' 
     after ``of each adult'';
       (3) in clause (viii), by striking ``and educational 
     level'';
       (4) in clause (ix), by striking ``, and if the latter 2, 
     the amount received'';
       (5) in clause (x)--
       (A) by striking ``each type of''; and
       (B) by inserting before the period ``and, if applicable, 
     the reason for receipt of the assistance for a total of more 
     than 60 months'';
       (6) in clause (xi), by striking the subclauses and 
     inserting the following:

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

       (7) in clause (xii), by inserting ``and progress toward 
     universal engagement'' after ``participation rates'';
       (8) in clause (xiii), by striking ``type and'' before 
     ``amount of assistance'';
       (9) in clause (xvi), by striking subclause (II) and 
     redesignating subclauses (III) through (V) as subclauses (II) 
     through (IV), respectively; and
       (10) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(xviii) The date the family first received assistance 
     from the State program on the basis of the most recent 
     application for such assistance.
       ``(xix) Whether a self-sufficiency plan is established for 
     the family in accordance with section 408(b).
       ``(xx) With respect to any child in the family, the marital 
     status of the parents at the birth of the child, and if the 
     parents were not then married, whether the paternity of the 
     child has been established.''.
       (b) Use of Samples.--Section 411(a)(1)(B) (42 U.S.C. 
     611(a)(1)(B)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (i)--
       (A) by striking ``a sample'' and inserting ``samples''; and
       (B) by inserting before the period ``, except that the 
     Secretary may designate core data elements that must be 
     reported on all families''; and
       (2) in clause (ii), by striking ``funded under this part'' 
     and inserting ``described in subparagraph (A)''.
       (c) Report on Families That Become Ineligible To Receive 
     Assistance.--Section 411(a) (42 U.S.C. 611(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (5);
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (5); and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (5) (as so redesignated) 
     the following:
       ``(6) Report on families that become ineligible to receive 
     assistance.--The report required by paragraph (1) for a 
     fiscal quarter shall include for each month in the quarter 
     the number of families and total number of individuals that, 
     during the month, became ineligible to receive assistance 
     under the State program funded under this part (broken down 
     by the number of families that become so ineligible due to 
     earnings, changes in family composition that result in 
     increased earnings, sanctions, time limits, or other 
     specified reasons).''.

[[Page 3744]]

       (d) Regulations.--Section 411(a)(7) (42 U.S.C. 611(a)(7)) 
     is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``and to collect the necessary data'' 
     before ``with respect to which reports'';
       (2) by striking ``subsection'' and inserting ``section''; 
     and
       (3) by striking ``in defining the data elements'' and all 
     that follows and inserting ``, the National Governors' 
     Association, the American Public Human Services Association, 
     the National Conference of State Legislatures, and others in 
     defining the data elements.''.
       (e) Additional Reports by States.--Section 411 (42 U.S.C. 
     611) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (e); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
       ``(b) Annual Reports on Program Characteristics.--Not later 
     than 90 days after the end of fiscal year 2004 and each 
     succeeding fiscal year, each eligible State shall submit to 
     the Secretary a report on the characteristics of the State 
     program funded under this part and other State programs 
     funded with qualified State expenditures (as defined in 
     section 409(a)(7)(B)(i)). The report shall include, with 
     respect to each such program, the program name, a description 
     of program activities, the program purpose, the program 
     eligibility criteria, the sources of program funding, the 
     number of program beneficiaries, sanction policies, and any 
     program work requirements.
       ``(c) Monthly Reports on Caseload.--Not later than 3 months 
     after the end of a calendar month that begins 1 year or more 
     after the enactment of this subsection, each eligible State 
     shall submit to the Secretary a report on the number of 
     families and total number of individuals receiving assistance 
     in the calendar month under the State program funded under 
     this part.
       ``(d) Annual Report on Performance Improvement.--Beginning 
     with fiscal year 2005, not later than January 1 of each 
     fiscal year, each eligible State shall submit to the 
     Secretary a report on achievement and improvement during the 
     preceding fiscal year under the numerical performance goals 
     and measures under the State program funded under this part 
     with respect to each of the matters described in section 
     402(a)(1)(A)(v).''.
       (f) Annual Reports to Congress by the Secretary.--Section 
     411(e), as so redesignated by subsection (e) of this section, 
     is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``and each fiscal year thereafter'' and inserting ``and by 
     July 1 of each fiscal year thereafter'';
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``families applying for 
     assistance,'' and by striking the last comma; and
       (3) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``and other programs 
     funded with qualified State expenditures (as defined in 
     section 409(a)(7)(B)(i))'' before the semicolon.
       (g) Increased Analysis of State Single Audit Reports.--
     Section 411 (42 U.S.C. 611) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(f) Increased Analysis of State Single Audit Reports.--
       ``(1) In general.--Within 3 months after a State submits to 
     the Secretary a report pursuant to section 7502(a)(1)(A) of 
     title 31, United States Code, the Secretary shall analyze the 
     report for the purpose of identifying the extent and nature 
     of problems related to the oversight by the State of 
     nongovernmental entities with respect to contracts entered 
     into by such entities with the State program funded under 
     this part, and determining what additional actions may be 
     appropriate to help prevent and correct the problems.
       ``(2) Inclusion of program oversight section in annual 
     report to the congress.--The Secretary shall include in each 
     report under subsection (e) a section on oversight of State 
     programs funded under this part, including findings on the 
     extent and nature of the problems referred to in paragraph 
     (1), actions taken to resolve the problems, and to the extent 
     the Secretary deems appropriate make recommendations on 
     changes needed to resolve the problems.''.

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

       (a) Tribal Family Assistance Grant.--Section 412(a)(1)(A) 
     (42 U.S.C. 612(a)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``1997, 1998, 
     1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002'' and inserting ``2004 through 
     2008''.
       (b) Grants for Indian Tribes That Received JOBS Funds.--
     Section 412(a)(2)(A) (42 U.S.C. 612(a)(2)(A)) is amended by 
     striking ``1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002'' and 
     inserting ``2004 through 2008''.

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

       (a) Secretary's Fund for Research, Demonstrations, and 
     Technical Assistance.--Section 413 (42 U.S.C. 613), as 
     amended by section 112(c) of this Act, is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(l) Funding for Research, Demonstrations, and Technical 
     Assistance.--
       ``(1) Appropriation.--
       ``(A) In general.--Out of any money in the Treasury of the 
     United States not otherwise appropriated, there are 
     appropriated $102,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2003 
     through 2008, which shall be available to the Secretary for 
     the purpose of conducting and supporting research and 
     demonstration projects by public or private entities, and 
     providing technical assistance to States, Indian tribal 
     organizations, and such other entities as the Secretary may 
     specify that are receiving a grant under this part, which 
     shall be expended primarily on activities described in 
     section 403(a)(2)(B), and which shall be in addition to any 
     other funds made available under this part.
       ``(B) Extended availability of fy 2003 funds.--Funds 
     appropriated under this paragraph for fiscal year 2003 shall 
     remain available to the Secretary through fiscal year 2004, 
     for use in accordance with this paragraph for fiscal year 
     2003.
       ``(2) Set aside for demonstration projects for coordination 
     of provision of child welfare and tanf services to tribal 
     families at risk of child abuse or neglect.--
       ``(A) In general.--Of the amounts made available under 
     paragraph (1) for a fiscal year, $2,000,000 shall be awarded 
     on a competitive basis to fund demonstration projects 
     designed to test the effectiveness of tribal governments or 
     tribal consortia in coordinating the provision to tribal 
     families at risk of child abuse or neglect of child welfare 
     services and services under tribal programs funded under this 
     part.
       ``(B) Use of funds.--A grant made to such a project shall 
     be used--
       ``(i) to improve case management for families eligible for 
     assistance from such a tribal program;
       ``(ii) for supportive services and assistance to tribal 
     children in out-of-home placements and the tribal families 
     caring for such children, including families who adopt such 
     children; and
       ``(iii) for prevention services and assistance to tribal 
     families at risk of child abuse and neglect.
       ``(C) Reports.--The Secretary may require a recipient of 
     funds awarded under this paragraph to provide the Secretary 
     with such information as the Secretary deems relevant to 
     enable the Secretary to facilitate and oversee the 
     administration of any project for which funds are provided 
     under this paragraph.''.
       (b) Funding of Studies and Demonstrations.--Section 
     413(h)(1) (42 U.S.C. 613(h)(1)) is amended in the matter 
     preceding subparagraph (A) by striking ``1997 through 2002'' 
     and inserting ``2004 through 2008''.
       (c) Report on Enforcement of Certain Affidavits of Support 
     and Sponsor Deeming.--Not later than March 31, 2004, the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with 
     the Attorney General, shall submit to the Congress a report 
     on the enforcement of affidavits of support and sponsor 
     deeming as required by section 421, 422, and 432 of the 
     Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation 
     Act of 1996.
       (d) Report on Coordination.--Not later than 6 months after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Labor shall 
     jointly submit a report to the Congress describing common or 
     conflicting data elements, definitions, performance measures, 
     and reporting requirements in the Workforce Investment Act of 
     1998 and part A of title IV of the Social Security Act, and, 
     to the degree each Secretary deems appropriate, at the 
     discretion of either Secretary, any other program 
     administered by the respective Secretary, to allow greater 
     coordination between the welfare and workforce development 
     systems.

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

       (a) Census Bureau Study.--
       (1) In general.--Section 414(a) (42 U.S.C. 614(a)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) In General.--The Bureau of the Census shall implement 
     or enhance a longitudinal survey of program participation, 
     developed in consultation with the Secretary and made 
     available to interested parties, to allow for the assessment 
     of the outcomes of continued welfare reform on the economic 
     and child well-being of low-income families with children, 
     including those who received assistance or services from a 
     State program funded under this part, and, to the extent 
     possible, shall provide State representative samples. The 
     content of the survey should include such information as may 
     be necessary to examine the issues of out-of-wedlock 
     childbearing, marriage, welfare dependency and compliance 
     with work requirements, the beginning and ending of spells of 
     assistance, work, earnings and employment stability, and the 
     well-being of children.''.
       (2) Appropriation.--Section 414(b) (42 U.S.C. 614(b)) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``1996,'' and all that follows through 
     ``2002'' and inserting ``2004 through 2008''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following: ``Funds 
     appropriated under this subsection shall remain available 
     through fiscal year 2008 to carry out subsection (a).''.
       (b) GAO Study.--
       (1) In general.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall conduct a study to determine the combined effect 
     of the phase-out rates for Federal programs and policies 
     which provide support to low-income families and individuals 
     as they move from welfare to work, at all earning levels up 
     to

[[Page 3745]]

     $35,000 per year, for at least 5 States including Wisconsin 
     and California, and any potential disincentives the combined 
     phase-out rates create for families to achieve independence 
     or to marry.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this subsection, the Comptroller General shall 
     submit a report to Congress containing the results of the 
     study conducted under this section and, as appropriate, any 
     recommendations consistent with the results.

     SEC. 117. DEFINITION OF ASSISTANCE.

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

     SEC. 118. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.

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

     SEC. 119. FATHERHOOD PROGRAM.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``Promotion and Support of Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy 
     Marriage Act of 2003''.
       (b) Fatherhood Program.--
       (1) In general.--Title I of the Personal Responsibility and 
     Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-
     193) is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 117. FATHERHOOD PROGRAM.

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

                     ```PART C--FATHERHOOD PROGRAM

     ```SEC. 441. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       ```(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that there is 
     substantial evidence strongly indicating the urgent need to 
     promote and support involved, committed, and responsible 
     fatherhood, and to encourage and support healthy marriages 
     between parents raising children, including data 
     demonstrating the following:
       ```(1) In approximately 90 percent of cases where a parent 
     is absent, that parent is the father.
       ```(2) By some estimates, 60 percent of children born in 
     the 1990's will spend a significant portion of their 
     childhood in a home without a father.
       ```(3) Nearly 75 percent of children in single-parent homes 
     will experience poverty before they are 11 years old, 
     compared with only 20 percent of children in 2-parent 
     families.
       ```(4) Low income is positively correlated with children's 
     difficulties with education, social adjustment, and 
     delinquency, and single-parent households constitute a 
     disproportionate share of low-income households.
       ```(5) Where families (whether intact or with a parent 
     absent) are living in poverty, a significant factor is the 
     father's lack of job skills.
       ```(6) Children raised in 2-parent married families, on 
     average, fare better as a group in key areas, including 
     better school performance, reduced rates of substance abuse, 
     crime, and delinquency, fewer health, emotional, and 
     behavioral problems, lower rates of teenage sexual activity, 
     less risk of abuse or neglect, and lower risk of teen 
     suicide.
       ```(7) Committed and responsible fathering during infancy 
     and early childhood contributes to the development of 
     emotional security, curiosity, and math and verbal skills.
       ```(8) An estimated 24,000,000 children (33.5 percent) live 
     apart from their biological father.
       ```(9) A recent national survey indicates that of children 
     under age 18 not living with their biological father, 37 
     percent had not seen their father even once in the last 12 
     months.
       ```(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this part are:
       ```(1) To provide for projects and activities by public 
     entities and by nonprofit community entities, including 
     religious organizations, designed to test promising 
     approaches to accomplishing the following objectives:
       ```(A) Promoting responsible, caring, and effective 
     parenting through counseling, mentoring, and parenting 
     education, dissemination of educational materials and 
     information on parenting skills, encouragement of positive 
     father involvement, including the positive involvement of 
     nonresident fathers, and other methods.
       ```(B) Enhancing the abilities and commitment of unemployed 
     or low-income fathers to provide material support for their 
     families and to avoid or leave welfare programs by assisting 
     them to take full advantage of education, job training, and 
     job search programs, to improve work habits and work skills, 
     to secure career advancement by activities such as outreach 
     and information dissemination, coordination, as appropriate, 
     with employment services and job training programs, including 
     the One-Stop delivery system established under title I of the 
     Workforce Investment Act of 1998, encouragement and support 
     of timely payment of current child support and regular 
     payment toward past due child support obligations in 
     appropriate cases, and other methods.
       ```(C) Improving fathers' ability to effectively manage 
     family business affairs by means such as education, 
     counseling, and mentoring in matters including household 
     management, budgeting, banking, and handling of financial 
     transactions, time management, and home maintenance.
       ```(D) Encouraging and supporting healthy marriages and 
     married fatherhood through such activities as premarital 
     education, including the use of premarital inventories, 
     marriage preparation programs, skills-based marriage 
     education programs, marital therapy, couples counseling, 
     divorce education and reduction programs, divorce mediation 
     and counseling, relationship skills enhancement programs, 
     including those designed to reduce child abuse and domestic 
     violence, and dissemination of information about the benefits 
     of marriage for both parents and children.
       ```(2) Through the projects and activities described in 
     paragraph (1), to improve outcomes for children with respect 
     to measures such as increased family income and economic 
     security, improved school performance, better health, 
     improved emotional and behavioral stability and social 
     adjustment, and reduced risk of delinquency, crime, substance 
     abuse, child abuse and neglect, teen sexual activity, and 
     teen suicide.
       ```(3) To evaluate the effectiveness of various approaches 
     and to disseminate findings concerning outcomes and other 
     information in order to encourage and facilitate the 
     replication of effective approaches to accomplishing these 
     objectives.

     ```SEC. 442. DEFINITIONS.

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

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

       ```(a) In General.--The Secretary may make grants for 
     fiscal years 2004 through 2008 to public and nonprofit 
     community entities, including religious organizations, and to 
     Indian tribes and tribal organizations, for demonstration 
     service projects and activities designed to test the 
     effectiveness of various approaches to accomplish the 
     objectives specified in section 441(b)(1).
       ```(b) Eligibility Criteria for Full Service Grants.--In 
     order to be eligible for a grant under this section, except 
     as specified in subsection (c), an entity shall submit an 
     application to the Secretary containing the following:
       ```(1) Project description.--A statement including--
       ```(A) a description of the project and how it will be 
     carried out, including the geographical area to be covered 
     and the number and characteristics of clients to be served, 
     and how it will address each of the 4 objectives specified in 
     section 441(b)(1); and
       ```(B) a description of the methods to be used by the 
     entity or its contractor to assess the extent to which the 
     project was successful in accomplishing its specific 
     objectives and the general objectives specified in section 
     441(b)(1).
       ```(2) Experience and qualifications.--A demonstration of 
     ability to carry out the project, by means such as 
     demonstration of experience in successfully carrying out 
     projects of similar design and scope, and such other 
     information as the Secretary may find necessary to 
     demonstrate the entity's capacity to carry out the project, 
     including the entity's ability to provide the non-Federal 
     share of project resources.

[[Page 3746]]

       ```(3) Addressing child abuse and neglect and domestic 
     violence.--A description of how the entity will assess for 
     the presence of, and intervene to resolve, domestic violence 
     and child abuse and neglect, including how the entity will 
     coordinate with State and local child protective service and 
     domestic violence programs.
       ```(4) Addressing concerns relating to substance abuse and 
     sexual activity.--A commitment to make available to each 
     individual participating in the project education about 
     alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs, and about the health risks 
     associated with abusing such substances, and information 
     about diseases and conditions transmitted through substance 
     abuse and sexual contact, including HIV/AIDS, and to 
     coordinate with providers of services addressing such 
     problems, as appropriate.
       ```(5) Coordination with specified programs.--An 
     undertaking to coordinate, as appropriate, with State and 
     local entities responsible for the programs under parts A, B, 
     and D of this title, including programs under title I of the 
     Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (including the One-Stop 
     delivery system), and such other programs as the Secretary 
     may require.
       ```(6) Records, reports, and audits.--An agreement to 
     maintain such records, make such reports, and cooperate with 
     such reviews or audits as the Secretary may find necessary 
     for purposes of oversight of project activities and 
     expenditures.
       ```(7) Self-initiated evaluation.--If the entity elects to 
     contract for independent evaluation of the project (part or 
     all of the cost of which may be paid for using grant funds), 
     a commitment to submit to the Secretary a copy of the 
     evaluation report within 30 days after completion of the 
     report and not more than 1 year after completion of the 
     project.
       ```(8) Cooperation with secretary's oversight and 
     evaluation.--An agreement to cooperate with the Secretary's 
     evaluation of projects assisted under this section, by means 
     including random assignment of clients to service recipient 
     and control groups, if determined by the Secretary to be 
     appropriate, and affording the Secretary access to the 
     project and to project-related records and documents, staff, 
     and clients.
       ```(c) Eligibility Criteria for Limited Purpose Grants.--In 
     order to be eligible for a grant under this section in an 
     amount under $25,000 per fiscal year, an entity shall submit 
     an application to the Secretary containing the following:
       ```(1) Project description.--A description of the project 
     and how it will be carried out, including the number and 
     characteristics of clients to be served, the proposed 
     duration of the project, and how it will address at least 1 
     of the 4 objectives specified in section 441(b)(1).
       ```(2) Qualifications.--Such information as the Secretary 
     may require as to the capacity of the entity to carry out the 
     project, including any previous experience with similar 
     activities.
       ```(3) Coordination with related programs.--As required by 
     the Secretary in appropriate cases, an undertaking to 
     coordinate and cooperate with State and local entities 
     responsible for specific programs relating to the objectives 
     of the project including, as appropriate, jobs programs and 
     programs serving children and families.
       ```(4) Records, reports, and audits.--An agreement to 
     maintain such records, make such reports, and cooperate with 
     such reviews or audits as the Secretary may find necessary 
     for purposes of oversight of project activities and 
     expenditures.
       ```(5) Cooperation with secretary's oversight and 
     evaluation.--An agreement to cooperate with the Secretary's 
     evaluation of projects assisted under this section, by means 
     including affording the Secretary access to the project and 
     to project-related records and documents, staff, and clients.
       ```(d) Considerations in Awarding Grants.--
       ```(1) Diversity of projects.--In awarding grants under 
     this section, the Secretary shall seek to achieve a balance 
     among entities of differing sizes, entities in differing 
     geographic areas, entities in urban and in rural areas, and 
     entities employing differing methods of achieving the 
     purposes of this section, including working with the State 
     agency responsible for the administration of part D to help 
     fathers satisfy child support arrearage obligations.
       ```(2) Preference for projects serving low-income 
     fathers.--In awarding grants under this section, the 
     Secretary may give preference to applications for projects in 
     which a majority of the clients to be served are low-income 
     fathers.
       ```(e) Federal Share.--
       ```(1) In general.--Grants for a project under this section 
     for a fiscal year shall be available for a share of the cost 
     of such project in such fiscal year equal to--
       ```(A) up to 80 percent (or up to 90 percent, if the entity 
     demonstrates to the Secretary's satisfaction circumstances 
     limiting the entity's ability to secure non-Federal 
     resources) in the case of a project under subsection (b); and
       ```(B) up to 100 percent, in the case of a project under 
     subsection (c).
       ```(2) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share may be in 
     cash or in kind. In determining the amount of the non-Federal 
     share, the Secretary may attribute fair market value to 
     goods, services, and facilities contributed from non-Federal 
     sources.

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

       ```(a) In General.--The Secretary may make grants under 
     this section for fiscal years 2004 through 2008 to eligible 
     entities (as specified in subsection (b)) for 2 multicity, 
     multistate projects demonstrating approaches to achieving the 
     objectives specified in section 441(b)(1). One of the 
     projects shall test the use of married couples to deliver 
     program services.
       ```(b) Eligible Entities.--An entity eligible for a grant 
     under this section must be a national nonprofit fatherhood 
     promotion organization that meets the following requirements:
       ```(1) Experience with fatherhood programs.--The 
     organization must have substantial experience in designing 
     and successfully conducting programs that meet the purposes 
     described in section 441.
       ```(2) Experience with multicity, multistate programs and 
     government coordination.--The organization must have 
     experience in simultaneously conducting such programs in more 
     than 1 major metropolitan area in more than 1 State and in 
     coordinating such programs, where appropriate, with State and 
     local government agencies and private, nonprofit agencies 
     (including community-based and religious organizations), 
     including State or local agencies responsible for child 
     support enforcement and workforce development.
       ```(c) Application Requirements.--In order to be eligible 
     for a grant under this section, an entity must submit to the 
     Secretary an application that includes the following:
       ```(1) Qualifications.--
       ```(A) Eligible entity.--A demonstration that the entity 
     meets the requirements of subsection (b).
       ```(B) Other.--Such other information as the Secretary may 
     find necessary to demonstrate the entity's capacity to carry 
     out the project, including the entity's ability to provide 
     the non-Federal share of project resources.
       ```(2) Project description.--A description of and 
     commitments concerning the project design, including the 
     following:
       ```(A) In general.--A detailed description of the proposed 
     project design and how it will be carried out, which shall--
       ```(i) provide for the project to be conducted in at least 
     3 major metropolitan areas;
       ```(ii) state how it will address each of the 4 objectives 
     specified in section 441(b)(1);
       ```(iii) demonstrate that there is a sufficient number of 
     potential clients to allow for the random selection of 
     individuals to participate in the project and for comparisons 
     with appropriate control groups composed of individuals who 
     have not participated in such projects; and
       ```(iv) demonstrate that the project is designed to direct 
     a majority of project resources to activities serving low-
     income fathers (but the project need not make services 
     available on a means-tested basis).
       ```(B) Oversight, evaluation, and adjustment component.--An 
     agreement that the entity--
       ```(i) in consultation with the evaluator selected pursuant 
     to section 445, and as required by the Secretary, will modify 
     the project design, initially and (if necessary) subsequently 
     throughout the duration of the project, in order to 
     facilitate ongoing and final oversight and evaluation of 
     project operation and outcomes (by means including, to the 
     maximum extent feasible, random assignment of clients to 
     service recipient and control groups), and to provide for 
     mid-course adjustments in project design indicated by interim 
     evaluations;
       ```(ii) will submit to the Secretary revised descriptions 
     of the project design as modified in accordance with clause 
     (i); and
       ```(iii) will cooperate fully with the Secretary's ongoing 
     oversight and ongoing and final evaluation of the project, by 
     means including affording the Secretary access to the project 
     and to project-related records and documents, staff, and 
     clients.
       ```(3) Addressing child abuse and neglect and domestic 
     violence.--A description of how the entity will assess for 
     the presence of, and intervene to resolve, domestic violence 
     and child abuse and neglect, including how the entity will 
     coordinate with State and local child protective service and 
     domestic violence programs.
       ```(4) Addressing concerns relating to substance abuse and 
     sexual activity.--A commitment to make available to each 
     individual participating in the project education about 
     alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs, and about the health risks 
     associated with abusing such substances, and information 
     about diseases and conditions transmitted through substance 
     abuse and sexual contact, including HIV/AIDS, and to 
     coordinate with providers of services addressing such 
     problems, as appropriate.
       ```(5) Coordination with specified programs.--An 
     undertaking to coordinate, as appropriate, with State and 
     local entities responsible for the programs funded under

[[Page 3747]]

     parts A, B, and D of this title, programs under title I of 
     the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (including the One-Stop 
     delivery system), and such other programs as the Secretary 
     may require.
       ```(6) Records, reports, and audits.--An agreement to 
     maintain such records, make such reports, and cooperate with 
     such reviews or audits (in addition to those required under 
     the preceding provisions of paragraph (2)) as the Secretary 
     may find necessary for purposes of oversight of project 
     activities and expenditures.
       ```(d) Federal Share.--
       ```(1) In general.--Grants for a project under this section 
     for a fiscal year shall be available for up to 80 percent of 
     the cost of such project in such fiscal year.
       ```(2) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share may be in 
     cash or in kind. In determining the amount of the non-Federal 
     share, the Secretary may attribute fair market value to 
     goods, services, and facilities contributed from non-Federal 
     sources.

     ```SEC. 445. EVALUATION.

       ```(a) In General.--The Secretary, directly or by contract 
     or cooperative agreement, shall evaluate the effectiveness of 
     service projects funded under sections 443 and 444 from the 
     standpoint of the purposes specified in section 441(b)(1).
       ```(b) Evaluation Methodology.--Evaluations under this 
     section shall--
       ```(1) include, to the maximum extent feasible, random 
     assignment of clients to service delivery and control groups 
     and other appropriate comparisons of groups of individuals 
     receiving and not receiving services;
       ```(2) describe and measure the effectiveness of the 
     projects in achieving their specific project goals; and
       ```(3) describe and assess, as appropriate, the impact of 
     such projects on marriage, parenting, domestic violence, 
     child abuse and neglect, money management, employment and 
     earnings, payment of child support, and child well-being, 
     health, and education.
       ```(c) Evaluation Reports.--The Secretary shall publish the 
     following reports on the results of the evaluation:
       ```(1) An implementation evaluation report covering the 
     first 24 months of the activities under this part to be 
     completed by 36 months after initiation of such activities.
       ```(2) A final report on the evaluation to be completed by 
     September 30, 2011.

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

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

     ```SEC. 447. NONDISCRIMINATION.

       ```The projects and activities assisted under this part 
     shall be available on the same basis to all fathers and 
     expectant fathers able to benefit from such projects and 
     activities, including married and unmarried fathers and 
     custodial and noncustodial fathers, with particular attention 
     to low-income fathers, and to mothers and expectant mothers 
     on the same basis as to fathers.

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

       ```(a) Authorization.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 
     through 2008 to carry out the provisions of this part.
       ```(b) Reservation.--Of the amount appropriated under this 
     section for each fiscal year, not more than 15 percent shall 
     be available for the costs of the multicity, multicounty, 
     multistate demonstration projects under section 444, 
     evaluations under section 445, and projects of national 
     significance under section 446.'.
       ``(b) Inapplicability of Effective Date Provisions.--
     Section 116 shall not apply to the amendment made by 
     subsection (a) of this section.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--Section 2 of such Act is amended 
     in the table of contents by inserting after the item relating 
     to section 116 the following new item:

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

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

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

     SEC. 121. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.

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

     SEC. 122. EXTENSION THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 2003.

       Except as otherwise provided in this Act and the amendments 
     made by this Act, activities authorized by part A of title IV 
     of the Social Security Act, and by section 1108(b) of the 
     Social Security Act, shall continue through September 30, 
     2003, in the manner authorized, and at the level provided, 
     for fiscal year 2002.

                          TITLE II--CHILD CARE

     SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Caring for Children Act of 
     2003''.

     SEC. 202. GOALS.

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

     SEC. 203. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 658B of the Child Care and Development Block Grant 
     Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``is'' and inserting ``are'', and
       (2) by striking ``$1,000,000,000 for each of the fiscal 
     years 1996 through 2002'' and inserting ``$2,100,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2003, $2,300,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, 
     $2,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, $2,700,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2006, $2,900,000,000 for fiscal year 2007, and 
     $3,100,000,000 for fiscal year 2008''.

     SEC. 204. APPLICATION AND PLAN.

       Section 658E(c)(2) of the Child Care and Development Block 
     Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858C(c)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by amending subparagraph (D) to read as follows:
       ``(D) Consumer and child care provider education 
     information.--Certify that the State will collect and 
     disseminate, through resource and referral services and other 
     means as determined by the State, to parents of eligible 
     children, child care providers, and the general public, 
     information regarding--
       ``(i) the promotion of informed child care choices, 
     including information about the quality and availability of 
     child care services;
       ``(ii) research and best practices on children's 
     development, including early cognitive development;
       ``(iii) the availability of assistance to obtain child care 
     services; and
       ``(iv) other programs for which families that receive child 
     care services for which financial assistance is provided 
     under this subchapter may be eligible, including the food 
     stamp program, the WIC program under section 17 of the Child 
     Nutrition Act of 1966, the child and adult care food program 
     under section 17 of the Richard B. Russell National School 
     Lunch Act, and the medicaid and SCHIP programs under titles 
     XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act.'', and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (H) the following:
       ``(I) Coordination with other early child care services and 
     early childhood education programs.--Demonstrate how the 
     State is coordinating child care services provided under this 
     subchapter with Head Start, Early Reading First, Even Start, 
     Ready-To-Learn Television, State pre-kindergarten programs, 
     and other early childhood education programs to expand 
     accessibility to and continuity of care and early education 
     without displacing services provided by the current early 
     care and education delivery system.

[[Page 3748]]

       ``(J) Public-private partnerships.--Demonstrate how the 
     State encourages partnerships with private and other public 
     entities to leverage existing service delivery systems of 
     early childhood education and increase the supply and quality 
     of child care services.
       ``(K) Child care service quality.--
       ``(i) Certification.--For each fiscal year after fiscal 
     year 2004, certify that during the then preceding fiscal year 
     the State was in compliance with section 658G and describe 
     how funds were used to comply with such section during such 
     preceding fiscal year.
       ``(ii) Strategy.--For each fiscal year after fiscal year 
     2004, contain an outline of the strategy the State will 
     implement during such fiscal year for which the State plan is 
     submitted, to address the quality of child care services in 
     the State available to low-income parents from eligible child 
     care providers, and include in such strategy--

       ``(I) a statement specifying how the State will address the 
     activities described in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of 
     section 658G;
       ``(II) a description of quantifiable, objective measures 
     for evaluating the quality of child care services separately 
     with respect to the activities listed in each of such 
     paragraphs that the State will use to evaluate its progress 
     in improving the quality of such child care services;
       ``(III) a list of State-developed child care service 
     quality targets for such fiscal year quantified on the basis 
     of such measures; and
       ``(IV) for each fiscal year after fiscal year 2004, a 
     report on the progress made to achieve such targets during 
     the then preceding fiscal year.

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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 206. REPORT BY SECRETARY.

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

     ``SEC. 658L. REPORT BY SECRETARY.

       ``(a) Report Required.--Not later than October 1, 2005, and 
     biennially thereafter, the Secretary shall prepare and submit 
     to the Committee on Education and the Workforce of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Health, Education, 
     Labor and Pensions of the Senate a report that contains the 
     following:
       ``(1) A summary and analysis of the data and information 
     provided to the Secretary in the State reports submitted 
     under section 658K.
       ``(2) Aggregated statistics on the supply of, demand for, 
     and quality of child care, early education, and non-school-
     hours programs.
       ``(3) An assessment, and where appropriate, recommendations 
     for the Congress concerning efforts that should be undertaken 
     to improve the access of the public to quality and affordable 
     child care in the United States.
       ``(b) Collection of Information.--The Secretary may utilize 
     the national child care data system available through 
     resource and referral organizations at the local, State, and 
     national level to collect the information required by 
     subsection (a)(2).

     SEC. 207. DEFINITIONS.

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

     SEC. 208. ENTITLEMENT FUNDING.

       Section 418(a)(3) (42 U.S.C. 618(a)(3)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (E);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (F) 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(G) $2,917,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through 
     2008.''.

                        TITLE III--CHILD SUPPORT

     SEC. 301. FEDERAL MATCHING FUNDS FOR LIMITED PASS THROUGH OF 
                   CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS TO FAMILIES RECEIVING 
                   TANF.

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

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

       ``(C) the amount is disregarded in determining the amount 
     and type of assistance provided to the family under the State 
     program funded under part A.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to amounts distributed on or after October 1, 
     2005.

     SEC. 302. STATE OPTION TO PASS THROUGH ALL CHILD SUPPORT 
                   PAYMENTS TO FAMILIES THAT FORMERLY RECEIVED 
                   TANF.

       (a) In General.--Section 457(a) (42 U.S.C. 657(a)), as 
     amended by section 301(a) of this Act, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)(B), in the matter preceding clause 
     (i), by inserting ``, except as provided in paragraph (8),'' 
     after ``shall''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) State option to pass through all child support 
     payments to families that formerly received tanf.--In lieu of 
     applying paragraph (2) to any family described in paragraph 
     (2), a State may distribute to the family any amount 
     collected during a month on behalf of the family.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to amounts distributed on or after October 1, 
     2005.

     SEC. 303. MANDATORY REVIEW AND ADJUSTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT 
                   ORDERS FOR FAMILIES RECEIVING TANF.

       (a) In General.--Section 466(a)(10)(A)(i) (42 U.S.C. 
     666(a)(10)(A)(i)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``parent, or,'' and inserting ``parent 
     or''; and
       (2) by striking ``upon the request of the State agency 
     under the State plan or of either parent,''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2005.

     SEC. 304. MANDATORY FEE FOR SUCCESSFUL CHILD SUPPORT 
                   COLLECTION FOR FAMILY THAT HAS NEVER RECEIVED 
                   TANF.

       (a) In General.--Section 454(6)(B) (42 U.S.C. 654(6)(B)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(i)'' after ``(B)'';
       (2) by redesignating clauses (i) and (ii) as subclauses (I) 
     and (II), respectively;
       (3) by adding ``and'' after the semicolon; and
       (4) by adding after and below the end the following new 
     clause:
       ``(ii) in the case of an individual who has never received 
     assistance under a State program funded under part A and for 
     whom the State has collected at least $500 of support, the 
     State shall impose an annual fee of $25 for each case in 
     which services are furnished, which shall be retained by the 
     State from support collected on behalf of the individual (but 
     not from the 1st $500 so collected), paid by the individual 
     applying for the services, recovered from the absent parent, 
     or paid by the State out of its own funds (the payment of 
     which from State funds shall not be considered as an 
     administrative cost of the State for the operation of the 
     plan, and such fees shall be considered income to the 
     program);''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 457(a)(3) (42 U.S.C. 
     657(a)(3)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) Families that never received assistance.--In the case 
     of any other family, the State shall distribute to the family 
     the portion of the amount so collected that remains after 
     withholding any fee pursuant to section 454(6)(B)(ii).''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2004.

[[Page 3749]]



     SEC. 305. REPORT ON UNDISTRIBUTED CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS.

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

     SEC. 306. USE OF NEW HIRE INFORMATION TO ASSIST IN 
                   ADMINISTRATION OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 
                   PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--Section 453(j) (42 U.S.C. 653(j)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) Information comparisons and disclosure to assist in 
     administration of unemployment compensation programs.--
       ``(A) In general.--If a State agency responsible for the 
     administration of an unemployment compensation program under 
     Federal or State law transmits to the Secretary the name and 
     social security account number of an individual, the 
     Secretary shall, if the information in the National Directory 
     of New Hires indicates that the individual may be employed, 
     disclose to the State agency the name, address, and employer 
     identification number of any putative employer of the 
     individual, subject to this paragraph.
       ``(B) Condition on disclosure.--The Secretary shall make a 
     disclosure under subparagraph (A) only to the extent that the 
     Secretary determines that the disclosure would not interfere 
     with the effective operation of the program under this part.
       ``(C) Use of information.--A State agency may use 
     information provided under this paragraph only for purposes 
     of administering a program referred to in subparagraph 
     (A).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2004.

     SEC. 307. DECREASE IN AMOUNT OF CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGE 
                   TRIGGERING PASSPORT DENIAL.

       (a) In General.--Section 452(k)(1) (42 U.S.C. 652(k)(1)) is 
     amended by striking ``$5,000'' and inserting ``$2,500''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 454(31) (42 U.S.C. 
     654(31)) is amended by striking ``$5,000'' and inserting 
     ``$2,500''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2004.

     SEC. 308. USE OF TAX REFUND INTERCEPT PROGRAM TO COLLECT 
                   PAST-DUE CHILD SUPPORT ON BEHALF OF CHILDREN 
                   WHO ARE NOT MINORS.

       (a) In General.--Section 464 (42 U.S.C. 664) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(2)(A), by striking ``(as that term is 
     defined for purposes of this paragraph under subsection 
     (c))''; and
       (2) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     as used in'' and inserting ``In''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``(whether or not a minor)'' after ``a 
     child'' each place it appears; and
       (B) by striking paragraphs (2) and (3).
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2005.

     SEC. 309. GARNISHMENT OF COMPENSATION PAID TO VETERANS FOR 
                   SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITIES IN ORDER TO 
                   ENFORCE CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 459(h) (42 U.S.C. 659(h)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(A)(ii)(V), by striking all that 
     follows ``Armed Forces'' and inserting a semicolon; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Limitations with respect to compensation paid to 
     veterans for service-connected disabilities.--Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of this section:
       ``(A) Compensation described in paragraph (1)(A)(ii)(V) 
     shall not be subject to withholding pursuant to this 
     section--
       ``(i) for payment of alimony; or
       ``(ii) for payment of child support if the individual is 
     fewer than 60 days in arrears in payment of the support.
       ``(B) Not more than 50 percent of any payment of 
     compensation described in paragraph (1)(A)(ii)(V) may be 
     withheld pursuant to this section.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2005.

     SEC. 310. IMPROVING FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES.

       (a) In General.--Section 3716(h)(3) of title 31, United 
     States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) In applying this subsection with respect to any debt 
     owed to a State, other than past due support being enforced 
     by the State, subsection (c)(3)(A) shall not apply. 
     Subsection (c)(3)(A) shall apply with respect to past due 
     support being enforced by the State notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, including sections 207 and 1631(d)(1) of 
     the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 407 and 1383(d)(1)), 
     section 413(b) of Public law 91-173 (30 U.S.C. 923(b)), and 
     section 14 of the Act of August 29, 1935 (45 U.S.C. 231m).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2004.

     SEC. 311. MAINTENANCE OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FUNDING.

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

     SEC. 312. MAINTENANCE OF FEDERAL PARENT LOCATOR SERVICE 
                   FUNDING.

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

                        TITLE IV--CHILD WELFARE

     SEC. 401. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY TO APPROVE DEMONSTRATION 
                   PROJECTS.

       Section 1130(a)(2) (42 U.S.C. 1320a-9(a)(2)) is amended by 
     striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2008''.

     SEC. 402. ELIMINATION OF LIMITATION ON NUMBER OF WAIVERS.

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

     SEC. 403. ELIMINATION OF LIMITATION ON NUMBER OF STATES THAT 
                   MAY BE GRANTED WAIVERS TO CONDUCT DEMONSTRATION 
                   PROJECTS ON SAME TOPIC.

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

     SEC. 404. ELIMINATION OF LIMITATION ON NUMBER OF WAIVERS THAT 
                   MAY BE GRANTED TO A SINGLE STATE FOR 
                   DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.

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

     SEC. 405. STREAMLINED PROCESS FOR CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS 
                   TO AND EXTENSIONS OF DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS 
                   REQUIRING WAIVERS.

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

     SEC. 406. AVAILABILITY OF REPORTS.

       Section 1130 (42 U.S.C. 1320a-9) is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(k) Availability of Reports.--The Secretary shall make 
     available to any State or other interested party any report 
     provided to the Secretary under subsection (f)(2), and any 
     evaluation or report made by the Secretary with respect to a 
     demonstration project conducted under this section, with a 
     focus on information that may promote best practices and 
     program improvements.''.

     SEC. 407. TECHNICAL CORRECTION.

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

                 TITLE V--SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME

     SEC. 501. REVIEW OF STATE AGENCY BLINDNESS AND DISABILITY 
                   DETERMINATIONS.

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

[[Page 3750]]

       ``(iii) at least 50 percent of all such determinations that 
     are made in fiscal year 2006 or thereafter.
       ``(B) In carrying out subparagraph (A), the Commissioner of 
     Social Security shall, to the extent feasible, select for 
     review the determinations which the Commissioner of Social 
     Security identifies as being the most likely to be 
     incorrect.''.

                 TITLE VI--STATE AND LOCAL FLEXIBILITY

     SEC. 601. PROGRAM COORDINATION DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.

       (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to establish a 
     program of demonstration projects in a State or portion of a 
     State to coordinate multiple public assistance, workforce 
     development, and other programs, for the purpose of 
     supporting working individuals and families, helping families 
     escape welfare dependency, promoting child well-being, or 
     helping build stronger families, using innovative approaches 
     to strengthen service systems and provide more coordinated 
     and effective service delivery.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Administering secretary.--The term ``administering 
     Secretary'' means, with respect to a qualified program, the 
     head of the Federal agency responsible for administering the 
     program.
       (2) Qualified program.--The term ``qualified program'' 
     means--
       (A) a program under part A of title IV of the Social 
     Security Act;
       (B) the program under title XX of such Act;
       (C) activities funded under title I of the Workforce 
     Investment Act of 1998, except subtitle C of such title;
       (D) a demonstration project authorized under section 505 of 
     the Family Support Act of 1988;
       (E) activities funded under the Wagner-Peyser Act;
       (F) activities funded under the Adult Education and Family 
     Literacy Act;
       (G) activities funded under the Child Care and Development 
     Block Grant Act of 1990;
       (H) activities funded under the United States Housing Act 
     of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437 et seq.), except that such term shall 
     not include--
       (i) any program for rental assistance under section 8 of 
     such Act (42 U.S.C. 1437f); and
       (ii) the program under section 7 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1437e) for designating public housing for occupancy by 
     certain populations;
       (I) activities funded under title I, II, III, or IV of the 
     McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11301 et 
     seq.); or
       (J) the food stamp program as defined in section 3(h) of 
     the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2012(h)).
       (c) Application Requirements.--The head of a State entity 
     or of a sub-State entity administering 2 or more qualified 
     programs proposed to be included in a demonstration project 
     under this section shall (or, if the project is proposed to 
     include qualified programs administered by 2 or more such 
     entities, the heads of the administering entities (each of 
     whom shall be considered an applicant for purposes of this 
     section) shall jointly) submit to the administering Secretary 
     of each such program an application that contains the 
     following:
       (1) Programs included.--A statement identifying each 
     qualified program to be included in the project, and 
     describing how the purposes of each such program will be 
     achieved by the project.
       (2) Population served.--A statement identifying the 
     population to be served by the project and specifying the 
     eligibility criteria to be used.
       (3) Description and justification.--A detailed description 
     of the project, including--
       (A) a description of how the project is expected to improve 
     or enhance achievement of the purposes of the programs to be 
     included in the project, from the standpoint of quality, of 
     cost-effectiveness, or of both; and
       (B) a description of the performance objectives for the 
     project, including any proposed modifications to the 
     performance measures and reporting requirements used in the 
     programs.
       (4) Waivers requested.--A description of the statutory and 
     regulatory requirements with respect to which a waiver is 
     requested in order to carry out the project, and a 
     justification of the need for each such waiver.
       (5) Cost neutrality.--Such information and assurances as 
     necessary to establish to the satisfaction of the 
     administering Secretary, in consultation with the Director of 
     the Office of Management and Budget, that the proposed 
     project is reasonably expected to meet the applicable cost 
     neutrality requirements of subsection (d)(4).
       (6) Evaluation and reports.--An assurance that the 
     applicant will conduct ongoing and final evaluations of the 
     project, and make interim and final reports to the 
     administering Secretary, at such times and in such manner as 
     the administering Secretary may require.
       (7) Public housing agency plan.--In the case of an 
     application proposing a demonstration project that includes 
     activities referred to in subsection (b)(2)(H) of this 
     section--
       (A) a certification that the applicable annual public 
     housing agency plan of any agency affected by the project 
     that is approved under section 5A of the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437c-1) by the Secretary 
     includes the information specified in paragraphs (1) through 
     (4) of this subsection; and
       (B) any resident advisory board recommendations, and other 
     information, relating to the project that, pursuant to 
     section 5A(e)(2) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 
     U.S.C. 1437c-1(e)(2), is required to be included in the 
     public housing agency plan of any public housing agency 
     affected by the project.
       (8) Other information and assurances.--Such other 
     information and assurances as the administering Secretary may 
     require.
       (d) Approval of Applications.--
       (1) In general.--The administering Secretary with respect 
     to a qualified program that is identified in an application 
     submitted pursuant to subsection (c) may approve the 
     application and, except as provided in paragraph (2), waive 
     any requirement applicable to the program, to the extent 
     consistent with this section and necessary and appropriate 
     for the conduct of the demonstration project proposed in the 
     application, if the administering Secretary determines that 
     the project--
       (A) has a reasonable likelihood of achieving the objectives 
     of the programs to be included in the project;
       (B) may reasonably be expected to meet the applicable cost 
     neutrality requirements of paragraph (4), as determined by 
     the Director of the Office of Management and Budget; and
       (C) includes the coordination of 2 or more qualified 
     programs.
       (2) Provisions excluded from waiver authority.--A waiver 
     shall not be granted under paragraph (1)--
       (A) with respect to any provision of law relating to--
       (i) civil rights or prohibition of discrimination;
       (ii) purposes or goals of any program;
       (iii) maintenance of effort requirements;
       (iv) health or safety;
       (v) labor standards under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 
     1938; or
       (vi) environmental protection;
       (B) with respect to section 241(a) of the Adult Education 
     and Family Literacy Act;
       (C) in the case of a program under the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437 et seq.), with respect to 
     any requirement under section 5A of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1437c-1; relating to public housing agency plans and resident 
     advisory boards);
       (D) in the case of a program under the Workforce Investment 
     Act, with respect to any requirement the waiver of which 
     would violate section 189(i)(4)(A)(i) of such Act;
       (E) in the case of the food stamp program (as defined in 
     section 3(h) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 
     2012(h)), with respect to any requirement under--
       (i) section 6 (if waiving a requirement under such section 
     would have the effect of expanding eligibility for the 
     program), 7(b) or 16(c) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 
     U.S.C. 2011 et seq.); or
       (ii) title IV of the Personal Responsibility and Work 
     Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1601 et 
     seq.);
       (F) with respect to any requirement that a State pass 
     through to a sub-State entity part or all of an amount paid 
     to the State;
       (G) if the waiver would waive any funding restriction or 
     limitation provided in an appropriations Act, or would have 
     the effect of transferring appropriated funds from 1 
     appropriations account to another; or
       (H) except as otherwise provided by statute, if the waiver 
     would waive any funding restriction applicable to a program 
     authorized under an Act which is not an appropriations Act 
     (but not including program requirements such as application 
     procedures, performance standards, reporting requirements, or 
     eligibility standards), or would have the effect of 
     transferring funds from a program for which there is direct 
     spending (as defined in section 250(c)(8) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985) to another 
     program.
       (3) Agreement of each administering secretary required.--
       (A) In general.--An applicant may not conduct a 
     demonstration project under this section unless each 
     administering Secretary with respect to any program proposed 
     to be included in the project has approved the application to 
     conduct the project.
       (B) Agreement with respect to funding and implementation.--
     Before approving an application to conduct a demonstration 
     project under this section, an administering Secretary shall 
     have in place an agreement with the applicant with respect to 
     the payment of funds and responsibilities required of the 
     administering Secretary with respect to the project.
       (4) Cost-neutrality requirement.--
       (A) General rule.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law (except subparagraph (B)), the total of the amounts that 
     may be paid by the Federal Government for a fiscal year with 
     respect to the programs in the State in which an entity 
     conducting a demonstration project under this section is 
     located that are affected by the project shall not exceed the 
     estimated total amount that the Federal Government would have 
     paid for the fiscal year with respect to the programs

[[Page 3751]]

     if the project had not been conducted, as determined by the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
       (B) Special rule.--If an applicant submits to the Director 
     of the Office of Management and Budget a request to apply the 
     rules of this subparagraph to the programs in the State in 
     which the applicant is located that are affected by a 
     demonstration project proposed in an application submitted by 
     the applicant pursuant to this section, during such period of 
     not more than 5 consecutive fiscal years in which the project 
     is in effect, and the Director determines, on the basis of 
     supporting information provided by the applicant, to grant 
     the request, then, notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the total of the amounts that may be paid by the Federal 
     Government for the period with respect to the programs shall 
     not exceed the estimated total amount that the Federal 
     Government would have paid for the period with respect to the 
     programs if the project had not been conducted.
       (5) 90-day approval deadline.--
       (A) In general.--If an administering Secretary receives an 
     application to conduct a demonstration project under this 
     section and does not disapprove the application within 90 
     days after the receipt, then--
       (i) the administering Secretary is deemed to have approved 
     the application for such period as is requested in the 
     application, except to the extent inconsistent with 
     subsection (e); and
       (ii) any waiver requested in the application which applies 
     to a qualified program that is identified in the application 
     and is administered by the administering Secretary is deemed 
     to be granted, except to the extent inconsistent with 
     paragraph (2) or (4) of this subsection.
       (B) Deadline extended if additional information is 
     sought.--The 90-day period referred to in subparagraph (A) 
     shall not include any period that begins with the date the 
     Secretary requests the applicant to provide additional 
     information with respect to the application and ends with the 
     date the additional information is provided.
       (e) Duration of Projects.--A demonstration project under 
     this section may be approved for a term of not more than 5 
     years.
       (f) Reports to Congress.--
       (1) Report on disposition of applications.--Within 90 days 
     after an administering Secretary receives an application 
     submitted pursuant to this section, the administering 
     Secretary shall submit to each Committee of the Congress 
     which has jurisdiction over a qualified program identified in 
     the application notice of the receipt, a description of the 
     decision of the administering Secretary with respect to the 
     application, and the reasons for approving or disapproving 
     the application.
       (2) Reports on projects.--Each administering Secretary 
     shall provide annually to the Congress a report concerning 
     demonstration projects approved under this section, 
     including--
       (A) the projects approved for each applicant;
       (B) the number of waivers granted under this section, and 
     the specific statutory provisions waived;
       (C) how well each project for which a waiver is granted is 
     improving or enhancing program achievement from the 
     standpoint of quality, cost-effectiveness, or both;
       (D) how well each project for which a waiver is granted is 
     meeting the performance objectives specified in subsection 
     (c)(3)(B);
       (E) how each project for which a waiver is granted is 
     conforming with the cost-neutrality requirements of 
     subsection (d)(4); and
       (F) to the extent the administering Secretary deems 
     appropriate, recommendations for modification of programs 
     based on outcomes of the projects.
       (g) Amendment to United States Housing Act of 1937.--
     Section 5A(d) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 
     U.S.C. 1437c-1(d)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (18) as paragraph (19); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (17) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(18) Program coordination demonstration projects.--In the 
     case of an agency that administers an activity referred to in 
     section 701(b)(2)(H) of the Personal Responsibility, Work, 
     and Family Promotion Act of 2003 that, during such fiscal 
     year, will be included in a demonstration project under 
     section 701 of such Act, the information that is required to 
     be included in the application for the project pursuant to 
     paragraphs (1) through (4) of section 701(b) of such Act.''.

     SEC. 602. STATE FOOD ASSISTANCE BLOCK GRANT DEMONSTRATION 
                   PROJECT.

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

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

       ``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a 
     program to make grants to States in accordance with this 
     section to provide--
       ``(1) food assistance to needy individuals and families 
     residing in the State;
       ``(2) funds to operate an employment and training program 
     under subsection (g) for needy individuals under the program; 
     and
       ``(3) funds for administrative costs incurred in providing 
     the assistance.
       ``(b) Election.--
       ``(1) In general.--A State may elect to participate in the 
     program established under subsection (a).
       ``(2) Election revocable.--A State that elects to 
     participate in the program established under subsection (a) 
     may subsequently reverse the election of the State only once 
     thereafter. Following the reversal, the State shall only be 
     eligible to participate in the food stamp program in 
     accordance with the other sections of this Act and shall not 
     receive a block grant under this section.
       ``(3) Program exclusive.--A State that is participating in 
     the program established under subsection (a) shall not be 
     subject to, or receive any benefit under, this Act except as 
     provided in this section.
       ``(c) Lead Agency.--
       ``(1) Designation.--A State desiring to participate in the 
     program established under subsection (a) shall designate, in 
     an application submitted to the Secretary under subsection 
     (d)(1), an appropriate State agency that complies with 
     paragraph (2) to act as the lead agency for the State.
       ``(2) Duties.--The lead agency shall--
       ``(A) administer, either directly, through other State 
     agencies, or through local agencies, the assistance received 
     under this section by the State;
       ``(B) develop the State plan to be submitted to the 
     Secretary under subsection (d)(1); and
       ``(C) coordinate the provision of food assistance under 
     this section with other Federal, State, and local programs.
       ``(d) Application and Plan.--
       ``(1) Application.--To be eligible to receive assistance 
     under this section, a State shall prepare and submit to the 
     Secretary an application at such time, in such manner, and 
     containing such information as the Secretary shall by 
     regulation require, including--
       ``(A) an assurance that the State will comply with the 
     requirements of this section;
       ``(B) a State plan that meets the requirements of paragraph 
     (2); and
       ``(C) an assurance that the State will comply with the 
     requirements of the State plan under paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Requirements of plan.--
       ``(A) Lead agency.--The State plan shall identify the lead 
     agency.
       ``(B) Use of block grant funds.--The State plan shall 
     provide that the State shall use the amounts provided to the 
     State for each fiscal year under this section--
       ``(i) to provide food assistance to needy individuals and 
     families residing in the State, other than residents of 
     institutions who are ineligible for food stamps under section 
     3(i);
       ``(ii) to administer an employment and training program 
     under subsection (g) for needy individuals under the program 
     and to provide reimbursements to needy individuals and 
     families as would be allowed under section 16(h)(3); and
       ``(iii) to pay administrative costs incurred in providing 
     the assistance.
       ``(C) Assistance for entire state.--The State plan shall 
     provide that benefits under this section shall be available 
     throughout the entire State.
       ``(D) Notice and hearings.--The State plan shall provide 
     that an individual or family who applies for, or receives, 
     assistance under this section shall be provided with notice 
     of, and an opportunity for a hearing on, any action under 
     this section that adversely affects the individual or family.
       ``(E) Other assistance.--
       ``(i) Coordination.--The State plan may coordinate 
     assistance received under this section with assistance 
     provided under the State program funded under part A of title 
     IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
       ``(ii) Penalties.--If an individual or family is penalized 
     for violating part A of title IV of the Act, the State plan 
     may reduce the amount of assistance provided under this 
     section or otherwise penalize the individual or family.
       ``(F) Eligibility limitations.--The State plan shall 
     describe the income and resource eligibility limitations that 
     are established for the receipt of assistance under this 
     section.
       ``(G) Receiving benefits in more than 1 jurisdiction.--The 
     State plan shall establish a system to verify and otherwise 
     ensure that no individual or family shall receive benefits 
     under this section in more than 1 jurisdiction within the 
     State.
       ``(H) Privacy.--The State plan shall provide for 
     safeguarding and restricting the use and disclosure of 
     information about any individual or family receiving 
     assistance under this section.
       ``(I) Other information.--The State plan shall contain such 
     other information as may be required by the Secretary.
       ``(3) Approval of application and plan.--During fiscal 
     years 2004 through 2008, the Secretary may approve the 
     applications and State plans that satisfy the requirements of 
     this section of not more than 5 States for a term of not more 
     than 5 years.
       ``(e) Construction of Facilities.--No funds made available 
     under this section shall

[[Page 3752]]

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

       ``(I) the total dollar value of all benefits issued under 
     the food stamp program established under this Act by the 
     State during fiscal year 2003; or
       ``(II) the average per fiscal year of the total dollar 
     value of all benefits issued under the food stamp program by 
     the State during each of fiscal years 2001 through 2003; and

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

       ``(I) the total amount received by the State for 
     administrative costs and the employment and training program 
     under subsections (a) and (h), respectively, of section 16 of 
     this Act for fiscal year 2003; or
       ``(II) the average per fiscal year of the total amount 
     received by the State for administrative costs and the 
     employment and training program under subsections (a) and 
     (h), respectively, of section 16 of this Act for each of 
     fiscal years 2001 through 2003.

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

                    TITLE VII--ABSTINENCE EDUCATION

     SEC. 701. EXTENSION OF ABSTINENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM.

       (a) Extension of Appropriations.--Section 510(d) (42 U.S.C. 
     710(d)) is amended by striking ``2002'' and inserting 
     ``2008''.
       (b) Allotment of Funds.--Section 510(a) (42 U.S.C. 710(a)) 
     is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ``an 
     application for the fiscal year under section 505(a)'' and 
     inserting ``, for the fiscal year, an application under 
     section 505(a), and an application under this section (in 
     such form and meeting such terms and conditions as determined 
     appropriate by the Secretary),''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), to read as follows:
       ``(2) the percentage that would be determined for the State 
     under section 502(c)(1)(B)(ii) if the calculation under such 
     section took into consideration only those States that 
     transmitted both such applications for such fiscal year.''.
       (c) Reallotment of Funds.--Section 510 (42 U.S.C. 710(a)) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(e)(1) With respect to allotments under subsection (a) 
     for fiscal year 2004 and subsequent fiscal years, the amount 
     of any allotment to a State for a fiscal year that the 
     Secretary determines will not be required to carry out a 
     program under this section during such fiscal year or the 
     succeeding fiscal year shall be available for reallotment 
     from time to time during such fiscal years on such dates as 
     the Secretary may fix, to other States that the Secretary 
     determines--
       ``(A) require amounts in excess of amounts previously 
     allotted under subsection (a) to carry out a program under 
     this section; and
       ``(B) will use such excess amounts during such fiscal 
     years.
       ``(2) Reallotments under paragraph (1) shall be made on the 
     basis of such States' applications under this section, after 
     taking into consideration the population of low-income 
     children in each such State as compared with the population 
     of low-income children

[[Page 3753]]

     in all such States with respect to which a determination 
     under paragraph (1) has been made by the Secretary.
       ``(3) Any amount reallotted under paragraph (1) to a State 
     is deemed to be part of its allotment under subsection 
     (a).''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall be effective with respect to the program under section 
     510 for fiscal years 2004 and succeeding fiscal years.

              TITLE VIII--TRANSITIONAL MEDICAL ASSISTANCE

     SEC. 801. EXTENSION OF MEDICAID TRANSITIONAL MEDICAL 
                   ASSISTANCE PROGRAM THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 2004.

       (a) In General.--Section 1925(f) (42 U.S.C. 1396r-6(f)) is 
     amended by striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2004''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1902(e)(1)(B) (42 U.S.C. 
     1396a(e)(1)(B)) is amended by striking ``September 30, 2002'' 
     and inserting ``the last date (if any) on which section 1925 
     applies under subsection (f) of that section''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect October 1, 2003.

     SEC. 802. ADJUSTMENT TO PAYMENTS FOR MEDICAID ADMINISTRATIVE 
                   COSTS TO PREVENT DUPLICATIVE PAYMENTS AND TO 
                   FUND EXTENSION OF TRANSITIONAL MEDICAL 
                   ASSISTANCE.

       Section 1903 (42 U.S.C. 1396b) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(7), by striking ``section 
     1919(g)(3)(B)'' and inserting ``subsection (x) and section 
     1919(g)(3)(C)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(x) Adjustments to Payments for Administrative Costs To 
     Fund Extension of Transitional Medical Assistance.--
       ``(1) Reductions in payments for administrative costs.--
     Effective for each calendar quarter in fiscal year 2004 and 
     fiscal year 2005, the Secretary shall reduce the amount paid 
     under subsection (a)(7) to each State by an amount equal to 
     45 percent for fiscal year 2004, and 80 percent for fiscal 
     year 2005, of one-quarter of the annualized amount determined 
     for the medicaid program under section 16(k)(2)(B) of the 
     Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2025(k)(2)(B)).
       ``(2) Allocation of administrative costs.--None of the 
     funds or expenditures described in section 16(k)(5)(B) of the 
     Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2025(k)(5)(B)) may be used 
     to pay for costs--
       ``(A) eligible for reimbursement under subsection (a)(7) 
     (or costs that would have been eligible for reimbursement but 
     for this subsection); and
       ``(B) allocated for reimbursement to the program under this 
     title under a plan submitted by a State to the Secretary to 
     allocate administrative costs for public assistance programs;
     except that, for purposes of subparagraph (A), the reference 
     in clause (iii) of that section to `subsection (a)' is deemed 
     a reference to subsection (a)(7) and clause (iv)(II) of that 
     section shall be applied as if `medicaid program' were 
     substituted for `food stamp program'.''.

                        TITLE IX--EFFECTIVE DATE

     SEC. 901. EFFECTIVE DATE.

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

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. No amendment to the bill shall be in order 
except those printed in House Report 108-9. Each amendment may be 
offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by 
a Member designated in the report, shall be considered read, debatable 
for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by 
the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House 
Report 108-9.


 Amendment No. 1 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Kucinich

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

       Amendment No. 1 in the nature of a substitute offered by 
     Mr. Kucinich:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Patsy Mink Memorial TANF 
     Reauthorization Act''.

     SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       The table of contents of this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.
Sec. 3. Findings.
Sec. 4. Amendment of Social Security Act.

                      TITLE I--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 101. Purposes.
Sec. 102. State plan.
Sec. 103. Funding.
Sec. 104. Use of funds.

                      TITLE II--WORK REQUIREMENTS

Sec. 201. Reduced work requirement for parents of school-age children 
              who cannot find adequate child care.
Sec. 202. Conforming the number of weeks to the unemployment insurance 
              compensation standard.
Sec. 203. Revision of work activities.
Sec. 204. Penalties against individuals for unjustified refusal to 
              work; additional justifications.
Sec. 205. Elimination of miscellaneous provisions.

                 TITLE III--PROHIBITIONS; REQUIREMENTS

Sec. 301. Replacement of requirement to sanction individual for 
              noncooperation in establishing paternity or obtaining 
              child support with prohibition on requiring such 
              cooperation.
Sec. 302. Prohibition on requiring assignment of support rights to the 
              State; return of support rights assigned to the State.
Sec. 303. Elimination of sanction against teenage parents not attending 
              high school or other equivalent training program.
Sec. 304. Requirements relating to disregard of child support.
Sec. 305. Elimination of sanction against teenage parents not living in 
              adult-supervised settings.
Sec. 306. Protection for children.
Sec. 307. 5-year time limit.
Sec. 308. Requirement to provide notice of rights of recipients, and 
              train program personnel in carrying out program 
              consistent with the rights.
Sec. 309. Requirement to provide information to individuals who are, or 
              are at risk of being, sanctioned.
Sec. 310. Ban on counting income, scholarship, or gift received by 
              dependent minors.
Sec. 311. Ban on diversion of potential applicants for assistance.
Sec. 312. Prohibition on requiring recipients to respond to surveys 
              conducted to obtain information for quarterly reports.
Sec. 313. Confidentiality of program information.
Sec. 314. Nondiscrimination.
Sec. 315. Requirement to provide opportunity to appeal adverse 
              decision.
Sec. 316. Clarification of penalty for failure to comply with 
              individual responsibility plan.
Sec. 317. Applicability of civil rights laws.
Sec. 318. Elimination of special rules relating to treatment of aliens.

                          TITLE IV--PENALTIES

Sec. 401. Increase in penalty for failure to submit required report.
Sec. 402. Replacement of penalty against State for failure to comply 
              with paternity establishment and child support 
              enforcement requirements with penalty for requiring 
              cooperation in establishing paternity or obtaining child 
              support (including assigning support rights to the 
              State).
Sec. 403. Extension of maintenance of effort requirement.
Sec. 404. Penalty for failure of State to comply with child support 
              disregard requirements.
Sec. 405. Penalty for penalizing birth of child.
Sec. 406. Penalty for failure to notify recipients of rights, or train 
              program personnel in respecting rights of recipients.
Sec. 407. Penalty for failure to provide information to individuals who 
              are, or are at risk of being, sanctioned.
Sec. 408. Penalty for counting income, scholarship, or gift received by 
              dependent minor.
Sec. 409. Penalty for diverting potential applicant for assistance.
Sec. 410. Penalty for requiring recipient to respond to survey 
              conducted to obtain information for quarterly report.
Sec. 411. Penalty for unauthorized disclosure of information provided 
              by recipient.
Sec. 412. Penalty for discrimination.
Sec. 413. Penalty for failure to provide opportunity to appeal adverse 
              decision.
Sec. 414. Penalty for failure to comply with minimum benefit rules.

[[Page 3754]]

Sec. 415. Penalty for failure to provide individual child care 
              entitlement.
Sec. 416. Failure to submit report on welfare access and outcomes.
Sec. 417. Elimination of reasonable cause exception.
Sec. 418. Modification of availability of corrective compliance plan 
              option.
Sec. 419. Repeal of ban on assistance for persons convicted of a drug 
              felony.

                      TITLE V--STUDIES AND REPORTS

Sec. 501. Additional information to be included in quarterly State 
              reports.
Sec. 502. Elimination from secretarial report to the Congress of 
              information on out-of-wedlock pregnancies.
Sec. 503. Access to welfare; welfare outcomes.
Sec. 504. Assessment of regional economies to identify higher entry 
              level wage opportunities in industries experiencing labor 
              shortages.
Sec. 505. Research, evaluations, and national studies.
Sec. 506. Study by the Census Bureau.

                           TITLE VI--WAIVERS

Sec. 601. Waivers.

          TITLE VII--REPEAL OF LIMITATION ON FEDERAL AUTHORITY

Sec. 701. Repeal of limitation on Federal authority.

                   TITLE VIII--MINIMUM BENEFIT RULES

Sec. 801. Minimum benefit rules.

                          TITLE IX--CHILD CARE

Sec. 901. Individual entitlement to child care.

                  TITLE X--DEFINITION OF POVERTY LINE

Sec. 1001. Definition of poverty line.

                      TITLE XI--SERVICE PROVIDERS

Sec. 1101. Protection for beneficiaries.

                       TITLE XII--EFFECTIVE DATE

Sec. 1201. Effective date.

     SEC. 3. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) Welfare reform has reduced the welfare caseload but has 
     failed to move families out of poverty. More than 40 percent 
     of former welfare recipients continued to live below the 
     poverty line in 1999. Employed former recipients earn a 
     median hourly wage of $7.15. Because challenges to economic 
     opportunity and well-being are not adequately addressed by 
     current welfare programs, existing law must be changed to 
     ensure that welfare policy effectively promotes the reduction 
     of poverty.
       (2) Between 1995 and 1999, a strong economy reduced poverty 
     by about 2 percent. Reductions in Government transfer 
     payments during this period, however, eliminated almost all 
     of the antipoverty effectiveness of economic growth. Prior to 
     welfare reform, between 1993 and 1995, Government transfer 
     payments had produced the opposite effect, reducing poverty 
     among American families.
       (3) About \1/3\ of people who have left welfare say they 
     have had to cut the size of meals or skip meals because they 
     did not have enough food in the house.
       (4) Over 40 percent of welfare leavers report that they 
     have had trouble paying housing and utility bills since 
     leaving welfare.
       (5) Since welfare reform was enacted in 1996, and despite a 
     strong economy, there have been sharp increases in the rates 
     at which single mothers with children have had to rely on 
     food pantries and homeless shelters.
       (6) An estimated \1/3\ to \1/2\ of all families leaving 
     welfare for work do not receive medical assistance, food 
     stamps, or child care to which they are entitled.
       (7) Only 1,500,000 of the 9,900,000 children who are 
     eligible for child care subsidies under their States' 
     eligibility guidelines receive child care assistance.
       (8) Between 1997 and 1999, over 500,000 families were 
     sanctioned off welfare and these families have been more 
     likely to experience poverty than have other families leaving 
     welfare. On a variety of measures, families who have been 
     sanctioned off welfare tend to fare worse than other leavers.
       (9) States in which African Americans make up a higher 
     proportion of recipients are statistically more likely to 
     adopt full-family sanctions. African American recipients are 
     statistically more likely than white recipients to 
     participate in a TANF program that employs full-family 
     sanctions. African-American families have, in fact, been 
     sanctioned more frequently than their white counterparts.
       (10) States in which African Americans make up a higher 
     proportion of recipients are statistically more likely to 
     adopt family cap policies. African American recipients are 
     statistically more likely than white recipients to 
     participate in a TANF program that employs a family cap 
     policy.
       (11) States in which African Americans make up a higher 
     proportion of recipients are statistically more likely to 
     adopt time limits shorter than the Federal Government 
     requires. Approximately \2/3\ of all families that will 
     exhaust their allowable time on welfare are families of 
     color.
       (12) Overall, 78 percent of children with immigrant parents 
     are themselves born in the United States and are therefore 
     eligible for services if poor. Nearly \1/4\ of all children 
     of immigrants live in poor families and 23 percent of all 
     poor children in the United States are either first- or 
     second-generation immigrants. Immigrants whose children are 
     eligible for public benefits often don't know about the 
     services, are afraid to access them, or are incorrectly 
     turned away.
       (13) About 25 percent of former welfare recipients have no 
     paid employment and have either no partner or a partner who 
     is unemployed.
       (14) Under welfare reform, single mothers have been forced 
     to work at unsafe and hazardous job sites and to be subject 
     to sexual harassment and racial discrimination.
       (15) Most single mothers who leave welfare for work do not 
     earn enough in wages to lift their families out of poverty, 
     even several years after leaving welfare. 55 percent remain 
     poor 1 year after leaving welfare; 49 percent 3 years after 
     and 42 percent 5 years after. Only about \1/3\ of all leavers 
     have incomes above 150 percent of the poverty line years 
     after going off welfare.
       (16) Adolescent children of single mothers who have left 
     welfare for work have school performance rates below those of 
     other low-income children. Early studies of families in 
     welfare-to-work programs in Florida, Minnesota, and Canada 
     have found unexpected evidence that their adolescent children 
     have lower academic achievement and more behavioral problems 
     than the children of other welfare households. The 
     researchers hypothesized that parents in the programs might 
     have less time and energy to monitor their adolescents' 
     behavior once they were employed; that under the stress of 
     working, they might adopt harsher parenting styles; or that 
     the adolescents' assuming more responsibilities at home when 
     parents got jobs was creating too great a burden.
       (17) Under welfare reform, when families lost income 
     regardless of the reason, children were more likely to 
     experience bad outcomes such as increased school suspensions, 
     behavior and mental health problems including symptoms of 
     depression, an increase in the number of children removed 
     from their mother's care, increased enrollment in special 
     classes for behavioral or emotional problems, and health 
     problems such as increased trips to the emergency room. In 
     programs where both employment and income were increased, the 
     impact on children was more positive.
       (18) Most single mothers on welfare who are eligible for 
     the exemption from cooperating in establishing paternity are 
     not made aware of this option.
       (19) 35 percent of low-income families reported mental 
     health problems according to a 1999 study. Similar rates of 
     mental health problems have been found among welfare 
     recipients. Among California welfare program participants, 
     more than \1/3\ had at least 1 diagnosable mental health 
     problem in the previous 12 months, and about 20 percent had 2 
     or more. Nationally, between 70 and 90 percent of working-age 
     adults with serious mental health problems are unemployed. 
     According to a 2001 study, major depression significantly 
     decreases the likelihood that a woman receiving welfare will 
     be employed and the presence of 1 or more of 4 psychiatric 
     disorders increases the likelihood of receiving cash 
     assistance by 32 percent.
       (20) Over half of women receiving welfare have been victims 
     of domestic violence as adults. According to several studies, 
     a quarter to a third of welfare recipients report having been 
     abused within the last year. Abusive partners often interfere 
     with women's attempts to work or to obtain education.

     SEC. 4. AMENDMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY ACT.

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

                      TITLE I--GENERAL PROVISIONS

     SEC. 101. PURPOSES.

       Section 401(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 601(a)(1)) is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(1) In general.--The purpose of this part is to end child 
     and family poverty by--
       ``(A) supporting caregivers so that children may be cared 
     for in their own homes;
       ``(B) promoting education, training, work supports, and 
     access to jobs that pay a living wage;
       ``(C) assuring access to Medicaid, Food Stamps, child care, 
     and such other assistance for which the family is eligible;
       ``(D) providing access to services to address barriers to 
     leaving poverty, including mental health, disability, 
     substance abuse, domestic violence, and sexual assault; and
       ``(E) reducing poverty of families with children.''.

     SEC. 102. STATE PLAN.

       (a) In General.--Section 402(a) (42 U.S.C. 602(a)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)--
       (i) by striking clause (ii) and redesignating clauses (iii) 
     and (iv) as clauses (ii) and (iii), respectively; and
       (ii) by striking clauses (v) and (vi); and
       (B) in subparagraph (B)--
       (i) in clause (iii), by inserting ``and will notify 
     recipients of assistance under the program of the rights of 
     individuals under all

[[Page 3755]]

     laws applicable to program activities'' before the period;
       (ii) by striking clauses (i) and (iv) and redesignating 
     clauses (ii) and (iii) as clauses (i) and (ii), respectively;
       (2) in paragraph (7), by striking subparagraph (B) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(B) Domestic or sexual violence defined.--In this title, 
     the term `domestic or sexual violence' has the same meaning 
     as `battered or subject to extreme cruelty' in section 
     402(a)(7)(C)(ii).''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) Certifications regarding domestic and sexual 
     violence, mental illness, disability, and substance abuse.--
       ``(A) Standards and procedures.--A certification by the 
     chief executive officer of the State that the State has 
     established and is enforcing standards and procedures to 
     ensure that the State will do the following:
       ``(i) Address recipient's barriers to leaving poverty.--
     Address the needs of a recipient who has a mental health 
     problem, disability, or substance abuse addiction, or who is 
     dealing with domestic or sexual violence, including how the 
     State will, at the time of application, at a recipient's 
     request, and before imposing any sanction or penalty for 
     noncompliance--

       ``(I) have trained caseworkers screen, and, at the option 
     of the recipient, qualified professionals assess and identify 
     individuals who are dealing with a mental health problem, 
     disability, substance abuse addiction, or domestic or sexual 
     violence;
       ``(II) in the case of an individual who is so identified, 
     at the option of the individual, refer the individual and 
     affected children or other close family members for 
     appropriate treatment, counseling, vocational rehabilitation, 
     job training, and other services;
       ``(III) coordinate, contract, or hire appropriate licensed 
     qualified professionals, including licensed qualified mental 
     health service providers, licensed qualified physicians or 
     medical service providers, licensed qualified substance abuse 
     professionals, domestic violence coalitions, sexual assault 
     coalitions, or victim services organizations;
       ``(IV) ensure the strict confidentiality of such 
     information; and
       ``(V) pursuant to a determination of good cause, waive, 
     without time limit, any State or Federal program requirement 
     for so long as necessary in every case in which the 
     requirement--

       ``(aa) makes it more difficult for the individual to manage 
     his or her mental health problem, disability, substance abuse 
     addiction, or domestic or sexual violence situation;
       ``(bb) unfairly penalizes the individual; or
       ``(cc) makes the individual unsafe.
       ``(ii) Use of qualified professionals.--Enter into 
     contracts with or employ qualified professionals for the 
     provision of services in each of the fields of mental health, 
     substance abuse, disability, and domestic or sexual violence, 
     and that the contracts will require that, in the case of an 
     individual who has multiple such barriers, the qualified 
     professionals assigned to the case will collaborate to 
     provide the individual with integrated, comprehensive 
     services.
       ``(B) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
       ``(i) Domestic violence coalition.--The term `domestic 
     violence coalition' means a nonprofit, nongovernmental 
     membership organization that--

       ``(I) consists of the entities carrying out a majority of 
     the domestic violence programs carried out in a State;
       ``(II) collaborates and coordinates activities with 
     Federal, State, and local entities to further the purposes of 
     domestic violence intervention and prevention; and
       ``(III) among other activities, provides training and 
     technical assistance to entities carrying out domestic 
     violence programs in a State, territory, political 
     subdivision, or area under Federal authority.

       ``(ii) Sexual assault coalition.--The term `sexual assault 
     coalition' means a nonprofit, nongovernmental membership 
     organization that--

       ``(I) consists of the entities carrying out a majority of 
     the sexual assault programs carried out in a State;
       ``(II) collaborates and coordinates activities with 
     Federal, State, and local entities to further the purposes of 
     sexual assault intervention and prevention; and
       ``(III) among other activities, provides training and 
     technical assistance to entities carrying out sexual assault 
     programs in a State, territory, political subdivision, or 
     area under Federal authority.

       ``(iii) Victim services organization.--The term `victim 
     services organization' means a nonprofit, nongovernmental 
     organization that provides assistance to victims of domestic 
     or sexual violence or to advocates for such victims, 
     including a rape crisis center, an organization carrying out 
     a domestic violence program, an organization operating a 
     shelter or providing counseling services, or an organization 
     providing assistance through the legal process.
       ``(iv) Licensed qualified mental health service provider.--
     The term `licensed qualified mental health service provider' 
     means a psychiatrist, clinical psychologist, clinical social 
     worker, community mental health counselor, or other licensed 
     individual who has appropriate training in the diagnosis and 
     treatment of mental illness in children, adolescents, and 
     adults or provides mental health services reimbursed under 
     title XVIII or a State plan approved under title XIX.
       ``(v) Qualified professional.--The term `qualified 
     professional' means--

       ``(I) with respect to a disability, a physician or other 
     licensed medical provider;
       ``(II) with respect to substance abuse, a licensed drug 
     counselor or clinician with expertise in the assessment and 
     treatment of parents with drug addiction issues, who may be 
     affiliated with an out-patient or residential family drug or 
     alcohol treatment program; or
       ``(III) with respect to domestic or sexual violence--

       ``(aa) a State or tribal domestic violence coalition or 
     sexual assault coalition; or
       ``(bb) a State or local victim services organization with 
     recognized expertise in the dynamics of domestic or sexual 
     violence whose primary mission is to provide services to 
     victims of domestic or sexual violence, such as a rape crisis 
     center or domestic violence program.
       ``(8) Certification regarding assessment of regional 
     economies and informing localities of sectoral labor 
     shortages.--A certification by the chief executive officer of 
     the State that, during the fiscal year, the State will assess 
     its regional economies and provide information to political 
     subdivisions of the State about the industrial sectors that 
     are experiencing a labor shortage and that provide higher 
     entry-level wage opportunities for unemployed and 
     underemployed job seekers.''.

     SEC. 103. FUNDING.

       (a) Family Assistance Grant.--Section 403(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 
     603(a)(1)) is amended in each of subparagraphs (A) and (E) by 
     striking ``1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002'' and 
     inserting ``1996 through 2008''.
       (b) Inflation Adjustment.--Section 403(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 
     603(a)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B)--
       (A) by striking ``means the greatest of--'' and inserting 
     ``means, with respect to a fiscal year specified in 
     subparagraph (A) of this paragraph--
       ``(i) the greatest of--'';
       (B) by redesignating each of clauses (i), (ii)(I), 
     (ii)(II), and (iii) as subclauses (I), (II)(aa), (II)(bb), 
     and (III), respectively;
       (C) by indenting each of the provisions specified in 
     subparagraph (B) of this paragraph 2 additional ems to the 
     right;
       (D) by striking the period and inserting ``; multiplied 
     by''; and
       (E) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(ii) 1.00, plus the inflation percentage (as defined in 
     subparagraph (F) of this paragraph) in effect for the fiscal 
     year specified in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(F) Inflation percentage.--For purposes of subparagraph 
     (B) of this paragraph:
       ``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), the 
     inflation percentage applicable to a fiscal year is the 
     percentage (if any) by which--

       ``(I) the average of the Consumer Price Index (as defined 
     in section 1(f)(5) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) for 
     the 12-month period ending on September 30 of the immediately 
     preceding fiscal year; exceeds
       ``(II) the average of the Consumer Price Index (as so 
     defined) for the 12-month period ending on September 30, 
     2001.

       ``(ii) Special rule for fiscal year 2003.--The inflation 
     percentage applicable to fiscal year 2003 is \1/2\ of the 
     inflation percentage determined under clause (i) for fiscal 
     year 2003.''.
       (c) Replacement of Bonus To Reward Decrease in Illegitimacy 
     Ratio With Child Poverty Reduction Bonus.--Section 403(a)(2) 
     (42 U.S.C. 603(a)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Bonus to reward states that reduce child poverty.--
       ``(A) In general.--Beginning with fiscal year 2003, the 
     Secretary shall make a grant pursuant to this paragraph to 
     each State for each fiscal year for which the State is a 
     qualified child poverty reduction State.
       ``(B) Amount of grant.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to this subparagraph, the amount 
     of the grant to be made to a qualified child poverty 
     reduction State for a fiscal year shall be an amount equal 
     to--

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

       ``(ii) Limitations.--

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

       ``(iii) Pro rata increase.--If the amount available for 
     grants under this paragraph for a fiscal year is greater than 
     the total amount of payments otherwise required to be made 
     under this paragraph for the fiscal

[[Page 3756]]

     year, then the amount otherwise payable to any State for the 
     fiscal year under this paragraph shall, subject to clause 
     (ii)(II), be increased by such equal percentage as may be 
     necessary to ensure that the total of the amounts payable for 
     the fiscal year under this paragraph equals the amount 
     available for the grants.
       ``(iv) Pro rata reduction.--If the amount available for 
     grants under this paragraph for a fiscal year is less than 
     the total amount of payments otherwise required to be made 
     under this paragraph for the fiscal year, then the amount 
     otherwise payable to any State for the fiscal year under this 
     paragraph shall, subject to clause (ii)(I), be reduced by 
     such equal percentage as may be necessary to ensure that the 
     total of the amounts payable for the fiscal year under this 
     paragraph equals the amount available for the grants.
       ``(v) Special rule for fiscal year 2003.--The amount 
     payable to a State under this paragraph for fiscal year 2003 
     shall be \1/2\ of the amount otherwise so payable.
       ``(C) Use of grant.--A State to which a grant is made under 
     this paragraph shall use the grant for any purpose for which 
     a grant made under this part may be used.
       ``(D) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
       ``(i) Qualified child poverty reduction state.--The term 
     `qualified child poverty reduction State' means, with respect 
     to a fiscal year, a State if--

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

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

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

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

       ``(I) for fiscal year 2003, $75,000,000 for grants under 
     this paragraph; and
       ``(II) for fiscal year 2004 and each fiscal year thereafter 
     $150,000,000 for grants under this paragraph.

       ``(ii) Availability.--Amounts made available under clause 
     (i) shall remain available until expended.''.
       (d) Supplemental Grant for Population Increases in Certain 
     States.--Section 403(a)(3) (42 U.S.C. 603(a)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by striking ``, 2000, and 
     2001'' and inserting ``through 2008'';
       (2) by striking subparagraphs (C) and (D) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(C) Qualifying state.--For purposes of this paragraph, a 
     State is a qualifying State for a fiscal year if rate at 
     which the population of the State with income less than 200 
     percent of the poverty line has increased (as determined by 
     the Bureau of the Census) for the most recent fiscal year for 
     which information is available exceeds the such rate for all 
     States (as so determined) for such most recent fiscal year.
       ``(D) State defined.--In this paragraph, the term `State' 
     means each of the 50 States of the United States, the 
     District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin 
     Islands, and Guam.''; and
       (3) in subparagraph (E)--
       (A) by striking ``1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001'' and 
     inserting ``2003 through 2008''; and
       (B) by striking ``$800,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$2,000,000,000''.
       (e) Amendment of Bonus to Reward High Performance States.--
     Section 403(a)(4) (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(4)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(4) Bonus to reward high performance states.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall make a grant 
     pursuant to this paragraph to each State for each bonus year 
     for which the State is a high performing State with respect 
     to a category described in subparagraph (C).
       ``(B) Amount of grant.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii) of this 
     subparagraph, the Secretary shall determine the amount of the 
     grant payable under this paragraph to a high performing State 
     for a bonus year with respect to a category, which shall be 
     based on the score assigned to the State under subparagraph 
     (D)(i) with respect to the category for the fiscal year that 
     immediately precedes the bonus year.
       ``(ii) Limitation.--The total of the amounts payable to a 
     State under this paragraph for a bonus year shall not exceed 
     5 percent of the State family assistance grant.
       ``(C) Formula for measuring state performance.--Not later 
     than October 1, 2003, the Secretary shall, in consultation 
     with affected groups, including recipient groups and State 
     governors, issue regulations implementing criteria for 
     awarding of bonuses under this paragraph in the following 
     categories:
       ``(i) Preparation and placement of recipients in employment 
     that will move families out of poverty.--The degree of 
     success in implementing employment-related measures, 
     including job entry, job retention and earnings gain rates, 
     improvement in each of such measures, and the success of 
     States in--

       ``(I) meeting self-sufficiency needs for welfare leavers;
       ``(II) training, placing and retaining welfare leavers in 
     higher-waged jobs identified in the assessment most recently 
     submitted by the State pursuant to section 411(d);
       ``(III) training, placing and retaining welfare leavers in 
     technical, professional, or nontraditional occupations for 
     women;
       ``(IV) providing career development assistance related to 
     higher-waged jobs including reliable, up-to-date career 
     counseling services, employability assessments on available 
     employment that pays a sustainable wage, nontraditional 
     training and education options, and employment opportunities;
       ``(V) encouraging participation in post-secondary 
     educational programs;
       ``(VI) encouraging use of effective literacy programs that 
     strengthen basic skills in the context of employment; and
       ``(VII) encouraging participation in vocational education 
     programs for occupations identified in the assessment most 
     recently submitted by the State pursuant to section 411(d).

       ``(ii) Removal of barriers to self sufficiency.--The degree 
     of success in removing mental health, substance abuse, 
     disability, or domestic or sexual violence barriers to 
     escaping poverty, which shall be based on an equal weighting 
     of the following:

       ``(I) Notification.--The percentage of individuals 
     receiving assistance under this part who report having been 
     notified of the option to be assessed for and receive 
     services to manage a barrier to escaping poverty. A State 
     shall not be eligible for a grant under this paragraph with 
     respect to the category described in this subparagraph unless 
     at least 75 percent of the individuals surveyed by the State 
     respond in the affirmative to the question of whether the 
     individual has received the notification.
       ``(II) Training.--The percentage of caseworkers, 
     supervisors, and new employees who have been trained in a 
     curriculum developed by or in collaboration with qualified 
     professionals in each of mental health, substance abuse, 
     disability, or domestic or sexual violence services. A State 
     shall not be eligible for a grant under this paragraph with 
     respect to the category described in this subparagraph unless 
     at least 80 percent of the caseworkers, supervisors, and 
     employees administering the State program funded under this 
     part have been trained in the curriculum.
       ``(III) Assessment and services.--The State must certify 
     that the State has contracts with or employs qualified 
     professionals in mental health, substance abuse, disability, 
     or domestic or sexual violence services, and that the 
     contract requires that where an individual has multiple 
     barriers the professional service providers will collaborate 
     to provide the individual holistic services.

       ``(iii) Provision of work supports.--The extent to which 
     the State has increased the percentages described to in the 
     following subclauses in comparison to the percentages 
     achieved in fiscal year 2001:

       ``(I) Food stamps measures.--Of the number of families with 
     children in the State who are eligible to receive food stamp 
     benefits under the Food Stamp Act of 1977, the percentage who 
     receive such benefits.
       ``(II) Medicaid and schip measures.--Of the individuals who 
     have ceased receiving assistance under the State program 
     funded under this part for 4 or more months, and are eligible 
     to receive medical assistance under a State plan approved 
     under title XIX or the

[[Page 3757]]

     child health assistance under a State plan approved under 
     title XXI, the percentage who receive such medical or child 
     health assistance.
       ``(III) Child care measures.--Of the children in the State 
     who meet the maximum allowable Federal eligibility 
     requirements for benefits under the Child Care and 
     Development Block Grant Act of 1990, the percentage who 
     receive such benefits, including any such children who 
     receive child care benefits provided with additional State or 
     Federal funds, including Head Start Funds. In taking the 
     percentage into account for purposes of this clause, the 
     Secretary shall also consider (aa) the affordability of child 
     care subsidies by including a comparison of co-payment rates 
     charged to eligible families, and (bb) the proportion of 
     market rates paid to providers of subsidized child care as 
     determined by a market rate survey that was taken not more 
     than 2 years earlier.

       ``(D) Scoring of state performance; setting of performance 
     thresholds.--For each bonus year, the Secretary shall--
       ``(i) use the formula developed under subparagraph (C) for 
     a measure to assign a score to each eligible State with 
     respect to the measure for the fiscal year that immediately 
     precedes the bonus year; and
       ``(ii) prescribe a performance threshold for each such 
     measure in such a manner so as to ensure that--

       ``(I) the average annual total amount of grants to be made 
     under this paragraph for each bonus year equals $278,333,333; 
     and
       ``(II) the total amount of grants to be made under this 
     paragraph for all bonus years equals $1,670,000,000.

       ``(E) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
       ``(i) Bonus year.--The term `bonus year' means fiscal years 
     2003 through 2008.
       ``(ii) High performing state.--The term `high performing 
     State' means, with respect to a measure and a bonus year, an 
     eligible State whose score assigned pursuant to subparagraph 
     (D)(i) with respect to the measure for the fiscal year 
     immediately preceding the bonus year equals or exceeds the 
     performance threshold prescribed under subparagraph (D)(ii) 
     with respect to the measure for such preceding fiscal year.
       ``(F) Appropriation.--Out of any money in the Treasury of 
     the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are 
     appropriated for fiscal years 2003 through 2008 
     $1,670,000,000 for grants under this paragraph.''.
       (f) Elimination of Welfare-to-Work Grants.--
       (1) In general.--
       (A) Grants to states.--Section 403(a) (42 U.S.C. 603(a)) is 
     amended by striking paragraph (5).
       (B) Grants to indian tribes.--Section 412(a) (42 U.S.C. 
     612(a)) is amended by striking paragraph (3).
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Section 413 (42 U.S.C. 613) is amended by striking 
     subsection (j).
       (B) Section 510 (42 U.S.C. 710) is repealed.
       (C) Section 404(k)(1)(C) (42 U.S.C. 604(k)(1)(C)) is 
     amended--
       (i) by adding ``and'' at the end of clause (ii);
       (ii) by striking clause (iii); and
       (iii) by redesignating clause (iv) as clause (iii).
       (g) 50 Percent Federal Match for State Funding in Excess of 
     Required Maintenance of Effort Level.--Section 403(a) (42 
     U.S.C. 603(a)), as amended by subsection (e)(1)(A) of this 
     section, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Matching grants for state expenditures exceeding 
     required maintenance of effort level.--
       ``(A) In general.--Each eligible State shall be entitled to 
     receive from the Secretary for a fiscal year a grant in an 
     amount equal to the amount (if any) by which the total of the 
     qualified State expenditures (as defined in section 
     409(a)(7)(B)(i)) for the fiscal year exceeds the applicable 
     percentage (as defined in section 409(a)(7)(B)(ii)) of 
     historic State expenditures (as defined in section 
     409(a)(7)(B)(iii)) with respect to the fiscal year.
       ``(B) Appropriation.--Out of any money in the Treasury of 
     the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are 
     appropriated such sums as are necessary for grants under this 
     section for fiscal years 2003 through 2008.''.
       (h) Contingency Fund.--
       (1) In general.--Section 403(b) (42 U.S.C. 603(b)) is 
     amended by striking paragraphs (2) through (7) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(2) Deposits into fund.--Out of any money in the Treasury 
     of the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are 
     appropriated for each of fiscal years 1997 through 2008 such 
     sums as are necessary for grants under this section for the 
     fiscal year.
       ``(3) Grants.--The Secretary shall make a grant to a needy 
     State, for each eligible month with respect to the State, in 
     an amount equal to the amount described in paragraph (6).
       ``(4) Needy state.--A State is a needy State for purposes 
     of this paragraph if--
       ``(A) the rate of total unemployment in the State 
     (seasonally adjusted) for the most recent month for which 
     such information is available--
       ``(i) is at least 5.5 percent; or
       ``(ii) has increased by the lesser of 50 percent, or 1.5 
     percentage points, over the lesser of the average rate of 
     total unemployment in the State (seasonally adjusted) for the 
     preceding fiscal year or such average rate for the 2nd 
     preceding fiscal year; or
       ``(B) the number of families participating in eligible 
     State programs is at least 10 percent greater than the 
     average monthly number of families who participated in the 
     programs during the 2 consecutive calendar quarters of the 
     then most recent 8 such quarters in which such average 
     monthly number was the least.
       ``(5) Eligible month.--In paragraph (3), the term `eligible 
     month' means, with respect to a State, any month for which 
     the State is a needy State, and each subsequent month until--
       ``(A) 3 months has elapsed since the end of the most recent 
     month in which the 3-month moving average of the rate of 
     total unemployment in the State (seasonally adjusted) was 
     less than the monthly unemployment rate in the State in the 
     most recent month in which the State became (or, in the 
     absence of paragraph (4)(B), would have become) a needy State 
     by reason of paragraph (4)(A); and
       ``(B) 4 months has elapsed since the end of the most recent 
     month in which the number of families participating in 
     eligible State programs was at least as great as the number 
     of families so participating in the most recent month in 
     which the State became (or, in the absence of paragraph 
     (4)(A), would have become) a needy State by reason of 
     paragraph (4)(B).
       ``(6) Grant amount.--The amount described in this paragraph 
     with respect to a State is an amount equal to 110 percent 
     of--
       ``(A) 80 percent of the average total amount expended by 
     the State under all eligible State programs in the 2 
     consecutive calendar quarters of the then most recent 8 such 
     quarters in which the average monthly number of families 
     participating in the programs was the least; multiplied by
       ``(B) the percentage by which the monthly number of 
     families participating in eligible State programs has 
     increased over the average monthly number of families so 
     participating during the 2 consecutive quarters referred to 
     in subparagraph (A).
       ``(7) Eligible state program defined.--In this subsection, 
     the term `eligible State program' means, with respect to a 
     State, any program under which a State expenditure could be 
     considered a qualified State expenditure (as defined in 
     section 409(a)(7)(B)(i)).''.
       (2) Easing of related maintenance of effort requirement.--
     Section 409(a)(10) (42 U.S.C. 609(a)(10)) is amended by 
     striking ``100 percent'' and inserting ``the applicable 
     percentage (as defined in paragraph (7)(B)(ii) of this 
     subsection)''.
       (i) Federal Loans for State Welfare Programs.--Section 406 
     (42 U.S.C. 606) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (d), by striking ``10'' and inserting 
     ``20''; and
       (2) in subsection (e), by striking ``$1,700,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$2,000,000,000''.
       (j) Grants for Indian Tribes.--Paragraphs (1)(A) and (2)(A) 
     of section 412(a) (42 U.S.C. 612(a)(1)(A), (2)(A)) are each 
     amended by striking ``1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 
     2002'' and inserting ``1997 through 2008''.
       (k) Studies and Demonstrations.--Section 413(h)(1) (42 
     U.S.C. 613(h)(1)) is amended by striking ``2002'' and 
     inserting ``2008''.
       (l) Study by the Census Bureau.--Section 414(b) (42 U.S.C. 
     614(b)) is amended by striking ``1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 
     2000, 2001, and 2002'' and inserting ``1996 through 2008''.
       (m) Child Care Entitlement.--Section 418(a)(3) (42 U.S.C. 
     618(a)(3) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (E);
       (2) by striking the period and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(G) $5,300,333,333 for fiscal year 2003;
       ``(H) $5,400,333,333 for fiscal year 2004;
       ``(I) $5,500,333,333 for fiscal year 2005;
       ``(J) $5,700,333,333 for fiscal year 2006;
       ``(K) $5,900,333,333 for fiscal year 2007; and
       ``(L) $6,050,333,333 for fiscal year 2008.''.

     SEC. 104. USE OF FUNDS.

       (a) Elimination of Authority to Treat Interstate Immigrants 
     Under Rules of Former State.--Section 404 (42 U.S.C. 604) is 
     amended by striking subsection (c).
       (b) Modifications to Individual Development Accounts.--
     Section 404(h) (42 U.S.C. 604(h)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2), by striking subparagraph (C) and 
     redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (C);
       (2) in paragraph (5)(A), by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(iii) An institution that offers a course of study 
     leading to adult literacy, in English as a second language, 
     or a certificate of high school equivalency.''; and
       (3) in paragraph (5)(F), by striking ``and inventory'' and 
     inserting ``inventory, and transportation''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 404 (42 U.S.C. 404) is 
     amended by striking subsections (i) and (j) and redesignating 
     subsection (k) as subsection (i).

[[Page 3758]]



                      TITLE II--WORK REQUIREMENTS

     SEC. 201. REDUCED WORK REQUIREMENT FOR PARENTS OF SCHOOL-AGE 
                   CHILDREN WHO CANNOT FIND ADEQUATE CHILD CARE.

       Section 407(c)(1)(A) (42 U.S.C. 607(c)(1)(A)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
     ``Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, the maximum average 
     number of hours per week shall be 20 for any week in which 
     the recipient is the parent or caretaker relative of a child 
     who has attained 6 years of age and does not have meaningful 
     access to safe, appropriate, affordable, and quality after-
     school or summer care for the child.''.

     SEC. 202. CONFORMING THE NUMBER OF WEEKS TO THE UNEMPLOYMENT 
                   INSURANCE COMPENSATION STANDARD.

       Section 407(c)(2)(A)(i) (42 U.S.C. 607(c)(2)(A)(i)) is 
     amended by striking ``6 weeks'' and inserting ``12 weeks''.

     SEC. 203. REVISION OF WORK ACTIVITIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 407(d) (42 U.S.C. 607(d)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
       ``(4) transitional work experience leading to jobs that 
     provide an income of not less than 250 percent of the poverty 
     line;'';
       (2) by striking paragraph (7) and inserting the following:
       ``(7) voluntary participation in a community service 
     program;'';
       (3) in paragraph (8), by striking ``(not to exceed 12 
     months with respect to any individual)''; and
       (4) by striking paragraphs (10) through (12) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(10) participation in a State or Federal work-study 
     program under part C of title IV of the Higher Education Act 
     of 1965;'';
       ``(11) education, including not more than 6 hours of home 
     study per week, in the case of a recipient who is enrolled--
       ``(A) at an elementary or secondary school (as defined in 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965);
       ``(B) in a course of study leading to adult literacy, 
     English as a second language, or a certificate of high school 
     equivalency; or
       ``(C) at an institution of higher education (as defined in 
     section 102 of the Higher Education Act of 1965), regardless 
     of the content of the course of study;
       ``(12) the provision of appropriate care to a child who has 
     a disability or a serious health condition (as defined in 
     section 101(11) of the Family Medical Leave Act) or has not 
     attained 6 years of age, by a recipient who is a parent or 
     caretaker relative of the child; and
       ``(13) participation in treatment or an educational 
     activity designed to address a mental health problem, 
     disability, substance abuse, or domestic or sexual 
     violence.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 407 of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 607) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), by striking paragraph (5); and
       (2) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in each of subparagraphs (A) and (B)(i) of paragraph 
     (1), by striking ``not fewer than'' and all that follows 
     through ``subsection (d),'';
       (B) in paragraph (1)(B)(ii), by striking ``not fewer than'' 
     and all that follows through ``subsection (d)''; and
       (C) in paragraph (2), by striking subparagraph (D).

     SEC. 204. PENALTIES AGAINST INDIVIDUALS FOR UNJUSTIFIED 
                   REFUSAL TO WORK; ADDITIONAL JUSTIFICATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 407(e) (42 U.S.C. 607(e)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     subsection, if an individual in a family receiving assistance 
     under the State program funded under this part refuses to 
     engage in work required in accordance with this section, the 
     State shall, subject to such good cause and other exceptions 
     as the State may establish, reduce the amount of assistance 
     otherwise payable to the family on a pro rata basis, but to 
     not less than the amount that would be payable to a family 
     with the same number of children but with no adults, with 
     respect to any period during a month in which the individual 
     so refuses.'';
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by striking ``Exception'' and inserting ``Child care 
     exception''; and
       (B) by striking ``proves that the individual has a 
     demonstrated inability (as determined by the State)'' and 
     inserting ``certifies that the individual is unable''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Additional child care exceptions.--Notwithstanding 
     paragraph (1), a State may not reduce or terminate assistance 
     under the State program funded under this part based on a 
     refusal of an individual to engage in work required in 
     accordance with this section if the individual is a custodial 
     parent or caretaker relative caring for--
       ``(A) a child who has a disability or a serious health 
     condition (as defined in section 101(11) of the Family 
     Medical Leave Act), and the individual does not have 
     meaningful access to safe, appropriate, affordable, and 
     quality care for the child; or
       ``(B) a child who has attained 6 years of age, and the 
     individual does not have meaningful access to safe, 
     appropriate, affordable, and quality after-school or summer 
     care for the child.
       ``(4) Mental health problem, disability, substance abuse, 
     or domestic or sexual violence exception.--Notwithstanding 
     paragraph (1), a State may not reduce or terminate assistance 
     under the State program funded under this part based on the 
     failure of any individual who has a mental health problem, 
     disability, or substance abuse problem, or who is a victim of 
     sexual or domestic violence to engage in work required in 
     accordance with this section if--
       ``(A) the individual is in the process of being screened or 
     assessed for the mental health problem, disability, substance 
     abuse problem, or sexual or domestic violence situation but 
     the screening or assessment has not been completed;
       ``(B) the individual has not been offered treatment to 
     address the problem or disability; or
       ``(C) the individual cannot comply because of the need to 
     seek medical, legal, or other services in relation to the 
     mental health problem, disability, or sexual or domestic 
     violence situation.
       ``(5) Minimum wage exception.--Notwithstanding paragraph 
     (1), a State may not impose a sanction under the State 
     program funded under this part on the basis of the refusal of 
     an individual to accept any employment (including any 
     employment offered under the program), if the wage rate for 
     the employment does not equal or exceed the greater of--
       ``(A) the minimum wage rate then in effect under section 6 
     of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938; or
       ``(B) any minimum wage rate prescribed by or under the law 
     of the State.
       ``(6) Discrimination exception.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a State 
     may not reduce or terminate assistance under the State 
     program funded under this part based on the failure of any 
     individual to engage in work required in accordance with this 
     section if the individual certifies in a manner described in 
     subparagraph (B) that the individual has left or refused work 
     based on discrimination.
       ``(B) Certification.--An individual may provide a 
     certification required by subparagraph (A) by sworn written 
     statement or by providing other documentation, including a 
     police or court record or documentation by a shelter worker, 
     an employee of a victim assistance program, an attorney, a 
     member of the clergy, or a medical or other professional from 
     whom the individual has sought assistance as a victim.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 409(a)(11) (42 U.S.C 
     609(a)(11)) is amended--
       (1) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``who cannot 
     obtain child care for child under age 6'' and inserting 
     ``with justified refusal to work''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``407(e)(2)'' and 
     inserting ``407(e)''.

     SEC. 205. ELIMINATION OF MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.

       Section 407 (42 U.S.C. 607) is amended by striking 
     subsections (g), (h), and (i).

     SEC. 206. ASSESSMENT OF INDIVIDUALS FOR JOB PREPARATION.

       Section 407 (42 U.S.C. 607), as amended by section 205 of 
     this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Assessment of Individuals for Job Preparation.--At 
     the option of a recipient of assistance under a State program 
     funded under this part, the State shall, before assigning the 
     recipient to a work activity under the program, perform an 
     individual assessment for the preparation that is needed for 
     the recipient to obtain and maintain a job at a monthly wage 
     that is at least 200 percent of the poverty line applicable 
     to the family of the recipient.''.

                 TITLE III--PROHIBITIONS; REQUIREMENTS

     SEC. 301. REPLACEMENT OF REQUIREMENT TO SANCTION INDIVIDUAL 
                   FOR NONCOOPERATION IN ESTABLISHING PATERNITY OR 
                   OBTAINING CHILD SUPPORT WITH PROHIBITION ON 
                   REQUIRING SUCH COOPERATION.

       (a) In General.--Section 408(a)(2) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)(2)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Prohibition on requiring cooperation in establishing 
     paternity or obtaining child support.--A State to which a 
     grant is made under section 403 shall not penalize an 
     individual under the State program funded under this part by 
     reason of the failure of the individual to cooperate in 
     establishing paternity or establishing, modifying, or 
     enforcing a child support order with respect to a child of 
     the recipient.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 454(29) (42 U.S.C. 
     654(29)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``the State program funded under part A,'' 
     each place it appears; and
       (2) in subparagraph (A)(i), by striking ``E,'' and 
     inserting ``E''.

     SEC. 302. PROHIBITION ON REQUIRING ASSIGNMENT OF SUPPORT 
                   RIGHTS TO THE STATE; RETURN OF SUPPORT RIGHTS 
                   ASSIGNED TO THE STATE.

       (a) In General.--Section 408(a)(3) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)(3)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) Prohibition on requiring assignment of support rights 
     to the state; requirement to return support rights assigned 
     to the state.--A State to which a grant is made under section 
     403 shall not penalize an

[[Page 3759]]

     individual or family under the State program funded under 
     this part by reason of the failure of the individual to 
     assign to the State any rights any person may have (on behalf 
     of the person or of any other person for whom the individual 
     has applied for or is receiving assistance) to support from 
     any other person. If any person has assigned any such rights 
     to the State, the State shall assign such rights back to the 
     person.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 452 (42 U.S.C. 652) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)(10)(C), by striking ``pursuant to 
     section 408(a)(3) or''; and
       (B) in subsection (h), by striking ``or with respect to 
     whom an assignment pursuant to section 408(a)(3) is in 
     effect''.
       (2) Section 454(5) (42 U.S.C. 654(5)) is amended by 
     striking ``(A)'' and all that follows through ``(B)''.
       (3) Section 456(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 656(a)(1)) is amended by 
     striking ``assigned to the State pursuant to section 
     408(a)(3) or''.
       (4) Section 464(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 664(a)(1)) is amended by 
     striking ``section 408(a)(3) or''.
       (5) Section 466(a)(3)(B) (42 U.S.C. 666(a)(3)(B)) is 
     amended by striking ``section 408(a)(3) or''.

     SEC. 303. ELIMINATION OF SANCTION AGAINST TEENAGE PARENTS NOT 
                   ATTENDING HIGH SCHOOL OR OTHER EQUIVALENT 
                   TRAINING PROGRAM.

       Section 408(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)) is amended by striking 
     paragraph (4).

     SEC. 304. REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO DISREGARD OF CHILD 
                   SUPPORT.

       (a) In General.--Section 408(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)), as 
     amended by section 303 of this Act, is amended by inserting 
     after paragraph (3) the following:
       ``(4) Limited disregard of child support.--In determining 
     the amount and type of assistance for which a family is 
     eligible under the State program funded under this part, a 
     State to which a grant is made under section 403 shall 
     disregard--
       ``(A) the first $200 (or, if the family includes 2 or more 
     children, $400) per month distributed to any family member by 
     the State under section 457; and
       ``(B) all child support (as defined in section 459(i)(2)) 
     received by any family member from any other source.''.
       (b) Requirement To Pass Through All Child Support.--
       (1) In general.--Section 457 (42 U.S.C. 657) is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``SEC. 457. DISTRIBUTION OF COLLECTED CHILD SUPPORT.

       ``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), 
     all amounts collected on behalf of a family as support by a 
     State pursuant to a plan approved under this part shall be 
     distributed to the family.
       ``(b) Exception.--In the case of an amount collected for a 
     family in accordance with a cooperative agreement under 
     section 454(33), the State shall distribute the amount 
     pursuant to the agreement.''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Section 409(a)(7)(B)(i)(I)(aa) (42 U.S.C. 
     609(a)(7)(B)(i)(I)(aa)) is amended by striking 
     ``457(a)(1)(B)'' and inserting ``457''.
       (B) Section 454B(c)(1) (42 U.S.C. 654b(c)(1)) is amended by 
     striking ``457(a)'' and inserting ``457''.

     SEC. 305. ELIMINATION OF SANCTION AGAINST TEENAGE PARENTS NOT 
                   LIVING IN ADULT-SUPERVISED SETTINGS.

       Section 408(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)) is amended by striking 
     paragraph (5).

     SEC. 306. PROTECTION FOR CHILDREN BORN INTO POVERTY.

       Section 408(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)), as amended by section 
     305 of this Act, is amended by inserting after paragraph (4) 
     the following:
       ``(5) Protection for children.--A State to which a grant is 
     made under section 403 shall not deny or limit assistance to 
     a child born into a family receiving assistance under the 
     State program funded under this part.''.

     SEC. 307. 5-YEAR TIME LIMIT.

       (a) Removal of Limitations.--
       (1) Elimination of limitation on hardship exception.--
     Section 408(a)(7)(C) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)(7)(C)) is amended by 
     striking clause (ii) and redesignating clause (iii) as clause 
     (ii).
       (2) Compliance exception.--Section 408(a)(7) (42 U.S.C. 
     608(a)(7)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(H) Compliance exception.--In determining the number of 
     months for which an individual has received assistance under 
     the State program funded under this part, the State shall 
     disregard any month throughout which the individual is in 
     compliance with all applicable requirements of the State 
     program.''.
       (b) Uniform Duration of Assistance.--Section 408(a)(7)(E) 
     (42 U.S.C. 608(a)(7)(E)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(E) Requirement to provide assistance for 5 years.--
     Notwithstanding section 407(e), a State to which a grant is 
     made under section 403 shall not impose a limitation of fewer 
     than 60 months on the period for which a recipient is 
     eligible for assistance under the State program funded under 
     this part.''.
       (c) Protection Against Recession.--Section 408(a)(7) (42 
     U.S.C. 608(a)(7)), as amended by subsection (a)(2) of this 
     section, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(I) Special rules relating to month in which unemployment 
     is high or has increased sharply over prior 2 years.--
       ``(i) Clock stopped for current recipients.--In determining 
     the number of months for which an individual has received 
     assistance under the State program funded under this part, 
     the State shall disregard any month that is a trigger month.
       ``(ii) Treatment of former recipients who reached time 
     limit.--

       ``(I) Notice; determination of eligibility.--On the 
     occurrence of a trigger month, the State shall--

       ``(aa) issue a public notice that a trigger month has 
     occurred; and
       ``(bb) on request of an individual who had become 
     ineligible for assistance under the State program funded 
     under this part by reason of this paragraph, determine the 
     eligibility of the individual for such assistance as if the 
     individual had received such assistance for 59 months.

       ``(II) Additional month of assistance for otherwise 
     eligible former recipients.--If the individual is so 
     determined to be eligible for such assistance, the State 
     shall, notwithstanding subparagraph (A), provide such 
     assistance to the individual for any month that is a trigger 
     month, but shall not provide such assistance to the 
     individual for any month that is not a trigger month.

       ``(iii) Trigger month.--In this subparagraph, the term 
     `trigger month' means, with respect to a State, any month for 
     which the unemployment rate of the State--

       ``(I) is at least 5.5 percent; or
       ``(II) has increased by the lesser of 50 percent, or 1.5 
     percentage points, over the lesser of the average rate of 
     total unemployment in the State (seasonally adjusted) for the 
     preceding fiscal year or the average unemployment rate of the 
     State for the 2nd preceding fiscal year.''.

     SEC. 308. REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE NOTICE OF RIGHTS OF 
                   RECIPIENTS, AND TRAIN PROGRAM PERSONNEL IN 
                   CARRYING OUT PROGRAM CONSISTENT WITH THE 
                   RIGHTS.

       Section 408(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(12) Requirement to provide notice of rights of 
     recipients, and train program personnel to carry out program 
     consistent with the rights.--A State to which a grant is made 
     under section 403 shall--
       ``(A) notify each recipient of assistance under the program 
     of the rights of recipients under all laws applicable to the 
     activities of the State program funded under this part, and 
     shall provide the notice--
       ``(i) to a recipient when the recipient enters the program;
       ``(ii) to all such recipients on a semiannual basis; and
       ``(iii) orally and in writing, in the native language of 
     the recipient and at a 6th grade level, and if the native 
     language is not English, a culturally competent translation 
     shall be provided; and
       ``(B) train all program personnel on a regular basis in how 
     to carry out the program consistent with the rights.''.

     SEC. 309. REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO INDIVIDUALS 
                   WHO ARE, OR ARE AT RISK OF BEING, SANCTIONED.

       Section 408(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)) is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(13) State required to provide information to individual 
     who has been, or is at risk of being sanctioned.--A State to 
     which a grant is made under section 403 shall provide to any 
     individual who has been, or is at risk of being, sanctioned 
     under the State program funded under this part, orally and in 
     writing, at not more than a 6th grade level in the native 
     language of the individual (and if the native language is not 
     English, a culturally competent translation shall be 
     provided), that--
       ``(A) program requirements may be waived for people dealing 
     with a mental health, disability, substance abuse, domestic 
     violence, or sexual assault issue;
       ``(B) an individual dealing with a mental health, 
     disability, substance abuse, domestic violence, or sexual 
     assault issue may request (or if the individual has left or 
     been removed from the program, may return to the program and 
     request) to be assessed under the program for services to 
     address those issues, including appropriate treatment, 
     counseling, vocational rehabilitation, job training, or other 
     services; and
       ``(C) the State is required to keep any such information 
     strictly confidential.''.

     SEC. 310. BAN ON COUNTING INCOME, SCHOLARSHIP, OR GIFT 
                   RECEIVED BY DEPENDENT MINORS.

       Section 408(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)) is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(14) Prohibition on counting income, scholarship, or gift 
     received by dependent minor.--In determining the eligibility 
     of a family for, and the amount and type of assistance to be 
     provided to a family under, a State program funded under this 
     part, the State shall disregard any income, scholarship, or 
     gift received by a dependent minor child in the family.''.

     SEC. 311. BAN ON DIVERSION OF POTENTIAL APPLICANTS FOR 
                   ASSISTANCE.

       Section 408(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)) is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(15) Ban on diversion of potential applicants for 
     assistance.--A State may not refuse to accept, at the time of 
     application, an application for assistance from the State

[[Page 3760]]

     program funded under this part, or give an individual reason 
     to believe that, at the time of application, the State will 
     not unconditionally accept such an application from any 
     individual.''.

     SEC. 312. PROHIBITION ON REQUIRING RECIPIENTS TO RESPOND TO 
                   SURVEYS CONDUCTED TO OBTAIN INFORMATION FOR 
                   QUARTERLY REPORTS.

       Section 408(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)) is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(16) Prohibition on requiring recipients to respond to 
     surveys conducted to obtain information for quarterly 
     reports.--A State to which a grant is made under section 403 
     shall not penalize an individual under the State program 
     funded under this part by reason of the failure of the 
     individual to respond to a survey conducted to obtain 
     information for use in a report required by section 
     411(a).''.

     SEC. 313. CONFIDENTIALITY OF PROGRAM INFORMATION.

       Section 408(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)) is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(17) Confidentiality of program information.--A State to 
     which a grant is made under section 403 shall ensure that any 
     information provided by an individual to a State officer or 
     employee for use by the State program funded under this part 
     shall not be disclosed to any other person, except to the 
     extent that the disclosure is necessary to administer the 
     program or is consented to by the individual.''.

     SEC. 314. NONDISCRIMINATION.

       Section 408(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(18) Nondiscrimination.--A State to which a grant is made 
     under section 403 shall ensure equitable treatment of needy 
     families in the State, and shall not discriminate among 
     families based on marital status or applicant or recipient 
     status.''.

     SEC. 315. REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL 
                   ADVERSE DECISION.

       Section 408(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(19) Requirement to provide opportunity to appeal adverse 
     decision.--A State to which a grant is made under section 403 
     shall provide a recipient of assistance under the State 
     program funded under this part with the opportunity to appeal 
     any adverse decision made with respect to the recipient under 
     the program.''.

     SEC. 316. CLARIFICATION OF PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH 
                   INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY PLAN.

       Section 408(b)(3) (42 U.S.C. 608(b)(3)) is amended by 
     striking ``a family that includes''.

     SEC. 317. APPLICABILITY OF CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS.

       Section 408(d) (42 U.S.C. 608(d)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``, or any provision of 
     State law relating to individuals with physical or mental 
     disabilities'' before the 2nd period; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 
     2000e et seq.), or any provision of State law relating to 
     discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, 
     religion, gender, sex, parental or marital status, or sexual 
     orientation.
       ``(6) The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 
     U.S.C. 621-634), or any provision of State law relating to 
     age discrimination.
       ``(7) Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 
     U.S.C. 1681 et seq.), or any provision of State law relating 
     to discrimination in education.
       ``(8) The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 201 
     et seq.), or any provision of State law relating to labor or 
     to a term or condition of employment.
       ``(9) The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 
     U.S.C. 651 et seq).
       ``(10) The National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 151 et 
     seq.).
       ``(11) The Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 151 et seq.).
       ``(12) Any Federal law providing employee protections 
     against discrimination for union activity.
       ``(13) Any other provision of Federal or State law the 
     purpose of which is to provide or protect a civil right.''.

     SEC. 318. ELIMINATION OF SPECIAL RULES RELATING TO TREATMENT 
                   OF ALIENS.

       (a) Amendments to the Personal Responsibility and Work 
     Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.--
       (1) Section 401(c)(2) of the Personal Responsibility and 
     Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 
     1611(c)(2)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B);
       (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
     or''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) to any assistance provided under a State program 
     funded under the program of block grants to States for 
     temporary assistance for needy families under part A of title 
     IV of the Social Security Act.''.
       (2)(A) Section 402(b)(3) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1612(b)(3)) 
     is amended by striking subparagraph (A) and redesignating 
     subparagraphs (B) and (C) as subparagraphs (A) and (B), 
     respectively.
       (B) Section 402(b)(2)(A)(ii) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1612(b)(2)(A)(ii)) is amended by striking ``(C)'' and 
     inserting ``(B)''.
       (3) Section 403(c)(2) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1613(c)(2)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(L) Assistance under a State program funded under the 
     program of block grants to States for temporary assistance 
     for needy families under part A of title IV of the Social 
     Security Act.''.
       (4) Section 423(d) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1183a note) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(12) Assistance under a State program funded under the 
     program of block grants to States for temporary assistance 
     for needy families under part A of title IV of the Social 
     Security Act.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 408 (42 U.S.C. 608) is amended by striking 
     subsections (e) and (f) and by redesignating subsection (g) 
     as subsection (e).
       (2) Section 409(a)(7)(B)(i)(IV) (42 U.S.C. 
     609(a)(7)(B)(i)(IV)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``part,'' and inserting ``part and''; and
       (B) by striking ``, and families of aliens lawfully present 
     in the United States that would be eligible for such 
     assistance but for the application of title IV of the 
     Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation 
     Act of 1996''.

                          TITLE IV--PENALTIES

     SEC. 401. INCREASE IN PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO SUBMIT REQUIRED 
                   REPORT.

       Section 409(a)(2)(A) (42 U.S.C. 609(a)(2)(A)) is amended by 
     striking ``4'' and inserting ``5''.

     SEC. 402. REPLACEMENT OF PENALTY AGAINST STATE FOR FAILURE TO 
                   COMPLY WITH PATERNITY ESTABLISHMENT AND CHILD 
                   SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT REQUIREMENTS WITH PENALTY 
                   FOR REQUIRING COOPERATION IN ESTABLISHING 
                   PATERNITY OR OBTAINING CHILD SUPPORT (INCLUDING 
                   ASSIGNING SUPPORT RIGHTS TO THE STATE) OR 
                   FAILING TO RETURN SUPPORT RIGHTS ASSIGNED TO 
                   THE STATE.

       Section 409(a)(5) (42 U.S.C. 609(a)(5)) is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(5) Penalty for requiring cooperation in establishing 
     paternity or obtaining child support (including assigning 
     support rights to the state) or failing to return support 
     rights assigned to the state.--If the Secretary determines 
     that a State to which a grant is made under section 403 for a 
     fiscal year has violated paragraph (2) or (3) of section 
     408(a) during the fiscal year, the Secretary shall reduce the 
     grant payable to the State under section 403(a)(1) for the 
     immediately succeeding fiscal year by an amount equal to 5 
     percent of the State family assistance grant.''.

     SEC. 403. EXTENSION OF MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT REQUIREMENT.

       Section 409(a)(7)(A) (42 U.S.C. 609(a)(7)(A)) is amended by 
     striking ``or 2003'' and inserting ``2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 
     2007, or 2008''.

     SEC. 404. PENALTY FOR FAILURE OF STATE TO COMPLY WITH CHILD 
                   SUPPORT DISREGARD REQUIREMENTS.

       Section 409(a) (42 U.S.C. 609(a)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(15) Penalty for failure to comply with child support 
     disregard requirements.--If the Secretary determines that a 
     State to which a grant is made under section 403 for a fiscal 
     year has violated section 408(a)(4) during the fiscal year, 
     the Secretary shall reduce the grant payable to the State 
     under section 403(a)(1) for the immediately succeeding fiscal 
     year by an amount equal to 5 percent of the State family 
     assistance grant.''.

     SEC. 405. PENALTY FOR PENALIZING BIRTH OF CHILD.

       Section 409(a) (42 U.S.C. 609(a)) is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(16) Penalty for penalizing birth of child.--If the 
     Secretary determines that a State to which a grant is made 
     under section 403 for a fiscal year has violated section 
     408(a)(5) during the fiscal year, the Secretary shall reduce 
     the grant payable to the State under section 403(a)(1) for 
     the immediately succeeding fiscal year by an amount equal to 
     5 percent of the State family assistance grant.''.

     SEC. 406. PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO NOTIFY RECIPIENTS OF RIGHTS, 
                   OR TRAIN PROGRAM PERSONNEL IN RESPECTING RIGHTS 
                   OF RECIPIENTS.

       Section 409(a) (42 U.S.C. 609(a)) is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(17) Penalty for failure to notify recipients of rights, 
     or train program personnel in respecting rights of 
     recipients.--If the Secretary determines that a State to 
     which a grant is made under section 403 for a fiscal year has 
     violated section 408(a)(12) during the fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall reduce the grant payable to the State under 
     section 403(a)(1) for the immediately succeeding fiscal year 
     by an amount equal to 5 percent of the State family 
     assistance grant.''.

     SEC. 407. PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO 
                   INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE, OR ARE AT RISK OF BEING, 
                   SANCTIONED.

       Section 409(a) (42 U.S.C. 609(a)) is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

[[Page 3761]]

       ``(18) Penalty for failure to provide information to 
     individual who has been, or is at risk of being sanctioned.--
     If the Secretary determines that a State to which a grant is 
     made under section 403 for a fiscal year has violated section 
     408(a)(13) during the fiscal year, the Secretary shall reduce 
     the grant payable to the State under section 403(a)(1) for 
     the immediately succeeding fiscal year by an amount equal to 
     5 percent of the State family assistance grant.''.

     SEC. 408. PENALTY FOR COUNTING INCOME, SCHOLARSHIP, OR GIFT 
                   RECEIVED BY DEPENDENT MINOR.

       Section 409(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(19) Penalty for counting income, scholarship, or gift 
     received by dependent minor.--If the Secretary determines 
     that a State to which a grant is made under section 403 for a 
     fiscal year has violated section 408(a)(14) during the fiscal 
     year, the Secretary shall reduce the grant payable to the 
     State under section 403(a)(1) for the immediately succeeding 
     fiscal year by an amount equal to 5 percent of the State 
     family assistance grant.''.

     SEC. 409. PENALTY FOR DIVERTING POTENTIAL APPLICANT FOR 
                   ASSISTANCE.

       Section 409(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)) is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(20) Penalty for diverting potential applicant for 
     assistance.--If the Secretary determines that a State to 
     which a grant is made under section 403 for a fiscal year has 
     violated section 408(a)(15) during the fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall reduce the grant payable to the State under 
     section 403(a)(1) for the immediately succeeding fiscal year 
     by an amount equal to 5 percent of the State family 
     assistance grant.''.

     SEC. 410. PENALTY FOR REQUIRING RECIPIENT TO RESPOND TO 
                   SURVEY CONDUCTED TO OBTAIN INFORMATION FOR 
                   QUARTERLY REPORT.

       Section 409(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)) is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(21) Penalty for requiring recipient to respond to survey 
     conducted to obtain information for quarterly report.--If the 
     Secretary determines that a State to which a grant is made 
     under section 403 for a fiscal year has violated section 
     408(a)(16) during the fiscal year, the Secretary shall reduce 
     the grant payable to the State under section 403(a)(1) for 
     the immediately succeeding fiscal year by an amount equal to 
     5 percent of the State family assistance grant.''.

     SEC. 411. PENALTY FOR UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION 
                   PROVIDED BY RECIPIENT.

       Section 409(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)) is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(22) Penalty for unauthorized disclosure of information 
     provided by recipient.--If the Secretary determines that a 
     State to which a grant is made under section 403 for a fiscal 
     year has violated section 408(a)(17) during the fiscal year, 
     the Secretary shall reduce the grant payable to the State 
     under section 403(a)(1) for the immediately succeeding fiscal 
     year by an amount equal to 5 percent of the State family 
     assistance grant.''.

     SEC. 412. PENALTY FOR DISCRIMINATION.

       Section 409(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)) is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(23) Penalty for discrimination.--If the Secretary 
     determines that a State to which a grant is made under 
     section 403 for a fiscal year has violated section 408(a)(18) 
     during the fiscal year, the Secretary shall reduce the grant 
     payable to the State under section 403(a)(1) for the 
     immediately succeeding fiscal year by an amount equal to 5 
     percent of the State family assistance grant.''.

     SEC. 413. PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY TO 
                   APPEAL ADVERSE DECISION.

       Section 409(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)) is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(24) Penalty for failure to provide opportunity to appeal 
     adverse decision.--If the Secretary determines that a State 
     to which a grant is made under section 403 for a fiscal year 
     has violated section 408(a)(19) during the fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall reduce the grant payable to the State under 
     section 403(a)(1) for the immediately succeeding fiscal year 
     by an amount equal to 5 percent of the State family 
     assistance grant.''.

     SEC. 414. PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH MINIMUM BENEFIT 
                   RULES.

       Section 409(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)) is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(25) Penalty for failure to comply with minimum benefit 
     rules.--If the Secretary determines that a State to which a 
     grant is made under section 403 for a fiscal year has 
     violated section 417 during the fiscal year, the Secretary 
     shall reduce the grant payable to the State under section 
     403(a)(1) for the immediately succeeding fiscal year by an 
     amount equal to 5 percent of the State family assistance 
     grant.''.

     SEC. 415. PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE INDIVIDUAL CHILD 
                   CARE ENTITLEMENT.

       Section 409(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)) is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(26) Penalty for failure to provide individual child care 
     entitlement.--Effective January 1, 2005, if the Secretary 
     determines that a State to which a grant is made under 
     section 403 for a fiscal year has violated section 418(b) 
     during the fiscal year, the Secretary shall reduce the grant 
     payable to the State under section 403(a)(1) for the 
     immediately succeeding fiscal year by an amount equal to 5 
     percent of the State family assistance grant.''.

     SEC. 416. FAILURE TO SUBMIT REPORT ON WELFARE ACCESS AND 
                   OUTCOMES.

       Section 409(a) (42 U.S.C. 609(a)) is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(27) Failure to submit report on welfare access and 
     outcomes.--If the Secretary determines that a State has not, 
     within 45 days after the end of a fiscal year, submitted the 
     report required by section 411(c) for the fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall reduce the grant payable to the State under 
     section 403(a)(1) for the immediately succeeding fiscal year 
     by an amount equal to 5 percent of the State family 
     assistance grant.''.

     SEC. 417. ELIMINATION OF REASONABLE CAUSE EXCEPTION.

       Section 409 (42 U.S.C. 609) is amended by striking 
     subsection (b).

     SEC. 418. MODIFICATION OF AVAILABILITY OF CORRECTIVE 
                   COMPLIANCE PLAN OPTION.

       Section 409(c)(4) (42 U.S.C. 609(c)(4)) is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(4) Limitation on opportunity to submit corrective 
     compliance plan.--The preceding provisions of this subsection 
     shall not apply with respect to a violation of a provision of 
     this part by a State if the State has violated the provision 
     on 2 or more prior occasions.''.

     SEC. 419. REPEAL OF BAN ON ASSISTANCE FOR PERSONS CONVICTED 
                   OF A DRUG FELONY.

       Section 115 of the Personal Responsibility and Work 
     Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 862a) is 
     repealed.

                      TITLE V--STUDIES AND REPORTS

     SEC. 501. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO BE INCLUDED IN QUARTERLY 
                   STATE REPORTS.

       Section 411(a) (42 U.S.C. 611(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(A)--
       (A) in each of clauses (vii) and (viii) by striking ``race' 
     and inserting ``race, gender,'';
       (B) in clause (xi)(I), by inserting ``, broken down by 
     education level'';
       (C) by striking clause (xvi) and redesignating clause 
     (xvii) and clause (xvi); and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(xvii) The amount (if any) of child support collected on 
     behalf of any individual in the family, the amount (if any) 
     of any such collected support that has been distributed to 
     any such individual, and the amount (if any) of such 
     distributed support that has been disregarded pursuant to 
     section 408(a)(4).
       ``(xviii) The number of families receiving child care 
     assistance under section 418.
       ``(xix) With respect to sanctions imposed under the 
     program, the following information broken down by race and 
     gender:

       ``(I) The number of families against whom a sanction is in 
     effect.
       ``(II) The number of times sanctions have been imposed.
       ``(III) The reasons for imposition of sanctions.
       ``(IV) The percentage of sanction determinations that have 
     been reviewed.
       ``(V) The percentage of reviewed sanction determinations 
     that have been reversed.
       ``(VI) The number of families leaving the program as a 
     result of sanctions.

       ``(xx) The number of families who have returned to the 
     program after having left the program, and the length of the 
     intervening period.
       ``(xxi) The percentage of families who report having been 
     notified of the option to be assessed for and receive 
     services to manage a barrier to escaping poverty.''; and
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (8) and 
     inserting after paragraph (6) the following:
       ``(7) Report on training.--The report required by paragraph 
     (1) for a fiscal quarter shall include a statement of the 
     percentage of caseworkers, supervisors, and new employees who 
     received training to carry out the State program funded under 
     this part during the quarter.''.

     SEC. 502. ELIMINATION FROM SECRETARIAL REPORT TO THE CONGRESS 
                   OF INFORMATION ON OUT-OF-WEDLOCK PREGNANCIES.

       Section 411(b)(1)(B)(ii) (42 U.S.C. 611(b)(1)(B)(ii)) is 
     amended by striking ``out-of-wedlock pregnancies and''.

     SEC. 503. ACCESS TO WELFARE; WELFARE OUTCOMES.

       Section 411 (42 U.S.C. 611) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(c) Annual Reports on Welfare Access and Outcomes.--
       ``(1) State reports.--Not later than January 1 of each 
     fiscal year, each eligible State shall collect and report to 
     the Secretary, with respect to the preceding fiscal year, the 
     following information:
       ``(A) The number of applications for assistance from the 
     State program funded under this part, the percentage that are 
     approved versus those that are disapproved, and the reasons 
     for disapproval, broken down by race.
       ``(B) A copy of all rules and policies governing the State 
     program funded under this part that are not required by 
     Federal law,

[[Page 3762]]

     and a summary of the rules and policies, including the 
     amounts and types of assistance provided and the types of 
     sanctions imposed under the program.
       ``(C) The types of occupations of, types of job training 
     received by, and types and levels of educational attainment 
     of recipients of assistance from the State program funded 
     under this part, broken down by gender and race.
       ``(D) The incidence of homelessness, of the use of food 
     pantries and soup kitchens, and of the use of shelters among 
     recipients of assistance from the State program funded under 
     this part and among individuals to whom assistance under the 
     State programs funded are this part has ended within the past 
     12 months. The information described in this subparagraph may 
     be provided by submitting disaggregated case record 
     information on a sample of families.
       ``(E) The number of individuals to whom assistance under 
     the State program funded under this part has ended during the 
     year, broken down by the reasons why the assistance has ended 
     (including employment, marriage, sanction, time limit, or 
     State policy.
       ``(F) The economic conditions of individuals to whom 
     assistance under the State programs funded are this part has 
     ended, including the types of occupations of, the duration of 
     employment of, the income of, the benefits provided to, the 
     types of job training received by, the types and levels of 
     educational attainment of, and the incidence of homelessness, 
     of the use of food pantries or soup kitchens, and of the use 
     of shelters among, such individuals, broken down by gender 
     and race.
       ``(G) The effects of applying the 5-year time limit to 
     individuals who, in the absence of the limit, would continue 
     to be eligible for assistance from the State program funded 
     under this part, including the economic and social 
     circumstances of the individuals, including income, 
     employment, homelessness, use of food pantries or soup 
     kitchens, and change in child custody arrangements.
       ``(2) Use of sampling.--A State may comply with this 
     subsection by using a scientifically acceptable sampling 
     method approved by the Secretary.
       ``(3) Report to the congress.--Not later than June 1 of 
     each fiscal year, the Secretary shall prepare and submit to 
     the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate, 
     publish in the Federal Register, and make available to the 
     public a compilation of the reports submitted pursuant to 
     paragraph (1) for the preceding fiscal year.''.

     SEC. 504. ASSESSMENT OF REGIONAL ECONOMIES TO IDENTIFY HIGHER 
                   ENTRY LEVEL WAGE OPPORTUNITIES IN INDUSTRIES 
                   EXPERIENCING LABOR SHORTAGES.

       Section 411 (42 U.S.C. 611) is further amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(d) Assessment of Regional Economies to Identify Higher 
     Entry Level Wage Opportunities in Industries Experiencing 
     Labor Shortages.--
       ``(1) In general.--An eligible State shall conduct annually 
     an assessment of its regional economies that are experiencing 
     a labor shortage and that provide higher entry-level wage 
     opportunities for job seekers pursuant to section 402(a)(8).
       ``(2) Matters to be assessed.--
       ``(A) Labor market.--The assessment shall--
       ``(i) identify industries or occupations that have or 
     expect to grow, that have or expect a loss of skilled 
     workers, or that have a need for workers;
       ``(ii) identify the entry-level education and skills 
     requirements for the industries or occupations that have or 
     expect a need for workers; and
       ``(iii) analyze the entry-level wages and benefits in 
     identified industries or occupations.
       ``(B) Job seekers.--The assessment shall create a profile 
     of the characteristics of the unemployed and underemployed 
     residents of the State, including educational attainment, 
     barriers to employment, geographic concentrations, self-
     sufficiency needs, and access to needed support services.
       ``(C) Education and training infrastructure.--The 
     assessment shall create a profile of the education, training, 
     and support services in place in the State to prepare workers 
     for the industries or occupations identified pursuant to 
     subparagraph (A).
       ``(D) Aligning industries and job seekers.--The assessment 
     shall compare the characteristics of the industries or 
     occupations identified pursuant to subparagraph (A) to the 
     profile of the job seekers in the State and the profile of 
     the education and training infrastructure in the State.
       ``(3) Sharing of information with localities.--The State 
     shall share with the political subdivisions of the State 
     information obtained pursuant to this subsection regarding 
     higher entry-wage job opportunities in industries 
     experiencing labor shortages, and information regarding 
     opportunities for collaboration with institutions of higher 
     education, community-based organizations, and economic 
     development and welfare agencies.
       ``(4) Reports of assessment of regional economies.--Each 
     eligible state shall submit to the Secretary annually a 
     report hat contains the annual assessment conducted pursuant 
     to this subsection.''.

     SEC. 505. RESEARCH, EVALUATIONS, AND NATIONAL STUDIES.

       Section 413 (42 U.S.C. 613) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking the 2nd sentence;
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in the subsection heading by striking ``Welfare 
     Dependency'' and inserting ``Poverty''; and
       (B) in paragraph (1), by striking ``welfare dependency'' 
     and inserting ``poverty'';
       (3) by striking subsections (d), (e), (g), and (j);
       (4) in subsection (h)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in subparagraph (B), by striking welfare dependency'' 
     and inserting ``poverty''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``(f)'' and inserting 
     ``(d)''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Technical assistance in assessing regional 
     economies.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary may provide technical 
     assistance to an eligible State to enable the State to 
     conduct the assessments required by section 411(d).
       ``(B) Limitations on authorization of appropriations.--For 
     the cost of providing technical assistance under subparagraph 
     (A), there are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary 
     not more than $1,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2003 
     through 2008.'';
       (5) in subsection (i)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by adding at the end the following: 
     ``The statement shall include detailed information on the 
     depth of child poverty in the State.''; and
       (B) in paragraph (5), by inserting ``and the depth of child 
     poverty'' before ``in the State''; and
       (6) by redesignating subsections (f), (h), and (i) as 
     subsections (d) through (f), respectively.

     SEC. 506. STUDY BY THE CENSUS BUREAU.

       Section 414(a) (42 U.S.C. 614(a)) is amended by striking 
     all that follows ``low-income families'' and inserting a 
     period.

                           TITLE VI--WAIVERS

     SEC. 601. WAIVERS.

       Section 415(a) (42 U.S.C. 615(a)) is amended in each of 
     paragraphs (1)(A) and (2)(A) by striking ``(determined 
     without regard to any extensions)''.

         TITLE VII--REPEAL OF LIMITATION ON FEDERAL AUTHORITY.

     SEC. 701. REPEAL OF LIMITATION ON FEDERAL AUTHORITY.

       Section 417 (42 U.S.C. 617) is repealed.

                   TITLE VIII--MINIMUM BENEFIT RULES

     SEC. 801. MINIMUM BENEFIT RULES.

       Part A of title IV (42 U.S.C. 601-619), as amended by 
     section 701 of this Act, is amended by inserting after 
     section 416 the following:

     ``SEC. 417. MINIMUM BENEFIT RULES.

       ``(a) In General.--After taking into account all costs of 
     living and family size in each State with a program funded 
     under this part, the Secretary shall, by regulation, 
     prescribe a minimum cash benefit in accordance with 
     subsection (b), which shall be payable by the State to each 
     recipient of assistance under the program.
       ``(b) Limitation.--The minimum cash benefit prescribed for 
     a family under subsection (a) shall be an amount that is not 
     less than the sum of the poverty line applicable to the 
     family, plus the amount (if any) by which the housing costs 
     of the family exceeds 30 percent of the poverty line 
     applicable to the family.''.

                          TITLE IX--CHILD CARE

     SEC. 901. INDIVIDUAL ENTITLEMENT TO CHILD CARE.

       Section 418 (42 U.S.C. 618) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Use of Funds to Provide Individual Entitlement to 
     Child Care.--A State to which a grant is made under this 
     section shall use the grant, without fiscal year limitation, 
     only to guarantee safe, appropriate, affordable, and quality 
     care for any child of (or with respect to whom any of the 
     following is acting as a caretaker relative)--
       ``(1) any recipient of assistance under the State program 
     funded under this part who is employed or participating in a 
     work activity required pursuant to this part (except for 
     full-time participation in a work activity described in 
     section 407(d)(12)); and
       ``(2) any other employed individual who is a member of a 
     family whose income is less than 250 percent of the poverty 
     line and who, during the past 24 months, ceased to receive 
     assistance under any State program funded under this part.''; 
     and
       (2) in subsection (c), by inserting ``, but subject to 
     subsection (b) of this section'' after the 1st comma.

                  TITLE X--DEFINITION OF POVERTY LINE

     SEC. 1001. DEFINITION OF POVERTY LINE.

       Section 419 (42 U.S.C. 619) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(6) Poverty line.--The term `poverty line' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 673(2) of the Omnibus 
     Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, including any revision 
     required by such section applicable to a family of the size 
     involved.''.

[[Page 3763]]



                      TITLE XI--SERVICE PROVIDERS

     SEC. 1101. PROTECTION FOR BENEFICIARIES.

       Section 104 of the Personal Responsibility and Work 
     Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 604a) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (e), by striking ``Rights of 
     Beneficiaries of Assistance'' and inserting ``Protection for 
     Beneficiaries''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(l) No Discrimination In Hiring With Taxpayer Dollars.--
     Sections 702 and 703(e)(2) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
     shall not apply to a nongovernmental organization that 
     receives funds under a program described in subsection (a)(2) 
     of this section with respect to an individual who provides, 
     or would provide, services funded in whole or in part under 
     such a program, or individuals whose employment is, or would 
     be, funded in whole or in part under such a program.
       ``(m) Beneficiary Rights.--A nongovernmental organization 
     that receives funds under a program funded under subsection 
     (a)(2) may not, in providing services funded in whole or in 
     part under such a program or engaging in outreach activities 
     for services funded in whole or in part under such a 
     program--
       ``(1) discriminate against a program beneficiary or 
     prospective beneficiary on the basis of religion or religious 
     belief; or
       ``(2) include sectarian worship, instruction or 
     proselytization in such a program, or require or coerce a 
     beneficiary to participate in, or be present for, sectarian 
     worship, instruction or proselytization.''.

                       TITLE XII--EFFECTIVE DATE

     SEC. 1201. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       Except as otherwise provided, this Act and the amendments 
     made by this Act shall take effect on April 1, 2003.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 69, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and a Member opposed each will 
control 20 minutes.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) will 
be recognized for the time in opposition and will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, today I am here to offer an amendment in the form of a 
substitute to H.R. 4. I am offering the Patsy Mink Memorial TANF 
Reauthorization Act with my colleagues, the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Lee), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Eddie Bernice Johnson), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald), the gentlewoman from Michigan 
(Ms. Kilpatrick), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), and the 
gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
  Throughout her life, Patsy Mink was a dedicated advocate for women, 
children and families everywhere. She was a seasoned policymaker who 
targeted failings in the status quo with real solutions.
  As a speaker at a conference on poverty, Patsy criticized TANF 
restrictions on education saying, ``Right now we cut welfare recipients 
off from education and job training after only 1 year. It is like 
saying that all poor mothers are worth are minimal schooling and skills 
and minimal wages.'' Patsy Mink said, ``We need to treat women on 
welfare the same way we treat all women, with respect, dignity and 
rights we all cherish for ourselves.''
  Well, the Mink substitute does just that. It provides real 
opportunities for families in poverty and backs every provision with 
adequate time and funding. TANF's current work requirements tell the 
poor, get a job, any job, regardless of what it pays.
  The Mink substitute allows recipients to prepare themselves and earn 
the qualifications so that they can get a living-wage job and 
permanently move out of poverty. It ensures that recipients are 
screened by trained professionals and have access to treatment for 
domestic violence, substance abuse or disabilities.
  The Mink substitute lifts the time limits on education and removes 
State caps on the number of people pursuing education. This will mean 
that people can earn a degree instead of taking a couple of classes. It 
expands the definition of work to include all kinds of education. This 
ensures recipients can build the qualifications they need. In the last 
year, industries that have placed more than half of TANF recipients 
have reduced job openings, and this is in areas like retail and service 
industries, for example, by 20 percent.
  Low-income women face an unemployment rate of 12.3 percent. TANF 
recipients need the time and opportunity to build new skills; 
otherwise, there will not be a job for them to go to.
  When people find a job, they need adequate work supports so they can 
continue working. The Mink substitute guarantees child care to TANF 
recipients who are engaged in a work activity and for 2 years to those 
who leave TANF if their income is below 250 percent of poverty. It also 
provides $20 billion in mandatory child care funding which will provide 
child care for an additional 2 million children. There is no reason to 
support anything less than the necessary amount. If we demand that all 
mothers go to work, we must provide them with the same opportunities to 
do so.
  Today, on the floor, I have heard a lot of my colleagues say that 
TANF is successful and that it is working. I hope that for the sake of 
this country my colleagues would understand that this is 2003, not 
2000, and that the people of this Nation are experiencing a serious 
recession.

                              {time}  1330

  Our government from the Census Bureau to the Department of Labor has 
reported increasing figures of poverty, unemployment, TANF caseloads, 
and requests for emergency food and shelter for the last 2 years. We 
cannot bury our heads in the sand and call it compassion.
  The truth is TANF, as a safety net program, is not working. The 
economy was working a few years ago; now it is not. Now we need a 
safety net, and those in poverty need better opportunities. The Mink 
bill recognizes this reality.
  In talking about her life and legacy, Patsy Mink once said, ``My 
career in politics has been a crucible of challenges and crises where 
in the end the principles to which I was committed prevailed.'' It is 
my hope that Patsy is right and that the principles of equality, 
justice, and opportunity prevail with the passage of this legislation.
  Support the Mink substitute. Celebrate her life and her purpose by 
supporting the Mink substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  For our colleagues who have listened to the debate today on the 
reauthorization of H.R. 4, the welfare reform law, I probably do not 
have to remind my colleagues that the sounds of the debate, the points 
that have been made, were all made in 1996. Members on our side of the 
aisle and, frankly, half the Members on the Democrat side of the aisle 
who supported the 1996 welfare reform law were confident that we could 
help move people from a life of dependency, despair and hopelessness to 
a life where they do have hope, they do have opportunity and can move 
into the mainstream of American society.
  As my colleagues have seen over the course of this debate, the 1996 
welfare reform law has been a tremendous success, even to the point 
where the New York Times called it an obvious success.
  The substitute that is before us today undermines every major 1996 
welfare reform law improvement, reversing recent historic gains in 
work, independence, family flexibility and in funding. I think it hurts 
our most vulnerable recipients. I think we create a costly new 
entitlement with the substitute that we have before us. It undermines 
work requirements and goes back and creates the same kind of dependency 
that we saw prior to 1996.
  Yes, work is not something that most people would prefer to do, but 
the most important thing we did in 1996 was to encourage people to 
work, to encourage them to put their foot on the first rung of the 
economic ladder, and we agreed

[[Page 3764]]

that we would provide assistance to help them up that ladder, whether 
it was transportation, whether it was child care, education, training 
to help them along while allowing them to keep their government-paid 
medical insurance; and what the program being offered here as a 
substitute to our bill would do would be to create the same kind of 
dependency.
  People would leave work and go back to welfare under the proposal 
that we have before us because one of the provisions in the substitute 
says that if a person is not earning at least 250 percent above the 
average poverty rate, they are entitled to go back on to TANF. There 
are a lot of working Americans and hard-working Americans who do not 
earn 250 percent above the poverty rate.
  We do not want to create the kind of dependency that we had before. 
We have a great success. There is no reason to turn tail and throw in 
the towel when, in fact, we have helped 9 million American families 
move from welfare to work, increased their dignity and gave them the 
hope of a lifetime to be in the mainstream of American society.
  We should reject the substitute offered by my colleague from Ohio.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) because she understands that 
the poor depend on Members of Congress to reduce poverty and reduce 
unemployment.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) 
for his leadership and for his sponsorship and cosponsorship of this 
amendment.
  First, Mr. Chairman, let me just say today we are offering this Mink 
substitute amendment not only as a tribute to our dear friend and 
former colleague, Congresswoman Patsy Mink, but also as the real 
comprehensive reauthorization alternative to the underlying Republican 
bill before us today.
  I want to first send a special hello and a thank you to Patsy Mink's 
daughter Wendy who really helped craft the legislation; and I am 
delighted, as I know Patsy would be, that so many of her colleagues, I 
believe we have, what, close to a hundred, 105 colleagues have 
cosponsored this amendment today and are here to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, Patsy Mink recognized that the real way we measure the 
success of welfare reform is to look at the quality of a family's life 
after they have left welfare. Patsy would ask, Are the families earning 
sufficient funds to really take their families out of poverty? Are they 
becoming self-sufficient? Today, the answer to that question is no, but 
we have the chance with this amendment to change the answer to that 
question by adopting the Mink substitute. In doing so, we would provide 
people on welfare the chance to get the education and the training they 
need, the child care that they need, and the time that they need to 
pull their families out of poverty.
  Mr. Chairman, the Mink substitute provides strong poverty-alleviation 
provisions that would also take the country, our country, in the right 
direction in eliminating the racial and economic disparities that 
plague the current system.
  A recent study conducted by the National Association of Social 
Workers found that black applicants were more likely than white 
applicants to be subjected to preemployment tests, that 55 percent of 
African American applicants were interviewed for 5 minutes or less 
while white applicants had interviews of 10 minutes or longer. Former 
white recipients earned significantly higher wages than African 
Americans and Hispanics. So this bill puts us in the right direction to 
end those outrageous economic and racial disparities.
  Mr. Chairman, I have some personal experience with what we are 
talking about. I know education must be counted toward the work 
requirement, as this bill does. Had I been forced to drop out of 
college while on public assistance, I probably would not be here today. 
So I feel very responsible for protecting that same chance for other 
people who are striving toward the same goal.
  That is why I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment. 
The vital changes to the law that it contains have, really, the very 
awesome power to lift many out of poverty so that they can succeed at 
whatever careers they choose, even the United States Congress.
  Specifically, this amendment adjusts the current block grant amount 
for inflation for future years and increases the child care development 
block grant by $20 billion over the next 5 years. It retains the 
current work requirement at 30 hours a week while removing the 12-month 
time limit for education, which is so important.
  Also, the Mink amendment includes legal, mind you legal, immigrants 
who currently go off and fight for our country but cannot receive these 
vital benefits. That is wrong. That is wrong. We must correct that, Mr. 
Chairman.
  Patsy Mink said it has always been the high principle of Congress to 
say families count first, the responsibilities of families to nurture 
their own children. She said, We want to put them at the top, as the 
emphasis of this new authorization should be, caring for children, 
allowing parents to stay home to care for their small children and 
giving them support to build their families' economic future through 
education. Patsy said that education must count and be equivalent to 
work.
  I want to close by remembering our beloved Congresswoman Patsy Mink. 
She had a vision and we must remember her vision today. She had a real 
vision that is detailed in this legislation. This amendment does 
provide a voice for the voiceless, empowerment and self-sufficiency for 
the poor, and a chance at education, building strong families and a 
better life. It is truly about family values, Mr. Chairman.
  So I urge a ``yes'' on the Mink substitute, which is the Kucinich-
Lee-McGovern and Lantos amendment.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. English), one of the real promoters of the original 
1996 welfare reform law.
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for giving me 
the time.
  Today, I stand in support of H.R. 4, which is a clear and consistent 
effort to improve upon the landmark welfare reform law that we enacted 
when I was a freshman in 1996. As I have stood here listening to this 
debate, the arguments I have heard have oddly echoed those arguments, 
and yet the matter is settled. Clearly welfare reform has been 
successful.
  Since we overhauled this country's failed welfare system, some 3 
million children have risen out of poverty. That is pro-family. 
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the number of American 
children experiencing hunger has plummeted to half of its number in 
1995. In all, 3.5 million fewer Americans live their lives in poverty 
than in 1995.
  This is the most successful social experiment of the 20th century, 
and yet here we are today listening to the left arguing still against 
welfare reform. They are attempting to turn back the clock, and I urge 
my colleagues to vote against this awful amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  These critics argue that welfare reform is not responsible for the 
decrease in poverty today, that instead the economy is solely 
responsible for these changes. Yet they ignore the fact that in the 
past the economy has risen but welfare rolls had risen before welfare 
reform; and since welfare reform, despite the Clinton recession 
starting in the last two quarters of that administration, welfare rolls 
have continued to drop. Yet some 2 million recipients remain dependent 
on welfare assistance, and many still do not participate in worker-
training programs.
  In response, we are poised today to pass a reauthorization of welfare 
reform boosted by tougher work requirements and reinvigorated work 
incentives for States and welfare recipients.
  I want to draw my colleagues' attention to one specific provision 
called ``full-check sanction.'' This provision establishes a tough, 
consistent penalty for those welfare recipients who decline to 
participate steadily in the

[[Page 3765]]

workforce. Contrary to the negative predictions of welfare reform's 
opponents, this provision, where it has been tried, has worked 
exceptionally well.
  A study by former Clinton administration economist Rebecca Blank 
reveals that these States ``show consistently higher income gains among 
poor children throughout the income distribution than do States with 
lenient penalties.''
  I am proud to note that by including this provision in today's bill 
we will soon apply full-check sanctions to welfare recipients 
throughout America. Full-check sanctions, marriage promotion, and other 
enhancements will only make welfare reform more effective. Stronger 
welfare reform means less dependence and more economic independence for 
the poor of America.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield the 
balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for 
purposes of continuing this debate.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 10 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), a great leader on many 
issues, our ranking member on the Committee on Small Business.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate both the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Lee) on this important amendment.
  I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 4. In 1996, we passed what 
was wrongly termed ``landmark legislation'' that would end welfare as 
we know it. Over the past several years, our Nation's poor and working 
families have survived, not because of the strong safety net, but 
because of a strong economy.
  With the economy in recession and States facing record deficits, we 
need welfare reform now more than ever.

                              {time}  1345

  To hear the President speak, you think he would agree.
  Recently the President said, ``Welfare reform, to me, means 
liberation from dependency. It means we realize each person matters, 
and if we can help people find work, it means dignity.'' Great 
rhetoric. I do not know what proposal he has been looking at, because 
today's proposal does nothing to promote dignity.
  This proposal is about victimizing the poor. This bill is so bad in 
so many ways I do not even know where to start: lack of funding for 
child care, increased work requirements, discrimination against 
immigrants. But what it is most about, unfortunately, is a lost 
opportunity.
  A major shortcoming of the welfare reform system is that it fails to 
effectively and creatively use our number one job creator, small 
business. The current system is so confusing and bureaucratic that both 
small businesses and welfare recipients simply give up out of sheer 
frustration. This leaves welfare recipients without jobs and small 
businesses without employees.
  But today's vote is also about mixed-up priorities. Just imagine if 
we had taken the more than $300 billion for the Bush dividend tax cut 
and instead put it towards training and tax credits for small 
businesses that give welfare recipients jobs. Think of the economic 
power as small businesses expand and we gain a whole new group of 
consumers.
  Once again, tax breaks for the wealthy is more important than dignity 
for the poor. That is a real shame. Vote ``no'' on H.R. 4 and support 
the Lee-Kucinich amendment.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to rise in support of 
H.R. 4 and the wonderful work that has been done in welfare reform over 
the past several years.
  Coming from a State legislative body and working on this issue in my 
State, I know how difficult it has been for us to get relief from some 
of the Federal rules, and I really commend our chairmen and those who 
have worked tirelessly to loosen those rules so that we can continue to 
pull more children from poverty and create environments where those 
children and their families can dream big dreams and have wonderful 
adventures in life.
  I also want to commend the chairman and the committee that has worked 
on this. What we are doing in the bill we have before us is to address 
the needs in alternative child care, making it easier for us to provide 
child care for second- and third-shift workers so that those moms and 
dads can go and work and be productive in their jobs knowing that their 
children have a safe environment.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Owens), a great educator and Mr. Education, as we call him.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of what we call the Mink 
substitute.
  I miss the voice of Patsy Mink ringing in my ears. I used to be 
reminded when she talked of the quote from Shakespeare's King Lear, 
``Fool me not to bear it tamely; touch me with noble anger.'' She was 
always full of anger about the great swindle of this welfare reform 
bill, about the denial of education opportunities, about the insistence 
that we pay the lowest rates and we allow the States to squirrel away 
whatever they save.
  There is a standard that compassionate America has already created. 
If we look at the amount of money received per child in the survivor's 
benefits program when a Social Security recipient dies and their 
children receive benefits, it averages out to a child receiving $558 a 
month. One child receives $558 a month, or $6,706 a year.
  In the welfare programs, we have pushed it down to that of the great 
model, which was Wisconsin, which was giving a family of three less 
than $500 a month. A family of three was receiving less than $500 a 
month. This, they say, is progress.
  We are taking the children, and it is for our children, and giving 
them the minimum. And I do not understand why we declare it such a 
great success.
  The food pantries, the soup kitchens in my district and in New York 
in general are overwhelmed with the number of people who are there now. 
Homelessness is greater than ever before. Half the people eligible for 
food stamps are not receiving them because of the hostility in the way 
the program was administered under Giuliani. In an attempt to save 
money they have thrown the whole thing out of kilter. And those who 
could qualify are not even bothering to try anymore.
  So here we are in a situation that, despite all this emphasis on not 
a welfare check, but get a job, it is a situation where the only 
subsidy the U.S. approves of are farm subsidies, where a farm or 
agriculture business is eligible for as much as $270,000 per year in 
subsidies, which is a handout. It is a handout. Yet we want to reduce 
the family of three down to less than $500 a month and then call that a 
success. And then we will not allow them to get an education in order 
to be able to fill the jobs that are available.
  There is a nursing shortage in America. If my colleagues have not 
heard about it, I do not know where they have been. There is a nursing 
shortage. Many of the women whose children are on welfare, if they had 
the opportunity to get the proper education, would qualify for those 
jobs. But we do not allow that. We do not allow them to go to junior 
college or college, and accept that as legitimate. It is an easy way, 
and anybody with common sense would realize, that the easiest way to 
move a person off welfare and into a decent job would be through the 
education system. But that is not allowed.
  Mrs. Mink said this is part of a great swindle. The governors are 
able to take the money they save and put it into a slush fund, in their 
petty cash drawers. We are swindling from the poor in order to take 
care of the local budget-balancing problems.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Georgia for yielding 
me

[[Page 3766]]

this time, and I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) 
in his efforts with this.
  And I rise completely opposed to this amendment, which is basically a 
masquerade to go back to the days of old when you could stay in school 
forever. You could not take a job unless it paid just the amount you 
wanted, even though many people take jobs right at the poverty line or 
just above. They work hard and they pay their taxes. But, no, this bill 
would enable them to stay and say, oh, I do not want that job, it does 
not pay quite enough. The way an individual moves up in the workplace 
is to get an entry level job and ask, how do I move to the next level, 
get training to move to the next level? It is not going to college 
forever; it is focused.
  But I rise as chairman of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug 
Policy and Human Resources of the Committee on Government Reform to 
object to another provision of this. This goes back to the old days 
again, where we say people who take tax dollars from hard-working 
Americans, many who are struggling along the poverty line, who chose to 
work rather than take welfare and follow the laws, that this bill would 
say, if you are convicted of a drug crime, you are still entitled to 
the money from those who have been working, from those who have been 
following the laws.
  We made a change, partly because countries around the world say, 
America, you are not focused. They say, America, you are not really 
trying to get rid of drug use in your country. You are letting it 
spread around the world and cause problems elsewhere.
  Here is a bill where we were making progress, just like in other 
areas, and this amendment would repeal it. It would say, hard-working 
taxpayers, follow the law, but you do not have to if you are on 
welfare.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).
  Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Kucinich 
amendment in the nature of a substitute and in support of H.R. 4.
  Mr. Chairman, quality of life is much more than having food and 
shelter. The amendment would simply provide food and shelter. It would 
provide some assistance similar to what we provide in H.R. 4; however, 
it does not provide the incentive that people need, the incentive to 
move from welfare to a productive and free life.
  The American dream, Mr. Chairman, is that dream to be able to provide 
for one's family, to be able to dream and achieve dreams of success in 
the future, to raise one's children, to be able to achieve the next 
step on the economic ladder. H.R. 4 provides this.
  We have helped so many already. This reauthorization is necessary to 
continue to help those who have been dependent. They have secured more 
than the basics of life. They have been educated. They have achieved. 
Children have now seen a wonderful example to move forward in the 
United States and achieve a higher standard of living, that sense of 
accomplishment. They have received education.
  We provide in H.R. 4 more child care at different kinds of times so 
that those who are working and who have that grit and want to succeed 
will be assisted in doing so. It also provides them with health care 
for that first year where they may not be able to get a job that 
provides health care. Our goal here, Mr. Chairman, is to raise people 
from poverty. We have succeeded with 3 million children already.
  We need to reauthorize welfare reform, as H.R. 4 does, and reject the 
Kucinich amendment.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern.)
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time, and I rise in support of the Kucinich-Lee-McGovern-Lantos 
substitute and remind my colleagues that welfare reform is about 
lifting people out of poverty.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kucinich-Lee-McGovern-Lantos 
amendment. This amendment, dedicated to the late Congresswoman Patsy 
Mink, is a strong substitute that will change the course of welfare as 
we know it, and, in the process, help millions of Americans leave 
welfare for good.
  The 1996 welfare reform bill did what it was designed to do--trim the 
welfare rolls. Low-income people who received cash assistance left 
welfare because they were able to find jobs and because the economy was 
good.
  Others left welfare because their benefits expired. But the goal of 
trimming the welfare rolls was reached, allowing some to claim welfare 
reform has been fully successful.
  But I believe this law should do more than just trim the welfare 
rolls. The goal of the welfare program should be to help low-income 
individuals achieve true self-sufficiency. Welfare should enable low-
income individuals and families to pursue the training and education 
they need to get good jobs so they can leave public assistance 
permanently and provide economic security for their families.
  The Kucinich-Lee-McGovern-Lantos amendment will achieve this goal.
  Look at the details. The extra $2 billion for child care included in 
the Republican bill is simply not enough to provide for adequate child 
care for parents. Our amendment would provide $20 billion more for 
child care--an increase of $18 billion over the Republican proposal.
  Additionally, the current work requirements would be maintained, so 
people could continue to receive assistance while they train for a job 
that will keep them off welfare. And under this substitute, legal 
immigrants--people who pay taxes and fight in our armed forces--would 
be eligible for help.
  This body has the moral obligation to provide a safety net for the 
people of this country who need one. We cannot forget about the low-
income people in this country, especially in this time of economic 
uncertainty.
  States across the country are facing record budget deficits, and in 
the process are slashing programs like Medicaid and other social 
services. Now, more than ever, the Federal Government must provide for 
those people who need help.
  Members of this body only have to look to the gentlewoman from 
California, Ms. Woolsey, to see what happens when a mother on welfare 
can get the child care she needs. Yesterday, Ms. Woolsey testified 
before the Rules Committee.
  She told the Committee that she wouldn't be here today as a member of 
this House if it weren't for welfare and for her mother, who took care 
of her children while she was working.
  The gentlewoman from California made the point that people on 
welfare--women in particular--will not be able to focus on job training 
and, ultimately, self-sufficiency, if they can't find safe, affordable 
places for their kids. Ms. Woolsey was able to concentrate on her job, 
move off welfare and become a successful, self-sufficient woman. We can 
duplicate her success story with the passage of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, nobody wants to be on welfare. People want to earn a 
paycheck, not a welfare check. but we have a moral responsibility to 
help people move off of welfare into productive work.
  Our substitute does just that.
  I urge my colleagues to support our effort to change the goal of this 
program to one of self-sufficiency. It's the right thing to do.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus 
and a great leader.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time, and I come in support of the substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, unemployment rates are on the rise at a record level of 
6 percent, and in my district, some parts, as much as 12 percent. The 
Republican bill forces States to shift funds away from successful 
programs that are critical to working families in order to implement 
rigid new requirements under their bill. Meanwhile, there is no 
evidence that these rigid requirements would increase the effectiveness 
of these programs.
  In my State of Maryland, we would need an additional $144 million 
over 5 years to implement the work participation requirements in H.R. 
4. On one hand, President Bush praises the 1996 welfare law, but on the 
other hand he wants to deny States the flexibility they were provided 
by that law.
  The Republicans' approach to welfare reform represents a study in 
contradictions. While they talk about sufficient resources, their 
proposal fails to increase welfare and child care funding

[[Page 3767]]

 for even inflation. The administration says that it wants to help 
educate people, but their proposal actually restricts the States' 
discretion to provide training and education to welfare participants.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Isakson), a valued member of the Committee on Education 
and the Workforce.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the chairman and commend 
him on all the efforts last year and the hearings and the 
investigations and the promotion that he did to bring us to this point 
today, and I rise in support of H.R. 4 and in opposition to the 
Kucinich substitute.
  I want to make my comparison as simple as I can. H.R. 4 extends a 
program that raised expectations and turned a safety net into a 
springboard to independence. The unintended consequence of the 
substitute of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) is to turn a 
safety net into a dependency trap.
  Mr. Chairman, if we listen to those arguing against the underlying 
bill, H.R. 4, one would think there is no money for child care and no 
money for health care, that in fact it is a cutback. In fact, this bill 
recognizes that those that remain on welfare will be the hardest to 
train and harder to employ, that their difficulties are they have young 
children at home, that they need health care, that they need 
transportation. And on each and every point: H.R. 4 provides child 
care, a transition in terms of medical help when they go from going off 
of Medicaid and on to work for a transition period of 1 year, 
encourages education and counts education and other programs toward the 
employment period work requirements.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple proposition. Congress passed an 
overwhelming success in 1996. It changed the lives of millions of 
Americans who had no expectations. For us to take a success and turn it 
into a failure by verbally abusing that which has really worked would 
be a shame. The consequences would be a dependency trap for millions of 
Americans who now will have hope because of this extension to realize 
the benefits of independence, of work, of employment and, most 
important of all, of the high expectations that this great country 
offers to every one of its citizens.

                              {time}  1400

  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join in strong 
support of this amendment in tribute to Patsy Mink. But more 
importantly, I support this amendment because it speaks more directly 
to the needs of needy families than H.R. 4, families who need 
opportunities for education and training, families who need access to 
jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, 75 percent of all new jobs in this country are found in 
areas where most people needing assistance do not live. They must have 
access. We all know how effective early childhood education has been. 
And yet while we have money for early childhood education, it is not 
nearly enough. We need to increase that part of it so no child is left 
behind. I support the Kucinich-Lee amendment.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the Bible says the poor 
shall always be with us; but our job in this Congress is to help raise 
the standard. I know most Republicans think that only means the rich, 
but it also means the poor and the working people in this country.
  What happened to ``leave no child behind''? As we all know, mothers 
newly off the welfare rolls struggle every day to find affordable, 
reliable, and safe care for their children while they work. The 
situation is even more desperate for nearly half of the mothers getting 
off welfare who can only find work in the evenings or late at night.
  Yet we are faced with a Republican bill which demands that mothers 
work more hours, while actually taking money away from mothers to care 
for their children. Leave No Child Behind just proves that the 
Republicans can come up with great slogans. This is a perfect example 
of Republicans knowing how to talk the talk; but when it comes to 
walking the walk, there is nothing whatsoever compassionate about this 
Republican conservativeness. This Republican bill is a shameful attack 
on our Nation's poorest working mothers and their children. I urge 
support of the Kucinich substitute in the name of Patsy Mink.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown) 
invoked the No Child Left Behind bill, the education reform plan which 
aims to educate every American child. We have increased funding for 
education over 200 percent over the last 5 years, including 30 percent 
in the last 18 months. But the issue in education is not about more 
money; it is about attitude, and it is about whether we as a Nation 
want to insist that all of our children get an education.
  I will tell the gentlewoman that we have worked hard to increase 
funding and we are continuing to work hard to increase funding to help 
make this plan real in every American school. But let us leave no doubt 
about it: if money alone would solve the problems in our Nation's 
schools, they would have been solved decades ago. This is not about 
money. It is about whether we as a Nation are going to demand that all 
of our children get a chance at a good education.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Wilson).
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of H.R. 4 
and opposed to the Kucinich substitute.
  Specifically, what I am concerned about in the substitute is that it 
would undermine the current reduction of dependence that we have 
achieved through welfare reform. Welfare reform has been a phenomenal 
success beginning in 1996 and has resulted in great opportunities, jobs 
created, education, training for people. And in particular, in the most 
recent report by Dr. Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, he 
indicates that the decrease in poverty has been greatest among black 
children. The poverty rate for black children has fallen to the lowest 
point in U.S. history. There are 1.2 million fewer black children in 
poverty today than there were in the mid-1990s.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out who made it possible. It was 
not we as Members of Congress. I have visited the DSS offices 
throughout the district that I represent. I have visited the social 
workers who have made a difference in people's lives, and I have 
thanked them. I have been to every office to thank them for the 
difference they have made helping people get jobs and create great new 
opportunities.
  The article referencing the aforementioned report is as follows:

       [From the Heritage Foundation Backgrounder, Feb. 6, 2003]

             The Continuing Good News About Welfare Reform

                (By Robert Rector and Patrick F. Fagan)

       Six years ago, President Bill Clinton signed legislation 
     overhauling part of the nation's welfare system. The Personal 
     Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 
     1996 (P.L. 104-193) replaced the failed Aid to Families with 
     Dependent Children (AFDC) program with a new program called 
     Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). The reform 
     legislation had three goals: (1) to reduce welfare dependence 
     and increase employment; (2) to reduce child poverty; and (3) 
     to reduce illegitimacy and strengthen marriage.
       At the time of its enactment, liberal groups passionately 
     denounced the bill, predicting that it would result in 
     substantial increases in poverty, hunger, and other social 
     ills. Contrary to these alarming forecasts, welfare reform 
     has been effective in meeting each of its goals.
       Poverty has dropped substantially. Although liberals 
     predicted that welfare reform would push an additional 2.6 
     million persons into poverty, 3.5 million fewer people live 
     in poverty today than in 1995, according to Census Bureau 
     figures.
       Some 2.9 million fewer children live in poverty today than 
     in 1995.
       Decreases in poverty have been greatest among black 
     children. In fact, the poverty

[[Page 3768]]

     rate for black children has fallen to the lowest point in 
     U.S. history. There are 1.2 million fewer black children in 
     poverty today than there were in the mid-1990s.
       The poverty rate of children living with single mothers is 
     at the lowest point in U.S. history, having fallen 
     substantially since the onset of welfare reform.
       The poverty rate of black children and children in single-
     mother families has continued to fall even during the current 
     recession. Historically, poverty among these groups has risen 
     sharply during recessions; the continuing decline of child 
     poverty among black and single-mother families is an 
     unprecedented departure from past poverty trends.
       Hunger among children has been cut roughly in half. 
     According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in 1995, 
     before welfare reform was enacted, 1.3 percent of children 
     experienced hunger; by 2001, the number had fallen to 0.6 
     percent.
       The AFDC/TANF caseload has been more than cut in half. The 
     decreases in welfare have been greatest among disadvantaged 
     groups with the greatest propensity for long-term 
     intergenerational dependence: for example, younger never-
     married mothers with young children.
       Employment of single mothers has increased greatly. The 
     largest increases in employment have been among the most 
     disadvantaged mothers with the greatest barriers to obtaining 
     work. Employment of young single mothers (ages 18 to 24) has 
     nearly doubled. Employment of single mothers who are high-
     school dropouts has risen by two-thirds.
       The explosive growth of out-of-wedlock childbearing has 
     come to a virtual halt. Since the beginning of the War on 
     Poverty, the share of births that are outside marriage had 
     increased relentlessly at nearly one percentage point per 
     year. Overall, the percentage of births that were out-of-
     wedlock rose from 7.7 in 1965 to an astonishing 32.6 percent 
     in 1994. However, since welfare reform, the growth in 
     illegitimacy has slowed to a near halt. The out-of-wedlock 
     birth rate has remained almost flat for the past five years, 
     and among blacks it has actually dropped.
       Marriage has been strengthened. The share of children 
     living in single-mother families has fallen, and the share 
     living in married-couple families has increased, especially 
     among black families.
       Some incorrectly attribute these positive trends to the 
     strong economy in the late 1990s. Although a strong economy 
     contributed to some of these trends, most of the positive 
     changes greatly exceed shifts that occurred during prior 
     economic expansions. The difference is due to welfare reform. 
     A recent analysis by former Congressional Budget Office 
     Director June O'Neill finds that welfare reform has been 
     responsible for three-quarters of the increase in employment 
     of single mothers and three-quarters of the drop in welfare 
     caseload. By contrast, good economic conditions were 
     responsible for only one-quarter of the changes in these 
     variables. The increase in employment of single mothers, in 
     turn, is a major factor behind the drop in child poverty.
       The Future of Reform. Notwithstanding this record of 
     accomplishment, far more needs to be done. When TANF is 
     reauthorized this year, federal work requirements should be 
     strengthened to ensure that all able-bodied parents engage in 
     supervised job search, community service work, or skills 
     training as a condition of receiving aid. Even more 
     important, Congress must recognize that the most effective 
     way to reduce child poverty and increase child well-being is 
     to increase the number of stable, productive marriages. In 
     reauthorizing TANF, Congress must greatly strengthen the pro-
     marriage aspects of welfare reform.
       The 1996 TANF law established the formal goals of reducing 
     out-of-wedlock childbearing and increasing marriage; but 
     despite nearly $100 billion in TANF spending over the past 
     five years, the states have spent virtually nothing on 
     specific pro-marriage programs. The slowdown in the growth of 
     illegitimacy and the increases in marriage, noted above, have 
     occurred as the incidental byproduct of work-related reforms 
     and not as the result of positive pro-marriage initiatives.
       This neglect of marriage by state welfare bureaucracies is 
     scandalous and deeply injurious to the well-being of 
     children. Current welfare policy sharply penalizes marriage 
     between low-income men and women. In future years, welfare's 
     disincentives to marriage should be significantly reduced. In 
     addition, at least $300 million per year in future TANF funds 
     should be earmarked for pro-marriage initiatives.

  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Indiana (Ms. Carson), who is an expert on this subject, former director 
of welfare.
  Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, if Members would excuse my 
arrogance, I do not think anybody in this House knows more about 
running a welfare program than I do. I took over an agency that had a 
$20 million deficit, and left it with $7 million in the black when I 
came to Congress. We did not leave any child behind.
  In order to get people out of poverty, they do not just need a hand 
out; they have to get a hand up. They need an opportunity to become 
self-sufficient.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the Kucinich amendment because it is the 
make-sense amendment that is on the floor.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4 and in 
support of the Kucinich amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Welfare Reform Bill 
on the floor today, and in support of the Kucinich amendment.
  First I object to the process, and will object every time the 
Republican leadership brings a bill to the floor without committee 
hearings, mark-ups and outside of the regular order. This is an affront 
not just to those of us who serve on this side of the aisle, it is a 
denial of the rights of those who sent us here to represent their 
interests, and it is a repudiation of the Democratic process. The 
process does a disservice to all of us.
  Second, I oppose it because of what it contains. I would imagine that 
is why it is being forced to the floor in this manner. It could not be 
brought into the daylight.
  This bill forces persons out of a system that helps them to care for 
themselves and their families, into an economy that has no jobs to go 
to, and without the benefit of childcare or other supportive services. 
Not only would this force women and children further into poverty and 
all the ills that it brings, it would further tax the states who are 
already feeling the pressure of Medicaid and other cuts. Why is this 
body waging a war against poor folks. Where is the compassion in the 
conservatism.
  Why does this bill increase the work requirement. Why does it not 
allow education and training to count towards this requirement. Why are 
we not providing for the care of the children of the mothers who are in 
training or at work. Why does this bill not provide equity for the 
Americans living in the Territories.
  Mr. Chairman, although the U.S. territories, Guam, Puerto Rico and my 
district, the U.S. Virgin Islands are required to meet all of the TANF 
requirements, they do not have access to all the tools that other 
jurisdictions have to successfully move people from welfare to work.
  The territories are island jurisdictions where the ability to move 
from one jurisdiction to another in search of work is prohibitive and 
as a consequence, in the Virgin Islands, while our welfare rolls have 
been lowered, our failure to meet the work participation rates have 
resulted in fines. And this in the face of the fact that we don't 
receive Supplemental Grant funds even though our average dollars per 
person is extremely low and we don't receive Contingency Funds even 
though we have experienced economic downturns and high unemployment.
  This is why Ms. Madeleine Bordallo of Guam and I have joined Mr. 
Acevedo-Vila of Puerto Rico in supporting the Democratic Substitute 
which makes our territories eligible for the Supplemental, Contingency 
and Child Care Block Grant programs. This funding is available to the 
states and gives them more resources to move people from welfare to 
work.
  Again where is the compassion.
  The base bill, H.R. 4 is a terrible bill, it hurts those in need and 
it offers no help. This body should not pass it.
  Mr. Chairman and colleagues, people who have needed the help Welfare/
TANF offers want to work and they need our help. Mr. Chairman, in honor 
of the memory of Congresswoman Patsy Mink, and of her years of 
distinguished service to this body and to mankind, and to really reform 
Welfare so that it helps to raise people out of poverty, we need to 
pass the substitute named in her honor.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 20 seconds to my colleague, the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Patsy 
Mink Memorial TANF Reauthorization on the basis that the opportunity 
for welfare recipients did increase in the 1990s when the Clinton 
administration created an economic boom. We are now in a deficit with 
an economy that is in shambles, and the divide between the rich and 
poor is getting larger.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4 is the wrong way to go, the misdirected way to 
go. I support this legislation because we believe in lifting all boats 
of poor people around the Nation.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 20 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Watson), who is an expert

[[Page 3769]]

in TANF reauthorization, former Chair of the Health and Human Services 
Committee in California.
  Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I support this bill because it would 
maintain current work requirements and increase the block grant by 
inflation so its value can be retained; and it would allow States to 
address barriers to work, such as domestic violence, substance abuse, 
and mental illness. We must improve on a program that has already shown 
success. This particular substitute would do just that.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Kucinich-
Lee substitute to H.R. 4. This substitute is almost identical to the 
TANF Reauthorization Act introduced by the late Congresswoman Patsy 
Mink last year. I want to thank Representatives Kucinich and Lee for 
re-introducing her bill as a substitute amendment so we can all honor 
and recognize the hard work Patsy Mink has done on behalf of our 
nation's poor.
  The Kucinich-Lee substitute would maintain current work requirements, 
it would increase the block grant by inflation so its value could be 
retained. These are resources essential for the states to really 
address the core issues of poverty and help lift families from 
dependency to self-sufficiency.
  Specifically, the Kucinich-Lee substitute would allow states to 
address barriers to work, such as domestic violence, substance abuse 
and mental illness. States would have the resources to train 
caseworkers so they can properly screen recipients. Recipients with 
limited education can pursue an opportunity to earn a degree or receive 
vocational training. These are the tools for self-sufficiency that 
would last them a life time!
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Kucinich-
Lee substitute and honor the contribution of our dearly missed former 
colleague Patsy T. Mink.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, as we said before, the 1996 act has been a huge success 
in helping 9 million American families move from welfare to work, 
lifting their spirits, allowing them to participate in the mainstream 
of American life.
  The proposal that is before us, the substitute offered by our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, would literally take us back 
to the pre-1996 welfare reform bill that trapped people in dependency 
and never really allowed them the opportunity to be all they could be.
  We have the lowest African American child poverty rate in history as 
a result of the 1996 changes. We believe that we will make more 
advances in giving States more flexibility, more child care money, 
stronger work requirements to help move more people from welfare to 
work. Even though welfare rolls are down 60 percent from where they 
were in 1996, the States are getting the same amount of money, so 
Members can argue that they will be able to spend twice as much as they 
have in helping those on the system. Let us not go back, let us move 
ahead.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, we tell the poor to get a job; and as 
jobs are drying up, we cut off their benefits. We call for the poor to 
pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and then deny them boots.
  Some of my colleagues think that God loves the poor, he made so many 
of them. But we must make God's work truly our own. I urge Members to 
vote for the Mink substitute.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority leader.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Boehner) for the hard work that he has performed, not just in bringing 
this bill to the floor, but the work he has done over the last 6 years, 
which has had meaningful impact on many Americans' lives. I also want 
to congratulate the chairmen of the other committees which have 
participated in this meaningful, historic legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, welfare reform is a signal achievement for our House 
Republican majority. It offers a striking contrast between the core 
beliefs that inform our political party's appreciation for the proper 
role of the Federal Government in helping people in need.
  We believe that for people in need, it is the job of the Federal 
Government to empower people mired in dependency to determine their own 
destiny. Republicans understand that people who need a hand-up still 
aspire to pursue their American dream.
  But Democrats still do not trust people to make this vital transition 
to independence themselves. They just do not get the downside to 
dependency. They simply cannot or will not see the unintended negative 
consequences flowing from programs that raise barriers to work. Instead 
of requiring Americans to earn a paycheck and to discover the nobility 
of work, the Democrat approach leaves them mired in perpetual 
dependency with only the program to cling to.
  Even now after all the reforms we put into place during 1996, and the 
extraordinary successes that these reforms sparked, the vast majority 
of welfare recipients still do not go to work every day, like the rest 
of the country. That is really a sad, sad, sad statistic. And the 
reason that is really a tragedy is because the people who have climbed 
up out of welfare and stepped up into the workplace are leading fuller, 
more satisfying lives. They are moving forward with lives of meaning.
  Mr. Chairman, in this country we honor any type of work or vocation 
which is taken seriously and done well. All work is honorable, and we 
are doing all that we can to get this economy moving forward, so we 
will create millions of new jobs to inspire the people who are leaving 
welfare behind. These people are everyday heroes, and they are earning 
our deepest respect. They are showing their own children a powerful 
example of perseverance and hard work. They are unleashing their own 
creativity and seizing control of their own lives to build bright and 
favorable prospects for their children.
  This awful substitute forgets every lesson we have learned over the 
past 7 years. It would turn back the clock to a fundamentally flawed 
approach that substitutes access to benefits for work. It is preaching 
a lie. It is a one-size-fits-all, top-down, big-government, budget-
busting boondoggle that forgets every fundamental lesson learned over 
the last 40 years. It places the institutional appetites of the welfare 
bureaucracy and the political instincts of the left over the squelched 
hopes and aspirations of dependent Americans.
  It offers false comfort to the needy. It is a bountiful blessing to 
aspiring bureaucrats.
  Mr. Chairman, there is one indelible lesson that should guide all of 
our actions on this subject.

                              {time}  1415

  Democrats defend their approach with an erroneous syllogism and they 
are trying to put it over on us with sophistry.
  This is what they say: More money on welfare programs universally 
translates to greater help for needy people. That just is not so, Mr. 
Chairman.
  This primitive, retrograde substitute amendment is a dangerous 
summons to step back in time. Its approach is fundamentally and 
inherently flawed. It did not work before. It will not work now. And, 
for a host of obvious and compelling reasons, it will go down to defeat 
this afternoon.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). The question is on the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 124, 
noes 300, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 27]

                               AYES--124

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Case
     Clay

[[Page 3770]]


     Clyburn
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rodriguez
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Solis
     Stark
     Strickland
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NOES--300

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cooper
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Allen
     Combest
     Conyers
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Ferguson
     Gephardt
     Mica
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Tiberi


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (during the vote). The Chair advises Members 
that 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1436

  Messrs. SHADEGG, MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida, GREENWOOD, FORD, 
JANKLOW, DICKS, TOWNS, DEUTSCH, LANGEVIN, RUPPERS-
BERGER, Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri, and Mrs. CAPITO changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia and Mr. TOWNS changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I accompanied President Bush to Florida to 
meet with our military service personnel and business leaders in 
Jacksonville, and could not vote on rollcall No. 27. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``no''.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). It is now in order to 
consider amendment No. 2 printed in House Report Number 108-9.


  Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute No. 2 Offered by Mr. Cardin

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute that was made in order under the rule.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 2 offered by 
     Mr. Cardin:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       The table of contents of this Act is as follows:

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

                TITLE I--CONTINUATION OF CERTAIN GRANTS

Sec. 101. Family assistance grants.
Sec. 102. Bonus to reward high performance States.
Sec. 103. Extension of supplemental grants.
Sec. 104. Additional grants for States with low Federal funding per 
              poor child.
Sec. 105. Contingency Fund.
Sec. 106. Eligibility of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, 
              and Guam for the supplemental grant for population 
              increases, the Contingency Fund, and mandatory child care 
              funding.
Sec. 107. Direct funding and administration by Indian tribes.
Sec. 108. Extension of TANF program through fiscal year 2003.
Sec. 109. Matching grants for the territories.

                      TITLE II--POVERTY REDUCTION

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

                TITLE III--REQUIRING AND REWARDING WORK

Sec. 301. Effect of wage subsidies on 5-year limit.
Sec. 302. Child care.
Sec. 303. Competitive grants to improve access to various benefit 
              programs.
Sec. 304. Assessments for TANF recipients.
Sec. 305. Applicability of workplace laws.
Sec. 306. Work participation requirements.
Sec. 307. Hours of work-related activities.
Sec. 308. State option to require receipients to engage in work for 40 
              hours per week.
Sec. 309. Revision and simplification of the transitional medical 
              assistance program (tma).
Sec. 310. Ensuring TANF funds are not used to displace public 
              employees.
Sec. 311. Increase in funding for social services block grant.

     TITLE IV--HELPING WELFARE LEAVERS CLIMB THE EMPLOYMENT LADDER

Sec. 401. State plan requirement on employment advancement.

[[Page 3771]]

Sec. 402. Employment Advancement Fund.
Sec. 403. Elimination of limit on number of TANF recipients enrolled in 
              vocational education or high school who may be counted 
              towards the work participation requirement.
Sec. 404. Counting of up to 2 years of vocational or educational 
              training (including postsecondary education), work-study, 
              and related internships as work activities.
Sec. 405. Limited counting of certain activities leading to employment 
              as work activity.
Sec. 406. Clarification of authority of States to use TANF funds 
              carried over from prior years to provide TANF benefits 
              and services.
Sec. 407. Definition of assistance.
Sec. 408. Continuation of pre-welfare reform waivers.

     TITLE V--PROMOTING FAMILY FORMATION AND RESPONSIBLE PARENTING

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

          TITLE VI--RESTORING FAIRNESS FOR IMMIGRANT FAMILIES

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

                TITLE VII--ENSURING STATE ACCOUNTABILITY

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

  TITLE VIII--IMPROVING INFORMATION ABOUT TANF RECIPIENTS AND PROGRAMS

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

                        TITLE IX--EFFECTIVE DATE

Sec. 901. Effective date.

     SEC. 3. AMENDMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY ACT.

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

                TITLE I--CONTINUATION OF CERTAIN GRANTS

     SEC. 101. FAMILY ASSISTANCE GRANTS.

       Section 403(a)(1)(A) (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(1)(A)) is amended by 
     striking ``1996'' and all that follows through ``2002'' and 
     inserting ``2004 through 2008''.

     SEC. 102. BONUS TO REWARD HIGH PERFORMANCE STATES.

       Section 403(a)(4) (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(4)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``$1,000,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$1,800,000,000'';
       (2) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``and 2003'' and 
     inserting ``2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008''; and
       (3) in subparagraph (F), by striking ``$1,000,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$800,000,000, and for fiscal years 2004 through 
     2008 $1,000,000,000,''.

     SEC. 103. EXTENSION OF SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS.

       Section 403(a)(3) (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(3)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (i);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of clause (ii) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008, a grant 
     in an amount equal to the amount required to be paid to the 
     State under this paragraph in fiscal year 2001.'';
       (2) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``1998'' and all that 
     follows and inserting ``2004 through 2008 $1,597,250,000 for 
     grants under this paragraph.''; and
       (3) by striking subparagraph (G).

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

       Section 403(a) (42 U.S.C. 603(a)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(6) Additional grants for states with low federal funding 
     per poor child.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall make a grant 
     pursuant to this paragraph to a State--
       ``(i) for fiscal year 2004, if the State is an inadequately 
     poverty-funded State for fiscal year 2003; and
       ``(ii) for any of fiscal years 2005 through 2008, if the 
     State is an inadequately poverty-funded State for any prior 
     fiscal year after fiscal year 2003.
       ``(B) Inadequately poverty-funded state.--For purposes of 
     this paragraph, a State is an inadequately poverty-funded 
     State for a particular fiscal year if--
       ``(i) the total amount of the grants made to the State 
     under paragraph (1), paragraph (3), and this paragraph for 
     the particular fiscal year, divided by the number of children 
     in poverty in the State with respect to the particular fiscal 
     year is less than 75 percent of the total amount of grants 
     made to all eligible States under paragraph (1), paragraph 
     (3), and this paragraph for the particular fiscal year, 
     divided by the total number of children living in poverty in 
     all eligible States with respect to the particular fiscal 
     year; and
       ``(ii) the total of the amounts paid to the State under 
     this subsection for all prior fiscal years that have not been 
     expended by the State by the end of the preceding fiscal year 
     is less than 50 percent of State family assistance grant for 
     the particular fiscal year.
       ``(C) Amount of grant.--The amount of the grant to be made 
     under this paragraph to a State for a particular fiscal year 
     shall be--
       ``(i) if the particular fiscal year is fiscal year 2004, an 
     amount equal to--

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

       ``(ii) if the particular fiscal year is any of fiscal years 
     2005 through 2008, an amount equal to--

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

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

       ``(I) $65,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
       ``(II) $130,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
       ``(III) $195,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       ``(IV) $260,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
       ``(V) $325,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.

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

     SEC. 105. CONTINGENCY FUND.

       (a) In General.--Section 403(b) (42 U.S.C. 603(b)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``1997'' and all that 
     follows and inserting ``2004 through 2008 such sums as are 
     necessary for payments under this subsection''; and
       (2) in paragraph (3), by striking subparagraph (C) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(C) Limitation on monthly payment to a state.--The total 
     amount paid to a single State under subparagraph (A) during a 
     fiscal year shall not exceed 20 percent of the State family 
     assistance grant.''.
       (b) Application of Regular Maintenance of Effort 
     Requirement.--Section 409(a)(10)

[[Page 3772]]

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

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

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

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

       (a) Supplemental Grant for Population Increases.--
       (1) In general.--Section 403(a)(3)(D)(iii) (42 U.S.C. 
     603(a)(3)(D)(iii)) is amended by striking ``and the District 
     of Columbia.'' and inserting ``, the District of Columbia, 
     Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, and Guam. For 
     fiscal years beginning after the effective date of this 
     sentence, this paragraph shall be applied and administered as 
     if the term `State' included the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 
     the United States Virgin Islands, and Guam for fiscal year 
     1998 and thereafter.''.
       (2) Grant payment disregarded for purposes of section 1108 
     limitation.--Section 1108(a)(2) (42 U.S.C. 1308(a)(2)) is 
     amended by inserting ``, or any payment made to the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin 
     Islands, or Guam under section 403(a)(3)'' before the period.
       (b) Contingency Fund.--
       (1) In general.--Section 403(b)(7) (42 U.S.C. 603(b)(7)) is 
     amended by striking ``and the District of Columbia'' and 
     inserting ``, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of 
     Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, and Guam.''.
       (2) Grant payment disregarded for purposes of section 1108 
     limitation.--Section 1108(a)(2) (42 U.S.C. 1308(a)(2)), as 
     amended by subsection (a)(2) of this section, is amended by 
     inserting ``or 403(b)'' after ``403(a)(3)'' before the 
     period.
       (c) Child Care Entitlement Funds.--
       (1) In general.--Section 418(d) (42 U.S.C. 618(d)) is 
     amended by striking ``and the District of Columbia'' and 
     inserting ``, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of 
     Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, and Guam''.
       (2) Amount of payment.--
       (A) General entitlement.--Section 418(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 
     618(a)(1)) is amended by striking ``the greater of--'' and 
     all that follows and inserting the following:
       ``(A) in the case of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the 
     United States Virgin Islands, and Guam, 60 percent of the 
     amount required to be paid to the State for fiscal year 2001 
     under the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990; 
     or
       ``(B) in the case of any other State, the greater of--
       ``(i) the total amount required to be paid to the State 
     under section 403 for fiscal year 1994 or 1995 (whichever is 
     greater) with respect to expenditures for child care under 
     subsections (g) and (i) of section 402 (as in effect before 
     October 1, 1995); or
       ``(ii) the average of the total amounts required to be paid 
     to the State for fiscal years 1992 through 1994 under the 
     subsections referred to in clause (i).'';
       (B) Allotment of remainder.--Section 418(a)(2)(B) (42 
     U.S.C. 618(a)(2)(B)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(B) Allotments to states.--Of the total amount available 
     for payments to States under this paragraph, as determined 
     under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph--
       ``(i) an amount equal to 65 percent of the amount required 
     to be paid to each of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the 
     United States Virgin Islands, and Guam for fiscal year 2001 
     under the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990, 
     shall be allotted to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the 
     United States Virgin Islands, and Guam, respectively; and
       ``(ii) the remainder shall be allotted among the other 
     States based on the formula used for determining the amount 
     of Federal payments to each State under section 403(n) of 
     this Act (as in effect before October 1, 1995).''.
       (3) Grant payment disregarded for purposes of section 1108 
     limitation.--Section 1108(a)(2) (42 U.S.C. 1308(a)(2)), as 
     amended by subsections (a)(2) and (b)(2) of this section, is 
     amended by striking ``or 403(b)'' and inserting ``, 403(b), 
     or 418''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2003, and shall apply to 
     expenditures for fiscal years beginning with fiscal year 
     2004.

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

       (a) Tribal Family Assistance Grant.--Section 412(a)(1) (42 
     U.S.C. 612(a)(1)) is amended by striking ``1997, 1998, 1999, 
     2000, and 2001'' and inserting ``2004 through 2008''.
       (b) Grants for Indian Tribes That Received JOBS Funds.--
     Section 412(a)(2) (42 U.S.C. 612(a)(2)) is amended by 
     striking ``1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001'' and inserting 
     ``2004 through 2008''.

     SEC. 108. EXTENSION OF TANF PROGRAM THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 2003.

       Except as otherwise provided in this Act and the amendments 
     made by this Act, activities authorized by part A of title IV 
     of the Social Security Act, and by section 1108(b) of the 
     Social Security Act, shall continue through September 30, 
     2003, in the manner authorized, and at the level provided, 
     for fiscal year 2002.

     SEC. 109. MATCHING GRANTS FOR THE TERRITORIES.

       Section 1108(b)(2) (42 U.S.C. 1308(b)(2)) is amended by 
     striking ``1997 through 2002'' and inserting ``2004 through 
     2008''.

                      TITLE II--POVERTY REDUCTION

     SEC. 201. ADDITIONAL PURPOSE OF TANF PROGRAM.

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

     SEC. 202. CHILD POVERTY REDUCTION GRANTS.

       Section 403(a) (42 U.S.C. 603(a)) is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) Bonus to reward states that reduce child poverty.--
       ``(A) In general.--Beginning with fiscal year 2004, the 
     Secretary shall make a grant pursuant to this paragraph to 
     each State for each fiscal year for which the State is a 
     qualified child poverty reduction State.
       ``(B) Amount of grant.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to this subparagraph, the amount 
     of the grant to be made to a qualified child poverty 
     reduction State for a fiscal year shall be an amount equal 
     to--

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

[[Page 3773]]

       ``(ii) Limitations.--

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

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

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

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

       ``(I) begins with the calendar year that, as of October 1, 
     2003, precedes the then most recently completed calendar year 
     for which such information is available; and
       ``(II) ends with the calendar year that precedes the 
     calendar year referred to clause (i)(I).

       ``(iii) Child poverty rate.--The term `child poverty rate' 
     means, with respect to a State and a calendar year, the 
     percentage of children residing in the State during the 
     calendar year whose family income for the calendar year is 
     less than the poverty line then applicable to the family.
       ``(iv) Average depth of child poverty.--The term `average 
     depth of child poverty' means with respect to a State and a 
     calendar year, the average dollar amount by which family 
     income is exceeded by the poverty line, among children in the 
     State whose family income for the calendar year is less than 
     the applicable poverty line.
       ``(v) Poverty line.--The term `poverty line' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 673(2) of the Omnibus 
     Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, including any revision 
     required by such section applicable to a family of the size 
     involved.
       ``(E) Family income determinations.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph, family income includes cash income, child support 
     payments, government cash payments, and benefits under the 
     Food Stamp Act of 1977 that are received by any family 
     member, and family income shall be determined after payment 
     of all taxes and receipt of any tax refund or rebate by any 
     family member.
       ``(F) Appropriations.--
       ``(i) In general.--Out of any money in the Treasury of the 
     United States not otherwise appropriated, there are 
     appropriated for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008 
     $150,000,000 for grants under this paragraph.
       ``(ii) Availability.--Amounts made available under clause 
     (i) shall remain available until expended.''.

     SEC. 203. REVIEW AND CONCILIATION PROCESS.

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

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

       (a) Employment Credit To Reward States in Which Families 
     Leave Welfare for Work; Additional Credit for Families With 
     Higher Earnings.--
       (1) In general.--Section 407(b) (42 U.S.C. 607(b)), as 
     amended by section 503 of this Act, is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(5) Employment credit.--
       ``(A) In general.--The participation rate, determined under 
     paragraph (1), of a State for a fiscal year shall be 
     increased by the lesser of--
       ``(i) the number of percentage points (if any) of the 
     employment credit for the State for the fiscal year; or
       ``(ii) the number of percentage points (if any) by which 
     the participation rate, so determined, is less than 99 
     percent.
       ``(B) Calculation of credit.--
       ``(i) In general.--The employment credit for a State for a 
     fiscal year is an amount equal to--

       ``(I) twice the average quarterly number of families with 
     an adult that ceased to receive assistance under the State 
     program funded under this part during the preceding fiscal 
     year (but only if the adult did not receive such assistance 
     for at least 2 months after the cessation) and that was 
     employed during the calendar quarter immediately succeeding 
     the quarter in which the payments ceased; divided by
       ``(II) the average monthly number of families that include 
     an adult who received cash payments under the State program 
     funded under this part during the preceding fiscal year.

       ``(ii) Special rule for former recipients with higher 
     earnings.--In calculating the employment credit for a State 
     for a fiscal year, a family that, in the quarter in which the 
     wage was examined, earned at least 42 percent of the average 
     quarterly wage in the State (determined on the basis of State 
     unemployment data) shall be considered to be 1.5 families.
       ``(C) Regulations.--The Secretary may prescribe such 
     regulations as may be necessary to carry out this paragraph.
       ``(D) Reports on amount of credit.--Not later than 6 months 
     after the end of each calendar quarter, the Secretary shall 
     report to the Congress and each State the amount of the 
     employment credit for the State for the quarter. The 
     Secretary may carry out this subparagraph using funds made 
     available under this part for research.''.
       (2) Authority of secretary to use information in national 
     directory of new hires.--Section 453(i) (42 U.S.C. 653(i)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Calculation of employment credit for purposes of 
     determining state work participation rates under tanf.--The 
     Secretary may use the information in the National Directory 
     of New Hires for purposes of calculating State employment 
     credits pursuant to section 407(b)(5).''.
       (3) Elimination of caseload reduction credit.--
       (A) In general.--Section 407(b) (42 U.S.C. 607(b)) is 
     amended by striking paragraph (2) and redesignating 
     paragraphs (3) through (5) as paragraphs (2) through (4), 
     respectively.
       (B) Conforming amendment.--Section 453(i)(5) (42 U.S.C. 
     653(i)(5)), as added by paragraph (2) of this subsection, is 
     amended by striking ``407(b)(5)'' and inserting 
     ``407(b)(4)''.

[[Page 3774]]



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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 207. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the 
     amendments made by sections 204 through 206 shall take effect 
     on October 1, 2004.
       (b) State Option To Phase-in Replacement of Caseload 
     Reduction Credit With Employment Credit and Delay 
     Applicability of Other Provisions.--A State may elect to have 
     the amendments made by sections 204(b), 205, and 206 of this 
     Act not apply to the State program funded under part A of 
     title IV of the Social Security Act until October 1, 2005, 
     and if the State makes the election, then, in determining the 
     participation rate of the State for purposes of sections 407 
     and 409(a)(3) of the Social Security Act for fiscal year 
     2005, the State shall be credited with \1/2\ of the reduction 
     in the rate that would otherwise result from applying section 
     407(b)(5) of the Social Security Act (as added by section 
     204(a)(1) of this Act) to the State for fiscal year 2005 and 
     \1/2\ of the reduction in the rate that would otherwise 
     result from applying section 407(b)(2) of such Act (as so 
     redesignated by section 503(2)(D) of this Act) to the State 
     for fiscal year 2005.

                TITLE III--REQUIRING AND REWARDING WORK

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

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

     SEC. 302. CHILD CARE.

       (a) Increase in Entitlement Funding.--
       (1) In general.--Section 418(a) (42 U.S.C. 618(a)) is 
     amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), in the matter preceding subparagraph 
     (A), by inserting ``and paragraph (6)'' after ``paragraph 
     (3)'';
       (B) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (E);
       (ii) in subparagraph (F), by striking ``fiscal year 2002.'' 
     and inserting ``each of fiscal years 2002 through 2006; 
     and''; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(G) $3,217,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
       ``(H) $3,717,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.'';
       (C) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
       ``(4) Amounts reserved for indian tribes.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall reserve 2 percent of 
     the aggregate amount appropriated under paragraphs (3) and 
     (5) for each fiscal year for payments to Indian tribes and 
     tribal organizations for each such fiscal year for the 
     purpose of providing child care assistance.
       ``(B) Use of funds; application of child care and 
     development block grant act of 1990.--Subsections (b) and (c) 
     shall apply to amounts received under this paragraph in the 
     same manner as such subsections apply to amounts received by 
     a State under this section.'';
       (D) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (7); and
       (E) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
       ``(5) Additional general entitlement grants.--
       ``(A) Appropriation.--In addition to amounts appropriated 
     under paragraph (3) for any fiscal year, there are 
     appropriated for additional grants under paragraph (1)--
       ``(i) $1,250,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
       ``(ii) $1,750,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; and
       ``(iii) $2,250,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 
     through 2008.
       ``(B) Additional grant.--In addition to the grant paid to a 
     State under paragraph (1) for each of fiscal years 2003 
     through 2007, of the amount available for additional grants 
     under subparagraph (A) for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall 
     pay the State an amount equal to the same proportion of such 
     available amount as the proportion of the State's grant under 
     paragraph (1) bears to the amount appropriated under 
     paragraph (3) for the fiscal year.
       ``(6) Requirement for grant increase.--Notwithstanding 
     paragraphs (1), (2), and (5), the aggregate of the amounts 
     paid to a State under this section for each of fiscal years 
     2003 through 2008 may not exceed the aggregate of the amounts 
     paid to the State under this section for fiscal year 2002, 
     unless the State ensures that the level of State expenditures 
     for child care for the fiscal year is not less than the level 
     of State expenditures for child care that were matched under 
     a grant made to the State under paragraph (2); and that the 
     State expended to meet its maintenance of effort obligation 
     under paragraph (2) for fiscal year 2002.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 1108(a)(2) (42 U.S.C. 
     1308(a)(2)) is amended by striking ``or 413(f)'' and 
     inserting ``413(f), or 418(a)(4)(B)''.
       (b) Amendments to the Child Care and Development Block 
     Grant Act of 1990.--
       (1) Authorization of appropriations.--Section 658B of the 
     Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 
     9858) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 658B. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS; AMOUNTS 
                   AVAILABLE FOR INCENTIVE GRANTS TO IMPROVE 
                   QUALITY OF CHILD CARE SERVICES.

       ``(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subchapter 
     $2,350,000,000 for fiscal year 2004 and such sums as may be 
     necessary for fiscal years 2005 through 2008.
       ``(b) Amounts Available for Incentive Grants To Improve 
     Quality of Child Care Services.--Of the amount made available 
     to carry out this subchapter, $500,000,000 shall be used for 
     each of the fiscal years 2004 through 2008 to make grants 
     under section 658H.''.
       (2) State plan requirements.--Section 658E(c)(2) of the 
     Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 
     9858c(c)(2)) is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)--
       (i) in clause (ii) by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (ii) in clause (iii) by adding ``and'' at the end; and
       (iii) by inserting after clause (iii) the following:
       ``(iv) in order to help ensure that parents have the 
     freedom to choose quality center-based child care services, 
     the State shall make significant effort to develop contracts 
     with accredited child care providers in low-income and rural 
     communities;'';
       (B) by amending subparagraph (D) to read as follows:
       ``(D) Consumer education information.--Certify that the 
     State will collect and disseminate to parents of eligible 
     children and the general public, consumer education 
     information that will promote informed child care choices, 
     and describe how the State will inform parents receiving 
     assistance under a State program funded under part A of title 
     IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and 
     other low-income parents about eligibility for assistance 
     under this subchapter.'';
       (C) by amending subparagraph (H) to read as follows:
       ``(H) Meeting the needs of certain populations.--
     Demonstrate the manner in which the State will meet the 
     specific child care needs of families who are receiving 
     assistance under a State program under part A of title IV of 
     the Social Security Act, families who are attempting through 
     work activities to transition off of such assistance program, 
     families with children with disabilities and other special 
     needs, low-income families not receiving cash assistance 
     under a State program under part A of title IV of the Social 
     Security Act, and families that are at risk of becoming 
     dependent on such assistance.''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(I) Availability of staff.--Describe how the State will 
     ensure that staff from the lead agency described in section 
     658D will be available, at the offices of the State program 
     funded under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act, 
     to provide information about eligibility for assistance under 
     this subchapter and to assist individuals in applying for 
     such assistance.
       ``(J) Eligibility redetermination.--Demonstrate that each 
     child that receives assistance under this subchapter in the 
     State will

[[Page 3775]]

     receive such assistance for not less than 1 year before the 
     State redetermines the eligibility of the child under this 
     subchapter.
       ``(K) Supplement not supplant.--Provide assurances that the 
     amounts paid to a State under this subchapter shall be used 
     to supplement and not supplant other State or local funds 
     expended or otherwise available to support payments for child 
     care assistance and to increase the quality of available 
     child care for eligible families under this subchapter.''.
       (3) Payment rates.--Section 658E(c)(4)(A) of the Child Care 
     and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 
     9858c(c)(4)(A)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``such access'' and inserting ``equal 
     access to comparable quality and types of services''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Market rate surveys (that reflect variations in the 
     cost of child care services by locality) shall be conducted 
     by the State not less often than at 2-year intervals, and the 
     results of such surveys shall be used to implement payment 
     rates that ensure equal access to comparable services as 
     required by this subparagraph.
       ``(ii) Payment rates shall be adjusted at intervals between 
     such surveys to reflect increases in the cost of living, in 
     such manner as the Secretary may specify.
       ``(iii) Payment rates shall reflect variations in the cost 
     of providing child care services for children of different 
     ages and providing different types of care.''.
       (4) Child care accountability improvements.--Section 658G 
     of the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 
     U.S.C. 9858e) is amended to read as follows:

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

       ``(a) Activities To Improve the Quality of Child Care.--A 
     State that receives funds to carry out this subchapter shall 
     reserve and use not less than 12 percent of the funds for 
     improvements in the quality of child care services provided 
     in the State and in political subdivisions of the State.
       ``(1) Not less than 35 percent of the funds reserved under 
     this subsection shall be used for activities that are 
     designed to increase the quality and supply of child care 
     services for children from birth through 3 years of age.
       ``(2) Funds reserved under this subsection shall be used 
     for 1 or more activities consisting of--
       ``(A) providing for the development, establishment, 
     expansion, operation, and coordination of, child care 
     resource and referral services;
       ``(B) making grants or providing loans to eligible child 
     care providers to assist the providers in meeting applicable 
     State and local child care standards and recognized 
     accreditation standards;
       ``(C) improving the ability of State or local government, 
     as applicable, to monitor compliance with, and to enforce, 
     State and local licensing and regulatory requirements 
     (including registration requirements) applicable to child 
     care providers;
       ``(D) providing training and technical assistance in areas 
     relating to the provision of child care services, such as 
     training relating to promotion of health and safety, 
     promotion of good nutrition, provision of first aid, 
     recognition of communicable diseases, child abuse detection 
     and prevention, and care of children with disabilities and 
     other special needs;
       ``(E) improving salaries and other compensation paid to 
     full-time and part-time staff who provide child care services 
     for which assistance is made available under this subchapter;
       ``(F) making grants or providing financial assistance to 
     eligible child care providers for training in child 
     development and early education;
       ``(G) making grants or providing financial assistance to 
     eligible child care providers to support delivery of early 
     education and child development activities;
       ``(H) making grants or providing financial assistance to 
     eligible child care providers to make minor renovations to 
     such providers' physical environments that enhance the 
     quality of the child care services they provide;
       ``(I) improving and expanding the supply of child care 
     services for children with disabilities and other special 
     needs;
       ``(J) increasing the supply of high quality inclusive child 
     care for children with and without disabilities and other 
     special needs;
       ``(K) supporting the system described in paragraph (2);
       ``(L) providing technical assistance to family child care 
     providers and center-based child care providers to enable 
     them to provide appropriate child care services for children 
     with disabilities; and
       ``(M) other activities that can be demonstrated to increase 
     the quality of child care services and parental choice.''.
       ``(b) Child Care Resource and Referral System.--The State 
     shall use a portion of the funds reserved under subsection 
     (a) to support a system of local child care resource and 
     referral organizations coordinated by a statewide, nonprofit, 
     community-based child care resource and referral 
     organization. The local child care resource and referral 
     system shall--
       ``(1) provide parents in the State with information and 
     support concerning child care options in their communities;
       ``(2) collect and analyze data on the supply of and demand 
     for child care in political subdivisions within the State;
       ``(3) develop links with the business community or other 
     organizations involved in providing child care services;
       ``(4) increase the supply and improve the quality of child 
     care in the State and in political subdivisions in the State;
       ``(5) provide (or facilitate the provision of) specialists 
     in health, mental health consultation, early literacy 
     services for children with disabilities and other special 
     needs, and infant and toddler care, to support or supplement 
     community child care providers;
       ``(6) provide training or facilitate connections for 
     training to community child care providers; or
       ``(7) hire disability specialists, and provide training and 
     technical assistance to child care providers, to effectively 
     meet the needs of children with disabilities.
       (5) Incentive grants to states.--The Child Care and 
     Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858 et seq.) 
     is amended by inserting after section 658G the following:

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

       ``(a) Authority.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall use the amount made 
     available under section 658B(b) for a fiscal year to make 
     grants to eligible States in accordance with this section.
       ``(2) Annual payments.--The Secretary shall make an annual 
     payment for such a grant to each eligible State out of the 
     allotment for that State determined under subsection (c).
       ``(b) Eligible States.--
       ``(1) In general.--In this section, the term `eligible 
     State' means a State that--
       ``(A) has conducted a survey of the market rates for child 
     care services in the State within the 2 years preceding the 
     date of the submission of an application under paragraph (2); 
     and
       ``(B) submits an application in accordance with paragraph 
     (2).
       ``(2) Application.--
       ``(A) In general.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this section, a State shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by 
     such information, in addition to the information required 
     under subparagraph (B), as the Secretary may require.
       ``(B) Information required.--Each application submitted for 
     a grant under this section shall--
       ``(i) detail the methodology and results of the State 
     market rates survey conducted pursuant to paragraph (1)(A);
       ``(ii) describe the State's plan to increase payment rates 
     from the initial baseline determined under clause (i);
       ``(iii) describe how the State will increase payment rates 
     in accordance with the market survey results, for all types 
     of child care providers who provide services for which 
     assistance is made available under this subchapter;
       ``(iv) describe how rates are set to reflect the variations 
     in the cost of providing care for children of different ages, 
     different types of care, and in different localities in the 
     State; and
       ``(v) describe how the State will prioritize increasing 
     payment rates for care of higher-than-average quality, such 
     as care by accredited providers, care that includes the 
     provision of comprehensive services, care provided at 
     nonstandard hours, care for children with disabilities and 
     other special needs, care in low-income and rural 
     communities, and care of a type that is in short supply.
       ``(3) Continuing eligibility requirement.--The Secretary 
     may make an annual payment under this section to an eligible 
     State only if--
       ``(A) the Secretary determines that the State has made 
     progress, through the activities assisted under this 
     subchapter, in maintaining increased payment rates; and
       ``(B) at least once every 2 years, the State conducts an 
     update of the survey described in paragraph (1)(A).
       ``(4) Requirement of matching funds.--
       ``(A) In general.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this section, the State shall agree to make available State 
     contributions from State sources toward the costs of the 
     activities to be carried out by a State pursuant to 
     subsection (d) in an amount that is not less than 20 percent 
     of such costs.
       ``(B) Determination of state contributions.--State 
     contributions shall be in cash. Amounts provided by the 
     Federal Government may not be included in determining the 
     amount of such State contributions.
       ``(c) Allotments to Eligible States.--The amount made 
     available under section 658B(b) for a fiscal year shall be 
     allotted among the eligible States in the same manner as 
     amounts are allotted under section 658O(b).
       ``(d) Use of Funds.--An eligible State that receives a 
     grant under this section shall use the funds received to 
     significantly increase the payment rate for the provision of 
     child care assistance in accordance with this subchapter up 
     to the 150th percentile of the market rate survey described 
     in subsection (b)(1)(A).
       ``(e) Evaluations and Reports.--
       ``(1) State evaluations.--Each eligible State shall submit 
     to the Secretary, at such

[[Page 3776]]

     time and in such form and manner as the Secretary may 
     require, information regarding the State's efforts to 
     increase payment rates and the impact increased rates are 
     having on the quality of, and accessibility to, child care in 
     the State.
       ``(2) Reports to congress.--The Secretary shall submit 
     biennial reports to Congress on the information described in 
     paragraph (1). Such reports shall include data from the 
     applications submitted under subsection (b)(2) as a baseline 
     for determining the progress of each eligible State in 
     maintaining increased payment rates.
       ``(f) Payment Rate.--In this section, the term `payment 
     rate' means the rate of reimbursement to providers for 
     subsidized child care.''.
       (6) Administration, enforcement, and evaluation.--Section 
     658I of the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 
     1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858g) is amended--
       (A) in the heading by striking ``AND ENFORCEMENT'' and 
     inserting ``, ENFORCEMENT, AND EVALUATION'';
       (B) in subsection (a)(3) by inserting before the period at 
     the end ``and including the establishment of a national 
     training and technical assistance center specializing in 
     infant and toddler care and their families''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Federal Administration and Evaluation Activities.--
     The Secretary shall--
       ``(1) establish a national data system through grants, 
     contracts or cooperative agreements to develop statistics on 
     the supply of, demand for, and quality of child care, early 
     education, and non-school-hours programs, including use of 
     data collected through child care resource and referral 
     organizations at the national, State, and local levels; and
       ``(2) prepare and submit to Congress an annual report on 
     the supply of, demand for, and quality of child care, early 
     education, and non-school-hours programs, using data 
     collected through State and local child care resource and 
     referral organizations and other sources.''.
       (7) Reports.--Section 658K(a) of the Child Care and 
     Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858i(a)) is 
     amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1)(B)--
       (i) in clause (ix) by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (ii) in clause (x) by adding ``and'' at the end; and
       (iii) by inserting after clause (x) the following:
       ``(xi) whether the child care provider is accredited by a 
     national or State accrediting body;''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) by striking 
     ``aggregate data concerning'';
       (ii) in subparagraph (D) by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (iii) in subparagraph (E) by adding ``and'' at the end; and
       (iv) by indenting the left margin of subparagraphs (A) 
     through (E) 2 ems to the right and redesignating such 
     subparagraphs as clauses (i) through (v), respectively;
       (v) by inserting after clause (v), as so redesignated, the 
     following:
       ``(vi) findings from market rate surveys, disaggregated by 
     the types of services provided and by the sub-State 
     localities, as appropriate;''; and
       (vi) by inserting before clause (i), as so redesignated, 
     the following:
       ``(A) information on how all of the funds reserved under 
     section 658G were allocated and spent, and information on the 
     effect of those expenditures, to the maximum extent 
     practicable; and
       ``(B) aggregate date concerning--''.
       (8) Definitions.--Section 658P(4)(C) of the Child Care and 
     Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858n(4)(C)) 
     is amended--
       (A) in clause (i) by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (B) in clause (ii) by striking the period and inserting ``; 
     or''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) is a foster child.''.
       (9) Conforming amendments.--The Child Care and Development 
     Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858 et seq.) is amended--
       (A) in section 658E(c)(3)--
       (i) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``through (5) of 
     section 658A(b)'' and inserting ``through (6) of section 
     658A(c)''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (D) by striking ``1997 through 2002'' 
     and inserting ``2004 through 2008'';
       (B) in section 658K(a)(2) by striking ``1997'' and 
     inserting ``2003''; and
       (C) in section 658L--
       (i) by striking ``July 31, 1998'' and inserting ``October 
     1, 2005'';
       (ii) by striking ``Economic and Educational Opportunities'' 
     and inserting ``Education and the Workforce''; and
       (iii) by striking ``Labor and Human Resources'' and 
     inserting ``Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions''.
       (c) Applicability of State or Local Health and Safety 
     Standards to Other TANF Child Care Spending.--Section 402(a) 
     (42 U.S.C. 602(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(8) Certification of procedures to ensure that child care 
     providers comply with applicable state or local health and 
     safety standards.--A certification by the chief executive 
     officer of the State that procedures are in effect to ensure 
     that any child care provider in the State that provides 
     services for which assistance is provided under the State 
     program funded under this part complies with all applicable 
     State or local health and safety requirements as described in 
     section 658E(c)(2)(F) of the Child Care and Development Block 
     Grant Act of 1990.''.
       (d) Availability of Child Care for Parents Required to 
     Work.--Section 407(e)(2) (42 U.S.C. 607(e)(2)) is amended by 
     striking ``6'' and inserting ``13''.

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

       (a) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are to--
       (1) inform low-income families with children about programs 
     available to families leaving welfare and other programs to 
     support low-income families with children;
       (2) provide incentives to States and counties to improve 
     and coordinate application and renewal procedures for low-
     income family with children support programs; and
       (3) track the extent to which low-income families with 
     children receive the benefits and services for which they are 
     eligible.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Locality.--The term locality means a municipality that 
     does not administer a temporary assistance for needy families 
     program funded under part A of title IV of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) (in this section 
     referred to as ``TANF'').
       (2) Low-income family with children support program.--The 
     term ``low-income family with children support program'' 
     means a program designed to provide low-income families with 
     assistance or benefits to enable the family to become self-
     sufficient and includes--
       (A) TANF;
       (B) the food stamp program established under the Food Stamp 
     Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) (in this section referred 
     to as ``food stamps'');
       (C) the medicaid program funded under title XIX of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.);
       (D) the State children's health insurance program (SCHIP) 
     funded under title XXI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1397aa et seq.);
       (E) the child care program funded under the Child Care 
     Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858 et seq.);
       (F) the child support program funded under part D of title 
     IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 651 et seq.);
       (G) the earned income tax credit under section 32 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
       (H) the low-income home energy assistance program (LIHEAP) 
     established under the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act 
     of 1981 (42 U.S.C 8621 et seq.);
       (I) the special supplemental nutrition program for women, 
     infants, and children (WIC) established under section 17 of 
     the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786);
       (J) programs under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 
     U.S.C. 2801 et seq.); and
       (K) any other Federal or State funded program designed to 
     provide family and work support to low-income families with 
     children.
       (3) Nonprofit.--The term ``nonprofit'', as applied to a 
     school, agency, organization, or institution means a school, 
     agency, organization, or institution owned and operated by 1 
     or more nonprofit corporations or associations, no part of 
     the net earnings of which inures, or may lawfully inure, to 
     the benefit of any private shareholder or individual.
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services.
       (5) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several 
     States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, and the 
     United States Virgin Islands.
       (c) Authorization of Grants.--
       (1) States and counties.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to award 
     grants to States and counties to pay the Federal share of the 
     costs involved in improving the administration of low-income 
     family with children support programs, including simplifying 
     application, recertification, reporting, and verification 
     rules, and promoting participation in such programs.
       (B) Federal share.--The Federal share shall be 80 percent.
       (2) Nonprofits and localities.--The Secretary is authorized 
     to award grants to nonprofits and localities to promote 
     participation in low-income family with children support 
     programs, and distribute information about and develop 
     service centers for low-income family with children support 
     programs.
       (d) Grant Approval Criteria.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Agriculture, shall establish criteria for 
     approval of an application for a grant under this section 
     that include consideration of--
       (A) the extent to which the proposal, if funded, is likely 
     to result in improved service and higher participation rates 
     in low-income children's support programs;
       (B) an applicant's ability to reach hard-to-serve 
     populations;

[[Page 3777]]

       (C) the level of innovation in the applicant's grant 
     proposal; and
       (D) any partnerships between the public and private sector 
     in the applicant's grant proposal.
       (2) Separate criteria.--Separate criteria shall be 
     established for the grants authorized under paragraphs (1) 
     and (2) of subsection (c).
       (e) Uses of Funds.--
       (1) States and counties.--
       (A) Improvements in programs.--Grants awarded to States and 
     counties under subsection (c)(1) shall be used to--
       (i) simplify low-income family with children support 
     program application, recertification, reporting, and 
     verification rules;
       (ii) create uniformity in eligibility criteria for low-
     income family with children support programs;
       (iii) develop options for families to apply for low-income 
     family with children support programs through the telephone, 
     mail, facsimile, Internet, or electronic mail, and submit any 
     recertifications or reports required for such families 
     through these options;
       (iv) co-locate eligibility workers for various low-income 
     family with children support programs at strategically 
     located sites;
       (v) develop or enhance one-stop service centers for low-
     income family with children support programs, including 
     establishing evening and weekend hours at these centers; and
       (vi) improve training of staff in low-income families with 
     children support programs to enhance their ability to enroll 
     eligible applicants in low-income family with children 
     support programs, provide case management, and refer eligible 
     applicants to other appropriate programs.
       (B) Customer surveys.--
       (i) In general.--A grant awarded to a State or county under 
     subsection (c)(1) shall be used to carry out a customer 
     survey.
       (ii) Model surveys.--The customer survey under clause (i) 
     of this subparagraph shall be modeled after a form developed 
     by the Secretary under subsection (g).
       (iii) Reports to secretary.--Not later than 1 year after a 
     State or county is awarded a grant under subsection (c)(1), 
     and annually thereafter, the State or county shall submit a 
     report to the Secretary detailing the results of the customer 
     survey carried out under clause (i) of this subparagraph.
       (iv) Reports to public.--A State or county receiving a 
     grant under subsection (c)(1) and the Secretary shall make 
     the report required under clause (iii) of this subparagraph 
     available to the public.
       (v) Public comment.--A State or county receiving a grant 
     under subsection (c)(1) shall accept public comments and hold 
     public hearings on the report made available under clause 
     (iv) of this subparagraph.
       (C) Tracking systems.--
       (i) In general.--A grant awarded to a State or county under 
     subsection (c)(1) shall be used to implement a tracking 
     system to determine the level of participation in low-income 
     family with children support programs of the eligible 
     population.
       (ii) Reports.--Not later than 1 year after a State or 
     county is awarded a grant under subsection (c)(1), and 
     annually thereafter, the State or county shall submit a 
     report to the Secretary detailing the effectiveness of the 
     tracking system implemented under clause (i) of this 
     subparagraph.
       (D) In-person interviews.--A State or county awarded a 
     grant under subsection (c)(1) may expend funds made available 
     under the grant to provide for reporting and recertification 
     procedures through the telephone, mail, facsimile, Internet, 
     or electronic mail.
       (E) Jurisdiction-wide implementation.--
       (i) In general.--A grant awarded to a State or county under 
     subsection (c)(1) shall be used for activities throughout the 
     jurisdiction.
       (ii) Exception.--A State or county awarded a grant under 
     subsection (c)(1) may use grant funds to develop one-stop 
     service centers and telephone, mail, facsimile, Internet, or 
     electronic mail application and renewal procedures for low-
     income family with children support programs without regard 
     to the requirements of clause (i) of this subparagraph.
       (F) Supplement not supplant.--Funds provided to a State or 
     county under a grant awarded under subsection (c)(1) shall be 
     used to supplement and not supplant other State or county 
     public funds expended to provide support services for low-
     income families.
       (2) Nonprofits and localities.--A grant awarded to a 
     nonprofit or locality under subsection (c)(2) shall be used 
     to--
       (A) develop one-stop service centers for low-income family 
     with children support programs in cooperation with States and 
     counties; or
       (B) provide information about and referrals to low-income 
     family with children support programs through the 
     dissemination of materials at strategic locations, including 
     schools, clinics, and shopping locations.
       (f) Application.--
       (1) In general.--Each applicant desiring a grant under 
     paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (c) shall submit an 
     application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, 
     and accompanied by such information as the Secretary may 
     reasonably require.
       (2) States and counties.--
       (A) Non-federal share.--Each State or county applicant 
     shall provide assurances that the applicant will pay the non-
     Federal share of the activities for which a grant is sought.
       (B) Partnerships.--Each State or county applicant shall 
     submit a memorandum of understanding demonstrating that the 
     applicant has entered into a partnership to coordinate its 
     efforts under the grant with the efforts of other State and 
     county agencies that have responsibility for providing low-
     income families with assistance or benefits.
       (g) Duties of the Secretary.--
       (1) Survey form.--The Secretary, in cooperation with other 
     relevant agencies, shall develop a customer survey form to 
     determine whether low-income families--
       (A) encounter any impediments in applying for or renewing 
     their participation in low-income family with children 
     support programs; and
       (B) are unaware of low-income family with children support 
     programs for which they are eligible.
       (2) Reports.--
       (A) Annual reports.--Not later than 1 year after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the 
     Secretary shall submit a report to Congress describing the 
     uses of grant funds awarded under this section.
       (B) Results of tracking systems and surveys.--The Secretary 
     shall submit a report to Congress detailing the results of 
     the tracking systems implemented and customer surveys carried 
     out by States and counties under subsection (e) as the 
     information becomes available.
       (h) Miscellaneous.--
       (1) Matching funds.--Matching funds required from a State 
     or county awarded a grant under subsection (c)(1) of this 
     section may--
       (A) include in-kind services and expenditures by 
     municipalities and private entities; and
       (B) be considered a qualified State expenditure for 
     purposes of determining whether the State has satisfied the 
     maintenance of effort requirements of the temporary 
     assistance for needy families program under section 409(a)(7) 
     of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 609(a)(7)).
       (2) Limitation on expenditures.--Subject to paragraph (3) 
     of this subsection, not more than 20 percent of a grant 
     awarded under subsection (c) shall be expended on customer 
     surveys or tracking systems.
       (3) Reversion of funds.--Any funds not expended by a 
     grantee within 2 years after awarded a grant shall be 
     available for redistribution among other grantees in such 
     manner and amount as the Secretary may determine, unless the 
     Secretary extends by regulation the 2-year time period to 
     expend funds.
       (4) Nonapportionment.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, a State, county, locality, or nonprofit awarded a 
     grant under subsection (c) is not required to apportion the 
     costs of providing information about low-income family with 
     children support programs among all low-income family with 
     children support programs.
       (5) Administrative costs of the secretary.--Not more than 5 
     percent of the funds appropriated to carry out this section 
     shall be expended on administrative costs of the Secretary.
       (i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $500,000,000 for 
     the period of fiscal years 2004 through 2008.

     SEC. 304. ASSESSMENTS FOR TANF RECIPIENTS.

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

     SEC. 305. APPLICABILITY OF WORKPLACE LAWS.

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

     SEC. 306. WORK PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS.

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

[[Page 3778]]

       ``(E) 70 percent for fiscal year 2008 and each succeeding 
     fiscal year.''.

     SEC. 307. HOURS OF WORK-RELATED ACTIVITIES.

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

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

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

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

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

       (a) Option of Continuous Eligibility for 12 Months; Option 
     of Continuing Coverage for Up to an Additional Year.--
       (1) Option of continuous eligibility for 12 months by 
     making reporting requirements optional.--Section 1925(b) (42 
     U.S.C. 1396r-6(b)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``, at the option of a 
     State,'' after ``and which'';
       (B) in paragraph (2)(A), by inserting ``Subject to 
     subparagraph (C)--'' after ``(A) Notices.--'';
       (C) in paragraph (2)(B), by inserting ``Subject to 
     subparagraph (C)--'' after ``(B) Reporting requirements.--'';
       (D) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) State option to waive notice and reporting 
     requirements.--A State may waive some or all of the reporting 
     requirements under clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (B). 
     Insofar as it waives such a reporting requirement, the State 
     need not provide for a notice under subparagraph (A) relating 
     to such requirement.''; and
       (E) in paragraph (3)(A)(iii), by inserting ``the State has 
     not waived under paragraph (2)(C) the reporting requirement 
     with respect to such month under paragraph (2)(B) and if'' 
     after ``6-month period if''.
       (2) State option to extend eligibility for low-income 
     individuals for up to 12 additional months.--Section 1925 (42 
     U.S.C. 1396r-6) is further amended--
       (A) by redesignating subsections (c) through (f) as 
     subsections (d) through (g); and
       (B) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(c) State Option of Up to 12 Months of Additional 
     Eligibility.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this title, each State plan approved under this title may 
     provide, at the option of the State, that the State shall 
     offer to each family which received assistance during the 
     entire 6-month period under subsection (b) and which meets 
     the applicable requirement of paragraph (2), in the last 
     month of the period the option of extending coverage under 
     this subsection for the succeeding period not to exceed 12 
     months.
       ``(2) Income restriction.--The option under paragraph (1) 
     shall not be made available to a family for a succeeding 
     period unless the State determines that the family's average 
     gross monthly earnings (less such costs for such child care 
     as is necessary for the employment of the caretaker relative) 
     as of the end of the 6-month period under subsection (b) does 
     not exceed 185 percent of the official poverty line (as 
     defined by the Office of Management and Budget, and revised 
     annually in accordance with section 673(2) of the Omnibus 
     Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981) applicable to a family of 
     the size involved.
       ``(3) Application of extension rules.--The provisions of 
     paragraphs (2), (3), (4), and (5) of subsection (b) shall 
     apply to the extension provided under this subsection in the 
     same manner as they apply to the extension provided under 
     subsection (b)(1), except that for purposes of this 
     subsection--
       ``(A) any reference to a 6-month period under subsection 
     (b)(1) is deemed a reference to the extension period provided 
     under paragraph (1) and any deadlines for any notices or 
     reporting and the premium payment periods shall be modified 
     to correspond to the appropriate calendar quarters of 
     coverage provided under this subsection; and
       ``(B) any reference to a provision of subsection (a) or (b) 
     is deemed a reference to the corresponding provision of 
     subsection (b) or of this subsection, respectively.''.
       (b) State Option to Waive Receipt of Medicaid for 3 of 
     Previous 6 Months to Qualify for TMA.--Section 1925(a)(1) (42 
     U.S.C. 1396r-6(a)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following: ``A State may, at its option, also apply the 
     previous sentence in the case of a family that was receiving 
     such aid for fewer than 3 months, or that had applied for and 
     was eligible for such aid for fewer than 3 months, during the 
     6 immediately preceding months described in such sentence.''.
       (c) Elimination of Sunset for TMA.--
       (1) Subsection (g) of section 1925 (42 U.S.C. 1396r-6), as 
     redesignated under subsection (a)(2), is repealed.
       (2) Section 1902(e)(1) (42 U.S.C. 1396a(e)(1)) is amended 
     by striking ``(A) Nothwithstanding'' and all that follows 
     through ``During such period, for'' in subparagraph (B) and 
     inserting ``For''.
       (d) CMS Report on Enrollment and Participation Rates under 
     TMA.--Section 1925, as amended by subsections (a)(2) and (c), 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Additional Provisions.--
       ``(1) Collection and reporting of participation 
     information.--Each State shall--
       ``(A) collect and submit to the Secretary, in a format 
     specified by the Secretary, information on average monthly 
     enrollment and average monthly participation rates for adults 
     and children under this section; and
       ``(B) make such information publicly available.

     Such information shall be submitted under subparagraph (A) at 
     the same time and frequency in which other enrollment 
     information under this title is submitted to the Secretary. 
     Using such information, the Secretary shall submit to 
     Congress annual reports concerning such rates.''.
       (e) Coordination of Work.--Section 1925(g), as added by 
     subsection (d), is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(2) Coordination with administration for children and 
     families.--The Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & 
     Medicaid Services, in carrying out this section, shall work 
     with the Assistant Secretary for the Administration for 
     Children and Families to develop guidance or other technical 
     assistance for States regarding best practices in 
     guaranteeing access to transitional medical assistance under 
     this section.''.
       (f) Elimination of TMA Requirement for States That Extend 
     Coverage to Children and Parents Through 185 Percent of 
     Poverty.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1925 is further amended by adding 
     at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(h) Provisions Optional for States That Extend Coverage 
     to Children and Parents Through 185 Percent of Poverty.--A 
     State may (but is not required to) meet the requirements of 
     subsections (a) and (b) if it provides for medical assistance 
     under section 1931 to families (including both children and 
     caretaker relatives) the average gross monthly earning of 
     which (less such costs for such child care as is necessary 
     for the employment of a caretaker relative) is at or below a 
     level that is at least 185 percent of the official poverty 
     line (as defined by the Office of Management and Budget, and 
     revised annually in accordance with section 673(2) of the 
     Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981) applicable to a 
     family of the size involved.''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--Such section is further 
     amended, in subsections (a)(1) and (b)(1), by inserting ``, 
     but subject to subsection (h),'' after ``Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of this title,'' each place it appears.
       (g) Extending Use of Outstationed Workers to Accept 
     Applications for Transitional Medical Assistance.--Section 
     1902(a)(55) (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(55)) is amended by inserting 
     ``and under section 1931'' after ``(a)(10)(A)(ii)(IX)''.
       (h) Effective Dates.--(1) Except as provided in this 
     subsection, the amendments made by this section shall apply 
     to calendar quarters beginning on or after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, without regard to whether or not final 
     regulations to carry out such amendments have been 
     promulgated by such date.
       (2) In the case of a State plan for medical assistance 
     under title XIX of the Social Security Act which the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services determines requires 
     State legislation (other than legislation appropriating 
     funds) in order for the plan to meet the additional 
     requirements imposed by the amendments made by this section, 
     the State plan shall not be regarded as failing to comply 
     with the requirements of such title solely on the basis of 
     its failure to meet these additional requirements before the 
     first day of the first calendar quarter beginning after the 
     close of the first regular session of the State legislature 
     that begins after the date of the enactment of this Act. For 
     purposes of the previous sentence, in the case of a State 
     that has a 2-year legislative session, each year of such 
     session shall be deemed to be a separate regular session of 
     the State legislature.

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

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

       ``(I) Prohibit the placement of an individual in a work 
     activity specified in section 407(d) from resulting in the 
     displacement of any employee or position (including partial 
     displacement, such as a reduction in the hours of nonovertime 
     work wages, or employment benefits, or fill any unfilled 
     vacancy, or performing work when any other

[[Page 3779]]

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

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

     SEC. 311. INCREASE IN FUNDING FOR SOCIAL SERVICES BLOCK 
                   GRANT.

       Section 2003(c) (42 U.S.C. 1397b(c)) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(12) $2,800,000,000 for the fiscal year 2004 and each 
     fiscal year thereafter.''.

     TITLE IV--HELPING WELFARE LEAVERS CLIMB THE EMPLOYMENT LADDER

     SEC. 401. STATE PLAN REQUIREMENT ON EMPLOYMENT ADVANCEMENT.

       (a) In General.--Section 402(a)(1)(A) (42 U.S.C. 
     602(a)(1)(A)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(vii) Establish goals and take action to improve initial 
     earnings, job advancement, and employment retention for 
     individuals in and individuals leaving the program.''.
       (b) Inclusion in Annual Reports of Progress in Achieving 
     Employment Advancement Goals.--Section 411(b) (42 U.S.C. 
     611(b)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (3);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (4) and 
     inserting ``; and'' ; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) in each report submitted after fiscal year 2004, the 
     progress made by the State in achieving the goals referred to 
     in section 402(a)(1)(A)(vii) in the most recent State plan 
     submitted pursuant to section 402(a).''.

     SEC. 402. EMPLOYMENT ADVANCEMENT FUND.

       Section 403(a) (42 U.S.C. 603(a)) is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) Employment advancement fund.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall provide grants to 
     States and localities for research, evaluation, technical 
     assistance, and demonstration projects that focus on--
       ``(i) improving wages for low-income workers, regardless of 
     whether such workers are recipients of assistance under a 
     State program funded under this part, through training and 
     other services; and
       ``(ii) enhancing employment prospects for recipients of 
     such assistance with barriers to employment, such as a 
     physical or mental impairment, a substance abuse problem, or 
     limited proficiency in English.
       ``(B) Administration.--
       ``(i) Allocation of funds.--The Secretary shall allocate at 
     least 40 percent of the funds made available pursuant to this 
     paragraph for projects that focus on the matters described in 
     subparagraph (A)(i), and at least 40 percent of the funds for 
     projects that focus on the matters described in subparagraph 
     (A)(ii).
       ``(ii) Diversity of projects.--The Secretary shall attempt 
     to provide funds under this paragraph for diverse projects 
     from geographically different areas.
       ``(C) Aid under this paragraph not `assistance'.--A benefit 
     or service provided with funds made available under this 
     paragraph shall not, for any purpose, be considered 
     assistance under a State program funded under this part.
       ``(D) Appropriation.--Out of any money in the Treasury of 
     the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are 
     appropriated for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008 
     $150,000,000 for grants under this paragraph.''.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 407. DEFINITION OF ASSISTANCE.

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

     SEC. 408. CONTINUATION OF PRE-WELFARE REFORM WAIVERS.

       Section 415 (42 U.S.C. 615) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(c) Continuation of Waivers Approved or Submitted Before 
     Date of Enactment of Welfare Reform.--Notwithstanding 
     subsection (a), with respect to any State that is operating 
     under a waiver described in subsection (a) which would 
     otherwise expire on a date that occurs in the period that 
     begins on September 30, 2002, and ends on September 30, 2008, 
     the State may elect to continue to operate under the waiver, 
     on the same terms and conditions as applied to the waiver on 
     the day before such date, through September 30, 2008.''.

     TITLE V--PROMOTING FAMILY FORMATION AND RESPONSIBLE PARENTING

     SEC. 501. FAMILY FORMATION FUND.

       Section 403(a)(2) (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(2)) is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(2) Family formation fund.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall provide grants to 
     States and localities for research, technical assistance, and 
     demonstration projects to promote and fund best practices in 
     the following areas:
       ``(i) Promoting the formation of 2-parent families.
       ``(ii) Reducing teenage pregnancies.
       ``(iii) Increasing the ability of noncustodial parents to 
     financially support and be involved with their children.
       ``(B) Allocation of funds.--In making grants under this 
     paragraph, the Secretary

[[Page 3780]]

     shall ensure that not less than 30 percent of the funds made 
     available pursuant to this paragraph for a fiscal year are 
     used in each of the areas described in subparagraph (A).
       ``(C) Consideration of domestic violence impact.--In making 
     grants under this paragraph, the Secretary shall consider the 
     potential impact of a project on the incidence of domestic 
     violence.
       ``(D) Appropriation.--Out of any money in the Treasury of 
     the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are 
     appropriated for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008 
     $100,000,000 for grants under this paragraph.''.

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

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

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

       ``(iii) shall pay to the family any remaining amount.
       ``(3) Limitations.--
       ``(A) Federal reimbursements.--The total of the amounts 
     paid by the State to the Federal Government under paragraphs 
     (1) and (2) of this subsection with respect to a family shall 
     not exceed the Federal share of the amount assigned with 
     respect to the family pursuant to section 408(a)(3).
       ``(B) State reimbursements.--The total of the amounts 
     retained by the State under paragraphs (1) and (2) of this 
     subsection with respect to a family shall not exceed the 
     State share of the amount assigned with respect to the family 
     pursuant to section 408(a)(3).
       ``(4) Families that never received assistance.--In the case 
     of any other family, the State shall pay the amount collected 
     to the family.
       ``(5) Families under certain agreements.--Notwithstanding 
     paragraphs (1) through (4), in the case of an amount 
     collected for a family in accordance with a cooperative 
     agreement under section 454(33), the State shall distribute 
     the amount collected pursuant to the terms of the agreement.
       ``(6) State financing options.--To the extent that the 
     State share of the amount payable to a family for a month 
     pursuant to paragraph (2)(B) of this subsection exceeds the 
     amount that the State estimates (under procedures approved by 
     the Secretary) would have been payable to the family for the 
     month pursuant to former section 457(a)(2) (as in effect for 
     the State immediately before the date this subsection first 
     applies to the State) if such former section had remained in 
     effect, the State may elect to use the grant made to the 
     State under section 403(a) to pay the amount, or to have the 
     payment considered a qualified State expenditure for purposes 
     of section 409(a)(7), but not both.
       ``(7) State option to pass through additional support with 
     federal financial participation.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), 
     a State shall not be required to pay to the Federal 
     Government the Federal share of an amount collected on behalf 
     of a family that is not a recipient of assistance under the 
     State program funded under part A, to the extent that the 
     State pays the amount to the family and disregards the 
     payment for purposes of paying benefits under the State 
     program funded under part A.
       ``(B) Recipients of tanf for less than 5 years.--
     Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), a State shall not be 
     required to pay to the Federal Government the Federal share 
     of an amount collected on behalf of a family that is a 
     recipient of assistance under the State program funded under 
     part A and that has received the assistance for not more than 
     5 years after the date of the enactment of this paragraph, to 
     the extent that the State pays the amount to the family.''.
       (B) Approval of estimation procedures.--Not later than 
     October 1, 2003, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, 
     in consultation with the States (as defined for purposes of 
     part D of title IV of the Social Security Act), shall 
     establish the procedures to be used to make the estimate 
     described in section 457(a)(6) of such Act.
       (2) Current support amount defined.--Section 457(c) (42 
     U.S.C. 657(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Current support amount.--The term `current support 
     amount' means, with respect to amounts collected as support 
     on behalf of a family, the amount designated as the monthly 
     support obligation of the noncustodial parent in the order 
     requiring the support.''.
       (c) Ban on Recovery of Medicaid Costs for Certain Births.--
     Section 454 (42 U.S.C. 654) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (32);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (33) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (33) the following:
       ``(34) provide that the State shall not use the State 
     program operated under this part to collect any amount owed 
     to the State by reason of costs incurred under the State plan 
     approved under title XIX for the birth of a child for whom 
     support rights have been assigned pursuant to section 
     408(a)(3), 471(a)(17), or 1912.''.
       (d) State Option To Discontinue Certain Support 
     Assignments.--Section 457(b) (42 U.S.C. 657(b)) is amended by 
     striking ``shall'' and inserting ``may''.
       (e) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 409(a)(7)(B)(i)(I)(aa) (42 U.S.C. 
     609(a)(7)(B)(i)(I)(aa)) is amended by striking 
     ``457(a)(1)(B)'' and inserting ``457(a)(1)''.
       (2) Section 404(a) (42 U.S.C. 604(a)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (1);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) to fund payment of an amount pursuant to clause (i) 
     or (ii) of section 457(a)(2)(B), but only to the extent that 
     the State properly elects under section 457(a)(6) to use the 
     grant to fund the payment.''.
       (3) Section 409(a)(7)(B)(i) (42 U.S.C. 609(a)(7)(B)(i)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

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

       (f) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2) of 
     this subsection and section 901(b) of this Act, the 
     amendments made by this section shall take effect on October 
     1, 2007, and shall apply to payments under parts A and D of 
     title IV of the Social Security Act for calendar quarters 
     beginning on or after such date, without regard to whether 
     regulations to implement the amendments are promulgated by 
     such date.
       (2) State option to accelerate effective date.--A State may 
     elect to have the amendments made by this section apply to 
     the State and to amounts collected by the State, on and after 
     such date as the State may select that is after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act and before the effective date 
     provided in paragraph (1).

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

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

[[Page 3781]]

       (D) by redesignating paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) as 
     paragraphs (2), (3), and (4), respectively.

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

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

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

       (a) In General.--Section 510(d) (42 U.S.C. 710(d)) is 
     amended by striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2008''.
       (b) Purpose of Allotments.--For each of the fiscal years 
     2004 through 2008, section 510(b)(1) of the Social Security 
     Act is deemed to read as follows: ``(1) The purpose of an 
     allotment under subsection (a) to a State is to enable the 
     State to provide abstinence education, and at the option of 
     the State--
       ``(A) programs that the State defines as an appropriate 
     approach to abstinence education that educates those who are 
     currently sexually active or at risk of sexual activity about 
     methods to reduce unintended pregnancy or other health risks; 
     and
       ``(B) where appropriate, mentoring, counseling, and adult 
     supervision to promote abstinence from sexual activity, with 
     a focus on those groups which are most likely to bear 
     children out-of-wedlock.''.
       (c) Medically and Scientifically Accurate Information.--For 
     each of the fiscal years 2004 through 2008, there is deemed 
     to appear in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) of section 
     510(b)(2) of such Act the phrase ``a medically and 
     scientifically accurate educational'' in lieu of the phrase 
     ``an educational'', and there is deemed to appear after and 
     below subparagraph (H) of such section the following:

     ``For purposes of this section, the term `medically 
     accurate', with respect to information, means information 
     that is supported by research, recognized as accurate and 
     objective by leading medical, psychological, psychiatric, and 
     public health organizations and agencies, and where relevant, 
     published in peer review journals.''.
       (d) Effective Models for Programs.--For each of the fiscal 
     years 2004 through 2008, section 510 of such Act is deemed to 
     have at the end the following subsection:
       ``(e)(1) None of the funds appropriated in this section 
     shall be expended for a program unless the program is based 
     on a model that has been demonstrated to be effective in 
     reducing unwanted pregnancy, or in reducing the transmission 
     of a sexually transmitted disease or the human 
     immunodeficiency virus.
       ``(2) The requirement of paragraph (1) shall not apply to 
     programs that have been approved and funded under this 
     section on or before April 19, 2002.''.
       (e) Comparative Evaluation of Abstinence Education 
     Programs.--
       (1) Study.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     (referred to in this subsection as the ``Secretary'') shall, 
     in consultation with an advisory panel of researchers 
     identified by the Board on Children Youth and Families of the 
     National Academy of Sciences, conduct an experimental study 
     directly or through contract or interagency agreement which 
     assesses the relative efficacy of two approaches to 
     abstinence education for adolescents. The study design should 
     enable a comparison of the efficacy of an abstinence program 
     which precludes education about contraception with a similar 
     abstinence program which includes education about 
     contraception. Key outcomes that should be measured in the 
     study include rates of sexual activity, pregnancy, birth, and 
     sexually transmitted diseases.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 5 years after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a report to 
     Congress the available findings regarding the comparative 
     analysis.
       (3) Funding.--For the purpose of carrying out this 
     subsection, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums 
     as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2004 through 
     2008.

          TITLE VI--RESTORING FAIRNESS FOR IMMIGRANT FAMILIES

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

       (a) Exception to 5-Year Ban for Qualified Aliens.--Section 
     403(c)(2) of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
     Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1613(c)(2)) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(L) Benefits under the Temporary Assistance for Needy 
     Families program described in section 402(b)(3)(A).''.
       (b) Benefits Not Subject to Reimbursement.--Section 423(d) 
     of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
     Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1138a note) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(12) Benefits under part A of title IV of the Social 
     Security Act except for cash assistance provided to a 
     sponsored alien who is subject to deeming pursuant to section 
     408(h) of the Social Security Act.''.
       (c) Treatment of Aliens.--Section 408 (42 U.S.C. 608) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Special Rules Relating to the Treatment of 213A 
     Aliens.--
       ``(1) In general.--In determining whether a 213A alien is 
     eligible for cash assistance under a State program funded 
     under this part, and in determining the amount or types of 
     such assistance to be provided to the alien, the State shall 
     apply the rules of paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (5), and (6) of 
     subsection (f) of this section by substituting `213A' for 
     `non-213A' each place it appears, subject to section 421(e) 
     of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
     Reconcilation Act of 1996, and subject to section 421(f) of 
     such Act (which shall be applied by substituting `section 
     408(h) of the Social Security Act' for `subsection (a)').
       ``(2) 213A alien defined.--An alien is a 213A alien for 
     purposes of this subsection if the affidavit of support or 
     similar agreement with respect to the alien that was executed 
     by the sponsor of the alien's entry into the United States 
     was executed pursuant to section 213A of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act.''.
       (d) Effective Date and Applicability.--
       (1) Effective date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect October 1, 2003.
       (2) Applicability.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to benefits provided on or after the effective 
     date of this section.

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

       (a) Medicaid Program.--Section 1903(v) (42 U.S.C. 1396b(v)) 
     is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and 
     inserting ``paragraphs (2) and (4)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4)(A) A State may elect (in a plan amendment under this 
     title) to provide medical assistance under this title, 
     notwithstanding sections 401(a), 402(b), 403, and 421 of the 
     Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation 
     Act of 1996, for aliens who are lawfully residing in the 
     United States (including battered aliens described in section 
     431(c) of such Act) and who are otherwise eligible for such 
     assistance, within either or both of the following 
     eligibility categories:
       ``(i) Pregnant women.--Women during pregnancy (and during 
     the 60-day period beginning on the last day of the 
     pregnancy).
       ``(ii) Children.--Children (as defined under such plan), 
     including optional targeted low-income children described in 
     section 1905(u)(2)(B).
       ``(B) In the case of a State that has elected to provide 
     medical assistance to a category of aliens under subparagraph 
     (A), no debt shall accrue under an affidavit of support 
     against any sponsor of such an alien on the basis of 
     provision of assistance to such category and the cost of such 
     assistance shall not be considered as an unreimbursed 
     cost.''.
       (b) SCHIP.--Section 2107(e)(1) (42 U.S.C. 1397gg(e)(1)) as 
     amended by section 803 of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP 
     Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000, as enacted 
     into law by section 1(a)(6) of Public Law 106-554, is amended 
     by redesignating subparagraphs (C) and (D) as subparagraph 
     (D) and (E), respectively, and by inserting after 
     subparagraph (B) the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) Section 1903(v)(4) (relating to optional coverage of 
     categories of permanent resident alien children), but only if 
     the State has elected to apply such section to the category 
     of children under title XIX.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     take effect on October 1, 2003, and apply to medical 
     assistance and child health assistance furnished on or after 
     such date.

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

       (a) In General.--Section 402(a)(2) of the Personal 
     Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 
     1996 (8 U.S.C.

[[Page 3782]]

     1612(a)(2)) is amended by inserting after subparagraph (K) 
     the following new subparagraph:
       ``(L) SSI exception for disabled children.--With respect to 
     eligibility for benefits for the specified Federal program 
     described in paragraph (3)(A), paragraph (1) shall not apply 
     to a child who is considered disabled for purposes of the 
     supplemental security income program under title XVI of the 
     Social Security Act.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2003, and apply to benefits 
     furnished on or after such date.

                TITLE VII--ENSURING STATE ACCOUNTABILITY

     SEC. 701. EXTENSION OF MAINTENANCE-OF-EFFORT REQUIREMENT.

       Section 409(a)(7) (42 U.S.C. 609(a)(7)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``fiscal year 1998, 
     1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, or 2003'' and inserting ``fiscal year 
     2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, or 2009''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B)(ii)--
       (A) by inserting ``preceding'' before ``fiscal year''; and
       (B) by striking ``for fiscal years 1997 through 2002,''.

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

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

  TITLE VIII--IMPROVING INFORMATION ABOUT TANF RECIPIENTS AND PROGRAMS

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

       Section 413(h)(1) (42 U.S.C. 613(h)(1)) is amended by 
     striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2008''.

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

       Section 413 (42 U.S.C. 613) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (h)(1)--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (C);
       (B) by striking the period and inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) the cost of conducting the studies described in 
     subsection (k).''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(k) Longitudinal Studies of Employment and Earnings of 
     TANF Leavers.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, directly or through 
     grants, contracts, or interagency agreements shall conduct a 
     study in each eligible State of a statistically relevant 
     cohort of individuals who leave the State program funded 
     under this part during fiscal year 2004 and individuals who 
     leave the program during fiscal year 2006, which uses State 
     unemployment insurance data to track the employment and 
     earnings status of the individuals during the 3-year period 
     beginning at the time the individuals leave the program.
       ``(2) Reports.--The Secretary shall annually publish the 
     findings of the studies conducted pursuant to paragraph (1) 
     of this subsection, and shall annually publish the earnings 
     data used in making determinations under section 407(b).''.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 806. STANDARDIZED STATE PLANS.

       Within 6 months after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, after 
     consulting with the States, shall establish a standardized 
     format which States shall use to submit plans under section 
     402(a) of the Social Security Act for fiscal year 2005 and 
     thereafter.

     SEC. 807. STUDY BY THE CENSUS BUREAU.

       (a) In General.--Section 414(a) (42 U.S.C. 614(a)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) In General.--The Bureau of the Census shall implement 
     a new longitudinal survey of program dynamics, developed in 
     consultation with the Secretary and made available to 
     interested parties, to allow for the assessment of the 
     outcomes of continued welfare reform on the economic and 
     child well-being of low-income families with children, 
     including those who received assistance or services from a 
     State program funded under this part, and, to the extent 
     possible, shall provide State representative samples.''.
       (b) Appropriation.--Section 414(b) (42 U.S.C. 614(b)) is 
     amended by striking ``1996,'' and all that follows through 
     ``2002'' and inserting ``2004 through 2008''.

     SEC. 808. ACCESS TO WELFARE; WELFARE OUTCOMES.

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

[[Page 3783]]



                        TITLE IX--EFFECTIVE DATE

     SEC. 901. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in sections 208 and 
     502(f) and in subsection (b) of this section, the amendments 
     made by this Act shall take effect on October 1, 2003, and 
     shall apply to payments under parts A and D of title IV of 
     the Social Security Act for calendar quarters beginning on or 
     after such date, without regard to whether regulations to 
     implement the amendments are promulgated by such date.
       (b) Delay Permitted if State Legislation Required.--In the 
     case of a State plan under section 402(a) or 454 of the 
     Social Security Act which the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services determines requires State legislation (other than 
     legislation appropriating funds) in order for the plan to 
     meet the additional requirements imposed by the amendments 
     made by this Act, the State plan shall not be regarded as 
     failing to comply with the requirements of such section 
     402(a) or 454 solely on the basis of the failure of the plan 
     to meet such additional requirements before the 1st day of 
     the 1st calendar quarter beginning after the close of the 1st 
     regular session of the State legislature that begins after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act. For purposes of the 
     previous sentence, in the case of a State that has a 2-year 
     legislative session, each year of such session shall be 
     deemed to be a separate regular session of the State 
     legislature.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 69, the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and a Member opposed each will 
control 20 minutes.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the substitute and 
I yield 10 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) for 
purposes of control.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentlewoman from 
Washington (Ms. Dunn) will control 10 minutes, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Herger) 10 minutes, and the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Cardin) 20 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) for joining me in offering 
this substitute. I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller), and many other members of the 
Democratic Caucus who helped us in bringing forward this substitute.
  As I said during general debate, the underlying bill before us is the 
wrong bill at the wrong time in order to help people that are currently 
in the welfare system. It is time to take welfare to the next step. 
Yes, we have been successful in removing individuals from the cash 
assistance rolls, but we have not been as successful as getting 
American families and children out of poverty. It is time to take 
welfare reform to the next step and to help American families escape 
not only cash assistance in welfare but poverty. There are significant 
differences between the underlying bill and the substitute. The 
substitute maintains State flexibility. It allows the States to provide 
education and training for the people that are on welfare.
  Mr. Chairman, we have made a commitment in this Congress to 
education, leave no child behind. We say it is important for everyone 
except for someone who is on welfare. That is wrong. Our bill maintains 
and expands the flexibility to the State in education and training. 
Under the majority bill, if a State has a person working 20 hours a 
week in a traditional job and receiving 20 hours of job training, that 
person does not qualify for TANF assistance. That is wrong. The States 
should have the flexibility to tailor the program. Our bill, our 
substitute, allows that to continue. If a State chooses to cover legal 
immigrants, the State should have that option. There should be State 
flexibility. The underlying bill does not permit it; the substitute 
permits it.
  The underlying bill provides for an unfunded mandate on our States, 
according to the Congressional Budget Office, $11 billion of extra 
expenditure by our States, and we only provide $1 billion of extra 
assistance. Under the bill before us, we provide $11 billion of 
additional child support to our States so they have the dollars 
necessary in order to carry out this very important program.
  Mr. Chairman, a lot has changed since last year. Our States are 
struggling with large deficits. We should act as a partner with our 
States. We should not dictate to our States how they must configure 
their work requirements. We should trust the States as we did in 1996, 
allow them to provide the programs necessary to get people off of 
welfare, to get people in employment.

                              {time}  1445

  Our bill provides for a meaningful work requirement for real jobs so 
that American families can succeed in our economic system.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues, who have been bragging about the 
success of the 1996 law, to build upon it. Do not destroy it. Listen to 
what our governors are saying when they tell you, without this 
substitute, we are moving backwards with unfunded mandates on the 
States. We have a chance to correct it.
  I urge Members to support the substitute.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, when you pass major reform of a part of government as 
huge, as magnificent as welfare, you need to make sure that nobody 
falls through the cracks. That is the reason we are looking at this 
bill once again, 6 years after our accomplishment of welfare reform. It 
gives us a chance to review all the areas of the legislation and to 
make mid-course corrections where we need to.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Cardin substitute and in 
strong support of H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility, Work and Family 
Promotion Act. This is critical legislation which builds on the great 
successes of the 1996 law to move people out of poverty into self-
sufficiency. I want to thank my colleagues who worked very hard to 
bring this very important legislation to the floor once again today.
  In 1996, we made historic changes to the welfare program. We 
transformed the welfare system from a permanent entitlement program 
that tolerated an average of 13 years on government dependence to a 
temporary assistance program that provided people the incentives to 
start working again, provided them the opportunities to gain the 
necessary skills to retain a job and provided them the great feeling of 
worth that comes from becoming self-sufficient.
  We have an opportunity today to build upon our successes while 
improving this program to further assist individuals and families move 
out of poverty.
  A terribly important element of encouraging welfare recipients to 
work is providing access to child care services. As a single parent who 
raised two children, I understand that quality child care is not an 
option, but a necessity, especially for many working mothers. Nothing 
is more important than the well-being of our children.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very happy that this legislation gives working 
women greater access to child care services. As more parents, 
especially single mothers, enter the workforce, we must ensure they can 
access child care services to fit their needs.
  For these reasons, our bill provides an additional $2 billion for 
child care, despite the fact that the welfare rolls have declined by 60 
percent and despite the fact that the welfare reform bill has more than 
tripled spending on child care over the last 6 years, because we need 
to help in the area of infant care, of evening and weekend care and 
care for disabled children.
  Our bill also gives States much greater flexibility to transfer more 
TANF funds toward child care services. This means an additional $3 
billion over our additional $2 billion will be available for child 
care. The additional funding, along with the new flexibility options, 
will help States to offer more child care services for parents and for 
single mothers on the path toward a better future.

[[Page 3784]]


  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka), a distinguished member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, our Nation's economy has hit an 
extraordinary low. Since January 2001, 1.7 million jobs have been lost 
and unemployment stands at the highest rate in 8 years. Estimates show 
that 8.6 million Americans are actively searching for work, but unable 
to find it.
  In my State of Wisconsin, we are experiencing a 5.4 percent 
unemployment rate. Over 42,000 people from the area I represent are out 
of work. In times like this, our Nation's social safety net must be 
extended, not retracted. Welfare rolls may have dropped, but poverty 
and hardship have not.
  The success in the welfare reform bill that my Republican colleagues 
point to is an illusion. Our economic landscape is much different than 
it was during the welfare debate of the late 1990s. Then jobs were 
plentiful; today, they are not.
  Now welfare reform will be put to the test. Instead of providing poor 
individuals with appropriate skills, training and education, the 
Republican welfare reform bill goes in a complete opposite direction.
  H.R. 4 significantly reduces the ability of States to get individuals 
into innovative training and education programs. Under the bill, 
welfare recipients must work 40 hours per week. The first 24 must 
involve so-called direct work activities. Vocational training would be 
removed from the list of core activities counting for the 24-hour 
requirement. This eliminates the capability for individuals to spend 
the necessary time developing skills through education. Instead, they 
are forced to find jobs, if they are available, such as in fast food 
restaurants, dry cleaners and custodial work. This type of work offers 
no chance for advancement, no benefits and no decent wage to support a 
family.
  Evidence shows that an overwhelming obstacle to work for parents is 
lack of affordable child care. The Republican welfare bill grossly 
underestimates funds for needed child care services. If a parent must 
expand the work hours, as is mandated under this legislation, the least 
we can do is give them access to child care.
  In comparison, the Democratic substitute addresses the reality 
welfare families face in time of a recession. Our bill would allow 
welfare recipients to get vocational and education training as part of 
their work requirement. This includes obtaining a GED or taking English 
as a second language in classes. The Democratic substitute also commits 
an additional $11 billion for child care over the next 5 years. 
Providing child care is the only way that parents will be able to get 
work.
  Mr. Chairman, what we need today is a meaningful reform bill that 
will create the incentive to work and not the approach advocated by my 
Republican colleagues.
  I urge Members to support the Cardin substitute.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), who, even though a junior Member, has been 
very active in our work to provide additional child care money.
  Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4, and bring to everyone's 
attention the importance of what we are doing: We are reauthorizing 
something that has worked, a government program that works.
  Welfare reform has raised over 3 million children out of poverty. 
Those that claim that is not true cannot support their claim with 
evidence. We know what has happened in the years that welfare reform 
has existed. We know that many people are now working, mothers, 
fathers, supporting their children and moving up out of poverty.
  We have listened to the States, we have listened to those who have 
received welfare benefits in the past, those who are moving off the 
rolls; and they tell us some things need to change. Those things are 
adjusted in H.R. 4. One of the most important is that there is more 
opportunity for men and women who are single parents to get child care 
for their children while they work, while they go to school, while they 
reach higher and attain the points they want to: the American dream, a 
better job, a home, a better example for their children.
  Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 4 because it supports the American 
dream.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to yield 3\1/2\ to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), one of the coauthors of the 
substitute.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to commend my 
colleagues, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) as well as the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), for working to put together 
what I think is an admirable and quality substitute measure.
  For whatever reason, the majority party here today has a bill before 
us deciding to bypass the democratic process here in the House, 
bypassing the committee work, not giving an opportunity to 54 new 
Members of the House of Representatives to deal with one of the most 
important pieces of legislation in the 108th Congress. This bad process 
has resulted in bad policy.
  Let me put this in context: The legislation before us today is the 
single most important piece of legislation dealing with antipoverty 
programs that this session of Congress will address and that Congress 
has the opportunity to address for many years to come. But instead of 
working together to produce a meaningful bill that can empower people 
with real work opportunities and with empowering tools such as 
education and job training, they produced a bill which, I am afraid, is 
doomed to failure.
  The key to implementation of this bill is getting the States to do it 
well. We did a survey of the States, and they came back and said they 
need basically two ingredients: Give us the flexibility, give us the 
tools, and we will finish the job. But instead of receiving the 
flexibility, they get a straitjacket. Instead of receiving the tools, 
they get a $12 billion unfunded mandate in H.R. 4, making it impossible 
for them to deal with changed economic circumstances, as well as the 
flexibility to empower people to become true, meaningful participants 
in our society.
  Instead of rewarding States to get meaningful employment for 
recipients on TANF, they are still going to receive credit for merely 
reducing their caseload. That has worked over the last few years, but 
many of those no longer on the caseload, we have lost. We have no idea 
where they went or how well they're doing.
  If anyone thinks this has a chance of succeeding by underfunding the 
required child care program, they do not understand that the parent or 
parents are not going to enter the workforce unless they know their 
children are taken care of.
  This is an experiment being offered today, Mr. Chairman, but I am 
afraid it is doomed to failure. I do not know how a Member of the 
Wisconsin delegation, which was a pioneer in welfare reform, can 
support this bill that limits the flexibility of our State and State 
agencies, and then also provides a $89 million unfunded mandate to our 
State when we have serious budget difficulties already.
  Furthermore, the Republican bill strips vocational education as 
wanting--the work requirements; our substitute allows it because it is 
the backbone to economic development programs throughout Wisconsin and 
the rest of the Nation. We can't have meaningful welfare reform without 
vocational education playing an important role.
  We have an opportunity to still get this right, to deal with the 
flexibility issue, to deal with the funding issue, to allow recipients 
in TANF to get the type of skills and work qualifications that they 
need to gain meaningful employment and to stay off the welfare rolls 
forever. But, instead, we are falling back on an outdated program that 
may have worked during the boom of the 1990s in reducing caseloads, but 
I am afraid it is doomed to failure with the bad economic performance 
today.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from West

[[Page 3785]]

Virginia (Mrs. Capito), who has been very effective in securing $2 
billion additional for child care.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I stand before you today to offer and lend 
my support to H.R. 4, and most specifically because of the essential $2 
billion in additional funds for child care.
  As a representative of an economically distressed State, thousands of 
women and men in my district are reliant upon government-assisted child 
care so they can be on their road to self-sufficiency. Over 25 percent 
of the children in the State of West Virginia are reliant on 
government-supported child care. This increase in funding will ensure 
that these families will benefit, grow and prosper and go on to new and 
better lives.
  People are in genuine need of quality, safe and affordable child care 
for their children. H.R. 4 will not only continue to guarantee this, 
but will also, with the increased $2 billion in child care, open the 
program up to more and larger families.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to stand up and support the 
increased funding for child care. It is desperately needed by parents 
and children alike.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey), who has been one of the key architects of the 
Democratic substitute.
  I really congratulate her for her work on this.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time 
and for his good work.
  The Cardin-Woolsey-Kind substitute makes poverty reduction a core 
purpose of welfare reform. It offers bonuses to States that reduce 
child poverty.
  The Democratic substitute gives low-income parents access to real 
education, such as an AA degree, vocational training, literacy classes, 
English as a second language or GED studies. Our substitute gives 
families the support and services they need while they are working and 
learning, like an additional $11 billion in mandatory funding for child 
care over 5 years.

                              {time}  1500

  We know that States are struggling right now to meet the demand for 
child care. Twenty States currently have waiting lists for child care; 
and in my State of California, only 19 percent of the children and 
families on welfare received any type of child care assistance. This is 
before the Republican challenge to send welfare moms to work for 40 
hours a week. There is no way that their small increase in H.R. 4 for 
child care funding will be able to meet this expanded need.
  Nobody knows more than I do how important child care is when you are 
struggling and working. I was a mother on welfare 35 years ago. I had 
college education, I had great job skills, I was in the workforce, and 
I needed AFDC in order to get the health care, the child care, and the 
food stamps that I needed. But it was not until my mother moved from 
Seattle, Washington, to California that I was able to grow in my job 
and, within 6 months, I was promoted to management because I could 
think about my job while I was at work and I did not have to worry 
about my children.
  So my story is a good story, and let that be something my colleagues 
hold in their minds. My colleagues have never been there. I have.
  Welfare moms can only succeed if they get the education and the 
skills they need for a job that will support their family through good 
economies and bad economies. The Woolsey-Kind-Cardin substitute will 
break the cycle of poverty, and it will strengthen families. It is 
welfare reform that meets the needs of this current economy, an economy 
where jobs are scarce, where child care is scarce, and where an 
education counts greater than ever before. Vote for our substitute and 
against H.R. 4.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, what the gentlewoman from California may not 
know is that if she opposes H.R. 4, she will be voting against $477 
million additional dollars for child care in the State of California.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico 
(Mrs. Wilson), very much an advocate of child care from her background 
and experience.
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from 
Washington for yielding me this time. To my colleague from California I 
would say that what we have in common on both sides of the aisle today 
is that we are all moms. We all worry about child care for our kids, 
whether it is the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), who raised 
her two boys on her own, or the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. 
Capito) and her daughter and son, or my two little bugs at home. We all 
care about the quality of child care where our kids are concerned.
  I used to operate the child care system in New Mexico as the cabinet 
Secretary for Children, and one of the things that was clear to me 
under welfare reform is that we needed adequate support for child care, 
for women to be able to go back to work. That means increasing the 
payment rates for child care. It means having child care available at 
odd hours and on weekends so people can do shift work. We needed to 
increase funds. And we have, by $2 billion, in this bill, while the 
number of families depending on welfare and on child care is going 
down. That is a good thing.
  Poverty has gone down in America because moms have been able to get 
jobs and go back to work. Now we have to focus on improving the quality 
of that child care, because what we are talking about is early 
education for the youngest American citizens, and a lot of it takes 
place outside of Head Start, which is the Cadillac of early childhood 
education in this country.
  So I support this bill and I oppose the substitute, and I want to 
commend the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), the gentlewoman 
from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Mrs. Johnson), and the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) for 
their work over the last 2 years to focus on this problem of child care 
and really get something done about it.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), one of the architects of the 
provisions in this bill, particularly as it relates to real work 
requirements.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, the American dream is not to live in 
poverty; the American dream is working, and working out of poverty. 
There is a basic fact: huge numbers of women who have moved from 
welfare to work remain in poverty. And this bill restricts the 
flexibility of the States to tailor plans to help people move up the 
ladder, whether by education or by other means.
  The pivot of the rationale of the Republicans, that 58 percent of 
welfare recipients are not working, those figures are indeed more than 
questionable. The National Governors Association disagrees with it. And 
I urge everybody to go back to their States and look at the figures, 
the data behind those who are on welfare, how many have kids with 
disabilities, how many have other problems, so we see what the reality 
is.
  Quickly, child care. I do not know how you on the majority side stand 
up and say you are for adequate child care when it is only $2 billion; 
CBO says it is billions inadequate. If we take into account inflation, 
it is $5 billion to $6 billion inadequate. How do you say that? Mr. 
Chairman, $1 billion is so inadequate that only it is mandatory and $1 
billion is discretionary, if appropriated. It is a smoke screen.
  And then this figure of $16,000 TANF per family. That is not only 
fuzzy math, that is phony math, because it includes all the child care 
for all working families, allocated or ascribed to people who are on 
TANF. And also another thing it does, it takes all of the programs of 
TANF that are not cash assistance and forgets about that as part of the 
TANF program.
  The Cardin, et al bill is a bill to help people move to work out of 
poverty. That is where America wants to go and where this House should 
be going. Support the Cardin bill.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from

[[Page 3786]]

Florida (Ms. Brown-Waite), a new Member of the United States Congress, 
to talk about the child care provisions in H.R. 4.
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of 
H.R. 4 and against the substitute.
  When I was a Florida senator, we passed welfare reform before the 
Federal Government did. We certainly adopted the Federal Government's 
further welfare reform; and what we found was families became families, 
not welfare families; that women finally had some self-confidence, and 
self-confidence enough not only to get a job, but to take advantage of 
their employers' education programs, and they took advantage of their 
employers' education programs. I happen to know firsthand because I 
teach college, and many of the young women that I had in college, young 
and middle-aged women that I had in college had been previous welfare 
recipients. They were grateful. They were very grateful that we had a 
situation in America where they could break that cycle. Because guess 
what? Their mother and their grandmother also in many instances were on 
welfare.
  The bill that we have before us allocates more funding for child care 
and health care for welfare families ensuring that welfare families are 
cared for, and that those on welfare have access to health care while 
trying to secure work. We all know that for many years people stayed on 
welfare, particularly single women, stayed on welfare because of the 
health care benefits. We are extending them.
  I think it is very important to remember that the House and Senate 
committees with jurisdiction on this issue held more than 20 hearings 
reviewing this legislation during the 107th Congress and heard 
testimony from more than 60 witnesses. It has been adequately reviewed, 
and it enjoys the support of so many Members of this body but, more 
importantly, people back home, including those people who had 
previously been welfare recipients.
  I would ask my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 4 to bring 
the real kind of assistance to people on welfare that they actually 
need. The substitute would only set welfare reform back.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat confused. I have listened to the debate 
from the other side and I think they are supporting my substitute, but 
then at the end they say they are not. They all say they are for child 
care support, and yet we know in California alone this bill will cost 
$2.8 billion, more than all of the money that has been provided in this 
bill, which is only $1 billion of mandatory funding. So if you are for 
child care support for the welfare recipients, I assume my colleagues 
will be supporting the substitute. It is the only opportunity we are 
going to have to provide the additional monies.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to reiterate some things that we have heard talked about when 
we refer to child care. This year, an additional $2 billion will be 
provided for child care over and above what has been spent in the last 
6 years in the welfare reform bill. The fact is that the dollars spent 
for child care over that period of time have tripled.
  In addition, we want to help the States with their flexibility. If 
they wish, they can shift up to 50 percent of their TANF funds, $5.5 
billion of which remain in State coffers right now, to child care. Why 
do we do this, Mr. Chairman? We do it because we think that the 1996 
welfare reform bill has been tremendously successful. Caseloads are 
down by 60 percent. Nearly 3 million children have been lifted out of 
poverty. More people are now on the path to independence. Employment of 
single mothers has risen by 70 percent, but we know much more needs to 
be done to bridge the gap between a paycheck and a government handout. 
We think that if we increase the funding for child care, this will 
help. It will help a lot.
  So I maintain, Mr. Chairman, that we must defeat this other bill, and 
we need to support H.R. 4. It is our proposal. It has worked in the 
past. It will increase effectiveness in the future.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Nevada (Mr. Porter) for the sake of a colloquy.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask my distinguished colleague 
from California to engage in a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for bringing this 
important bill to the floor. I represent a State that has grown more 
than 75 percent since the 1990 census. As with many States, after the 
9-11 catastrophe, Nevada saw an increase in the need for temporary 
assistance for needy families. Without the existing supplemental TANF 
program, Nevada and other growing States would not be able to meet 
their commitments.
  I want to thank the gentleman for reauthorizing the supplemental 
grants and the contingency funds, and I would ask the chairman for his 
favorable consideration in the future for measures to prevent State 
population growth from outstripping available resources for needy 
families.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I appreciate 
the gentleman's comments. I agree it is important to continue to 
provide States with the resources and flexibility necessary for them to 
address the needs of the residents. The 1996 welfare reform law 
included specific provisions designed to address the concerns for 
growing States such as Nevada. Those provisions are retained and 
extended in this bill. As we move forward, we will continue to take 
every step to see that this legislation includes adequate resources for 
the States to serve low-income families and children, including in 
States with growing populations.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of our Democratic 
alternative. Unfortunately, the bill that has been offered by the other 
side of the aisle is a bill that is not really designed to get rid of 
poverty, and that is what we are trying to do. Our bill would move 
welfare recipients into real jobs and out of poverty; but more than 
that, we would allow for State flexibility to tailor services to help 
welfare recipients move into employment.
  I am very concerned about having State flexibility because we are in 
a time of high unemployment and it does not seem to be getting any 
better. Those people who have been on for 5 years and they have to come 
off, we are dumping them out into an economy where we do not have jobs 
for them; but if the States have the flexibility to tailor the programs 
based on meeting the needs of the recipients, then I think it is fair. 
It is fair that not only do we have that flexibility, but we continue 
to have child care, child care support, and we continue to have 
fairness for our immigrant families.

                              {time}  1515

  Unfortunately, the Republican bill does not do that. I would ask for 
an aye on the Democratic alternative.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach) for the sake of a colloquy.
  Mr. GERLACH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time 
and I rise to engage in a colloquy. Would the gentleman so engage?
  Mr. HERGER. If the gentleman would yield, yes.
  Mr. GERLACH. In 1996, I was the lead sponsor of legislation that 
overhauled Pennsylvania's welfare system. When this legislation was 
implemented, I worked with the Chester County Chamber of Business and 
Industry in my district to initiate what later became the Jobs and 
Advancement Through Mentoring program. This program provides welfare 
recipients who are entering the workforce with volunteer mentors 
recruited from the local business community. The intent of the program 
is to make sure that welfare recipients do not just start working, but 
that they have a volunteer partner in the community helping them over 
the rough spots during that first year of employment in helping to 
ensure lifetime self-sufficiency and productivity.

[[Page 3787]]

  While I realize that the bill we are debating today expresses the 
sense of Congress that States should encourage mentoring programs, I 
believe we should do more. That is why I have drafted an amendment to 
require States to identify approaches to establishing voluntary 
community-based mentoring programs like the one I just described.
  Let me emphasize that States would only be required to formally 
consider mentoring programs. They would not be mandated to actually 
create them.
  Mr. Chairman, I would be very appreciative if you would give every 
consideration to including this amendment in any conference agreement 
that may be forthcoming.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for his interest and 
activity on the mentoring issue. The programs you have described are 
important to helping welfare recipients to succeed in the workforce.
  The gentleman's proposal will be considered, and I look forward to 
working with him to support these types of mentoring programs so that 
we can help even more recipients achieve independence through work.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Cardin 
substitute.
  At a time of great need with our economy stagnant and unemployment 
high, the underlying bill is so misguided. It eliminates education as 
an activity that counts towards necessary work requirements. It 
abandons the 15 million children eligible for child care assistance who 
will not be covered because of woefully inadequate funding.
  In my home State of Connecticut alone, 4,000 families have been 
waiting in line for child care assistance since August 2002. It leaves 
our States in the midst of the worst fiscal crises since World War II 
with a massive unfunded mandate by shifting the burden of welfare to 
the States without providing them with the estimated $11 billion 
necessary to meet those needs.
  The Cardin substitute has a strong work requirement. It give States 
the flexibility to increase access to education and training. It 
increases mandatory funding for child care by $11 billion over the next 
5 years.
  Mr. Chairman, the underlying bill does not encourage personal 
responsibility or promote families. If anything, it discourages hard-
working families by offering them too little or no hope that their 
cycle of dependency can ever be broken.
  I urge my colleagues to turn aside this misguided, inadequate bill 
and support the Cardin substitute.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), a key person on the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from California for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the substitute offered by my 
friend from Maryland (Mr. Cardin). It may be well intentioned, but it 
fails to embrace a couple of realities and perhaps this is the 
fundamental difference among friends.
  Mr. Chairman, success in welfare reform means reducing the number of 
people who seek welfare, people who actually go to work. There is news 
to celebrate according to our own Department of Labor, Mr. Chairman. 
The job market in the United States, despite the challenges we face 
now, which we all admit we have, from July of 1996 when we first passed 
this to last month, January of 2003, according to our own Department of 
Labor, the workforce has added 11 million jobs.
  Unemployment is a real concern. We all understand that. But actually, 
unemployment was reduced from when we passed this measure in the last 
Congress, in April of 2002.
  Now, understand the welfare rolls are reducing. We have held constant 
the dollars that are going to the States. It is a net increase. No one 
doubts that there are fiscal challenges facing the States. But, Mr. 
Chairman, the fact is, the States as laboratories of democracy must 
fashion their own solutions, not flexibilities in the form of pseudo-
mandates from the Hill, but reasonable, rational solutions based on the 
work that is fundamental and inherent in this act, that rewards work, 
that provides funding for child care, that instead of cursing the 
darkness, lights a candle of opportunity for so many families.
  That is what makes this reform historic. That is why we should reject 
the Cardin substitute and support H.R. 4.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sandlin), a valuable member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, the House needs to pass a reauthorization of the 
welfare reform bill. Welfare reform was designed to help people by 
getting them a job, not handing them a check.
  CBO estimates that implementing the work requirements of the 
Republican bill will cost States $11 billion. It makes absolutely no 
sense to impose an unfunded mandate on our States. This mandate will 
cost my State of Texas $688 million at a time when we are facing a 
budget deficit of $10 billion in the State. That is irresponsible and 
that is simply a tax increase on our citizens.
  On a more personal level, American families want jobs and the quality 
education and training to get good jobs. The Republican bill eliminates 
vocational educational training as a work-related activity and 
increases work participation hours for mothers with children under 6 
years from 20 hours to 40 hours. It is irresponsible.
  Let us do the right thing. Let us forge a working partnership with 
America's families as envisioned by the Cardin amendment. We need to be 
an asset, not a stumbling block to helping our citizens obtain the jobs 
and the dignity they deserve.
  Let us support State governments. Reject the Republican bill and 
support Cardin-Kind-Woolsey.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind my good friend from Texas that 
in H.R. 4, his State of Texas will receive an additional $370 million 
for child care over the next 5 years.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today reminded of the tribute that we 
have paid to a former President named Ronald Reagan just a few days ago 
on what was his 92nd birthday. I think of what Ronald Reagan spoke 
about as a vision for welfare in America. He said, ``It is not simply 
to provide for the needy, but more than that, to salvage these, our 
fellow citizens, to make them self-sustaining and, as quickly as 
possible, independent of welfare.''
  President Reagan would say on many occasions that we measure the 
success of welfare not by how many people arrive on it, but how many 
people leave it. And as we look at welfare reform this day, it is 
undeniable that the welfare reform of 1996, that we continue and expand 
through this legislation, is an unqualified success.
  As this diagram demonstrates, Mr. Chairman, welfare caseloads in the 
millions: 1994, 14 million Americans on welfare; 2001, 5 million 
Americans. But that does not tell the story. We can look at the cold 
and hard statistics: 3.6 million fewer Americans living in poverty 
today than 1996, 2.7 million fewer children, a million fewer African 
American children in poverty today since welfare reform.
  But as the father of three small children, Mr. Chairman, this is the 
most compelling statistic to me: Tanya was a single mother, went on 
public assistance when her twin girls were just a year old. But since 
completing her program with CalWORKS last year, Tanya has not only 
escaped welfare, but she has been able to earn enough money to buy her 
own home for those little girls. Welfare reform has worked, Mr. 
Chairman, and I oppose the substitute and

[[Page 3788]]

will stand with the underlying bill in keeping that Reagan vision 
alive.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) 
has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) 
has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to go over some of the facts because there 
is so much rhetoric we are hearing from those who oppose this bill. But 
these are what the facts say: Since 1996, work among welfare recipients 
has tripled; employment of single mothers is now more than 70 percent, 
an all-time high; since 1994, welfare caseloads have fallen by 60 
percent, leaving less than 2 percent of the U.S. population on welfare.
  That is a positive story. The cycle of poverty is broken. There are 
3.6 million fewer Americans living in poverty today than did in 1996.
  Had we listened to those who were so against welfare reform, 2.7 
million fewer children live in poverty today than in 1996, including 1 
million African American children. This is from the U.S. Census Bureau. 
This is not from the Republican Party. This is fact.
  Child care, we hear how it is bad for children. The child care has 
gone from 3 billion to 9.7 billion in child care assistance. Again, 
very positive things, a significant change since the bill.
  These are great reasons to vote for this legislation, and I urge my 
colleagues to do so.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California has the right 
to close.
  Does the gentleman from Maryland wish to proceed?
  Mr. CARDIN. Am I correct that the gentleman from California has no 
further requests for time other than closing?
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, that is correct.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, 41 of our 46 States responded to a survey saying that 
if the Republican bill is enacted, they will have to fundamentally 
change their programs. The programs we have all been bragging about 
will be no longer. They will need to change them radically and create 
what is known as makeshift work-fare-type jobs that lead nowhere.
  We just got a letter today from many of our governors saying, please 
do not take a significant step backwards in reforming welfare. This is 
not the time to replace State flexibilities with unfunded mandates.
  If you are going to give the dollar amounts of the extra monies the 
States receive under your bill, why do you not tell the whole story, 
the extra cost? Every State will end up in the negative under the 
Republican bill.
  If you believe the 1996 bill was a success, why are you going back 
and destroying what we did in 1996 on flexibility to the States? If you 
believe that child care is important and we need to help our States, 
why are you not supporting the substitute that provides $11 billion of 
extra money for child support?
  If you believe the arguments that have been made on both sides of the 
aisle, you will support the substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for my colleague on the Committee 
on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin). I 
appreciate his hard work on this issue. I do, however, have a 
difference of opinion with him regarding the amendment we are 
considering, and I oppose it for several reasons.
  The gentleman's amendment weakens work requirements and would lead to 
less work, more welfare and more poverty. Like the failed AFDC program 
that preceded TANF, the substitute promotes more welfare dependence. It 
places new mandates on States by requiring them to assess every 
recipient for child care needs, barriers to work and history of 
domestic violence, and by prohibiting States from applying sanctions to 
those who refuse to work.

                              {time}  1530

  The substitute, which we estimate to cost at least $20 billion over 
the next 5 years, is just too expensive and would greatly increase 
deficits.
  However, I would like to commend the gentleman for including certain 
provisions that mirror those in our H.R. 4. Those provisions include 
maintaining the basic TANF funding and block grant structure, requiring 
parents to engage in real work for 24 hours per week, raising total 
work requirements to 40 hours per week at State option, increasing 
State work rate requirements and adding reducing poverty as a TANF 
purpose.
  I urge the Members to oppose this amendment and vote in support of 
H.R. 4.
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
support the Democratic alternative to the welfare reform bill.
  Our alternative gives families the tools they need to lift themselves 
out of poverty--I'm talking about education and quality child care.
  Individuals working to leave welfare must have access to higher 
education, GED courses, and English as a Second Language programs in 
order to make a successful transition to the world of work.
  The facts are clear--women who obtain GED certification, participate 
in on-the-job training, or attend college have higher average annual 
earnings and a greater probability of employment.
  Individuals with limited English speaking skills earn 24 percent less 
than their employed counterparts who are fluent in English. Language 
barriers limit non-English speaking workers to jobs that tend to be 
low-wage and seasonal, making it difficult to attain self-sufficiency.
  It's time for us to enact a welfare law that recognizes that families 
want to work--they simply need the proper tools to succeed. I urge my 
colleagues to support the Democratic alternative.
  Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the people of Puerto 
Rican and Hispanic families, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of 
the Democratic substitute proposed today by my colleague Mr. Cardin. 
Since the 1996 changes, Puerto Rico according to the HHS report, has 
met the mandates of TANF, it has reduced its welfare rolls by 56 
percent--Puerto Rico has followed the rules.
  However, the Commonwealth's TANF families have not had access to all 
of the tools Congress established to support moving them from welfare 
to work. The Commonwealth is committed to our families' self-
sufficiency. According to the recently released HHS report, of the TANF 
cases closed 23 percent of the recipients are working--this is more 
than 11 States and it is in an economy of 11 percent unemployment as 
opposed to 5 or 6 percent.
  We want our families to move from welfare to work; but we need the 
tools to make that transition possible.
  Our commitment to families is further demonstrated by the fact that 
in 2001 the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico collected twice the amount in 
child support payments than it received from the Federal Government in 
TANF. Puerto Rico according to HHS collected more in child support than 
24 States.
  The Democratic substitute allows Puerto Rico and the territories to 
access all of the tools Congress established to help families move from 
welfare to work. Again, I urge my colleagues to vote for the democratic 
substitute to insure that no American family is left without the 
necessary tools to end the cycle of poverty.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). All time for debate has 
expired. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 197, 
noes 225, not voting 12, as follows:

[[Page 3789]]



                             [Roll No. 28]

                               AYES--197

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--225

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Allen
     Burr
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cox
     Cubin
     Ferguson
     Gephardt
     Payne
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Tiberi
     Turner (TX)


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood) (during the vote). Two minutes 
to vote. Two minutes.

                              {time}  1550

  Mrs. KELLY and Mr. GOODE changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. KUCINICH and Mr. LIPINSKI changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  Stated for:
  Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 28 (the Cardin 
substitute) I was unable to cast my vote because I was attending a 
briefing by Secretary Ridge and Secretary Thompson in the Roosevelt 
Room at the White House on Project Bioshield and unable to return 
before the vote was closed. If I had been present I would have voted 
``aye'' on rollcall No. 28.
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. There being no further amendments, under 
the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Simpson) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaHood, 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. 4) 
to reauthorize and improve the program of block grants to States for 
temporary assistance for needy families, improve access to quality 
child care, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 69, he 
reported the bill back to the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the 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. Cardin

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. CARDIN. I am in the present form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Cardin  moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 4, to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the 
     same to the House forthwith with the following amendments:
       Page 87, after line 14, insert the following:

     SEC. 202. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that additional funding for child care 
     is necessary given the additional financial burdens on the 
     States resulting from the implementation of this Act, due to 
     the worsening of economic conditions since the last 
     consideration of welfare reform legislation by the House of 
     Representatives, including--
       (1) the severe deficits of more than $80,000,000,000 
     affecting the States, the largest budget gaps in half a 
     century, that will necessitate reductions in vital services, 
     including the loss of Medicaid for nearly 1,000,000 
     Americans;
       (2) the loss of 2,300,000 jobs since March 2001, including 
     42 percent more job cuts in January 2003 than in December, 
     and an unemployment rate of nearly 6 percent representing 
     9,000,000 Americans;
       (3) the loss of unemployment benefits by 1,000,000 men and 
     women whose benefits have expired and whom Congress has 
     failed to assist;
       (4) an increase in child poverty in 2001 for the first time 
     in 8 years;
       (5) the increase of homelessness by nearly 20 percent in 
     the last year; and
       (6) substantial waiting lists for child care in at least 18 
     States, many in the tens of thousands, and actions by other 
     States to make fewer families eligible for child care 
     services.
       Page 87, line 15, strike ``202'' and insert ``203''.
       Page 88, line 14, strike ``203'' and insert ``204''.
       Page 89, line 1, strike ``204'' and insert ``205''.
       Page 93, line 3, strike ``205'' and insert ``206''.
       Page 94, line 8, strike ``206'' and insert ``207''.

[[Page 3790]]

       Page 95, line 11, strike ``207'' and insert ``208''.
       Page 95, strike line 17 and all that follows through line 2 
     on page 96 and insert the following:

     SEC. 209. INCREASE IN ENTITLEMENT FUNDING.

       (a) In General.--Section 418(a) (42 U.S.C. 618(a)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), in the matter preceding subparagraph 
     (A), by inserting ``and paragraph (6)'' after ``paragraph 
     (3)'';
       (2) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (E);
       (B) in subparagraph (F), by striking ``fiscal year 2002.'' 
     and inserting ``each of fiscal years 2002 through 2006; 
     and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(G) $3,217,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
       ``(H) $3,717,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.'';
       (3) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
       ``(4) Amounts reserved for indian tribes.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall reserve 2 percent of 
     the aggregate amount appropriated under paragraphs (3) and 
     (5) for each fiscal year for payments to Indian tribes and 
     tribal organizations for each such fiscal year for the 
     purpose of providing child care assistance.
       ``(B) Use of funds; application of child care and 
     development block grant act of 1990.--Subsections (b) and (c) 
     shall apply to amounts received under this paragraph in the 
     same manner as such subsections apply to amounts received by 
     a State under this section.'';
       (4) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (7); and
       (5) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
       ``(5) Additional general entitlement grants.--
       ``(A) Appropriation.--In addition to amounts appropriated 
     under paragraph (3) for any fiscal year, there are 
     appropriated for additional grants under paragraph (1)--
       ``(i) $1,250,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
       ``(ii) $1,750,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; and
       ``(iii) $2,250,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 
     through 2008.
       ``(B) Additional grant.--In addition to the grant paid to a 
     State under paragraph (1) for each of fiscal years 2003 
     through 2007, of the amount available for additional grants 
     under subparagraph (A) for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall 
     pay the State an amount equal to the same proportion of such 
     available amount as the proportion of the State's grant under 
     paragraph (1) bears to the amount appropriated under 
     paragraph (3) for the fiscal year.
       ``(6) Requirement for grant increase.--Notwithstanding 
     paragraphs (1), (2), and (5), the aggregate of the amounts 
     paid to a State under this section for each of fiscal years 
     2003 through 2008 may not exceed the aggregate of the amounts 
     paid to the State under this section for fiscal year 2002, 
     unless the State ensures that the level of State expenditures 
     for child care for the fiscal year is not less than the level 
     of State expenditures for child care that were matched under 
     a grant made to the State under paragraph (2); and that the 
     State expended to meet its maintenance of effort obligation 
     under paragraph (2) for fiscal year 2002.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1108(a)(2) (42 U.S.C. 
     1308(a)(2)) is amended by striking ``or 413(f)'' and 
     inserting ``413(f), or 418(a)(4)(B)''.
       In the table of contents, strike the item relating to 
     section 208 and insert the following:
Sec. 209. Increase in entitlement funding.
       In the table of contents, redesignate the items relating to 
     sections 202 through 207 as items relating to sections 203 
     through 208, respectively.
       In the table of contents, insert after the item relating to 
     section 201 the following:
Sec. 202. Findings.


  Mr. CARDIN (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 Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his 
motion.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, the motion is very straightforward. It 
increases child care by $11 billion, which is the cost, the extra cost, 
to the States.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Bell), a new member of the House.
  Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, we have all heard from the Republican side of the aisle 
the phrase ``compassionate conservative,'' and while our Republican 
colleagues may have the conservative part down, there is absolutely 
nothing compassionate about gutting one of the most successful 
government reform programs in recent history.
  Let us look at the facts. The bipartisan welfare reforms of 1996 have 
cut the welfare rolls by more than 50 percent. We have succeeded in 
breaking the welfare web, the so-called welfare web. But that 
apparently is not enough for our Republican colleagues.
  If we look at H.R. 4, there is absolutely nothing that is fiscally 
responsible about H.R. 4. It would place a huge unfunded mandate upon 
States all across this country when they can least afford it, including 
my State of Texas, which is staring at a $10 billion shortfall and has 
no way of getting out of it at the present time. And that is happening 
all across this country, yet now we are going to put this unfunded 
mandate on them.
  This bill increases the number of work hours for mothers with young 
children from 20 to 40 hours, while at the same time it decreases the 
amount of child care money which will be provided for these mothers.
  Now, let us think about that. If the idea is to move people off of 
the welfare rolls, why would we set them up to fail from the very 
beginning? It makes no sense, and in no way, shape or form is it 
compassionate.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the motion to recommit.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, the majority will say that they have a 
letter from the Congressional Budget Office saying that this is not an 
unfunded mandate, but what the majority will not mention is that they 
have a letter from the Congressional Budget Office that says that this 
bill will significantly change the way the States have to spend their 
money on TANF; that it will cost them an additional $11 billion in 
order to comply with the mandates that are included in this bill.
  Now, my definition of an unfunded mandate is telling the States they 
have to do something and not giving them the extra money to do it with. 
That is exactly what the bill does. It mandates the States to develop 
workfare programs, it requires the States to spend more money on child 
care in order to deal with the new work requirements, and the States do 
not have the money and resources to do it.
  Mr. Speaker, I have heard my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
say they are for child care, that children should not be penalized, 
that we have to have safe and affordable child care. Our States are 
telling us they need the money. This motion does one thing and one 
thing only: It increases the amount of child care by $11 billion to 
equal what our Congressional Budget Office is telling us is the 
increased burden on the States. That is all it does.
  I would urge my colleagues to listen to our governors. Listen to what 
we have said in the past about unfunded mandates. Listen to what we 
have said about protecting our children and support the motion to 
recommit.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. 
Johnson) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to 
vote down this motion to recommit and pass the bill.
  We are adding $2 billion in money for child care for the States. But 
beyond that, remember that we are giving the States exactly the amount 
of money we gave them 5 years ago, but the welfare rolls are half that 
amount. So the States have all that additional money that they can 
devote to child care or meeting the other needs of people working to 
get off welfare and into the job market.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. Speaker, there is money there both in welfare, lots of money, 
more than there has ever been in the history of our country. 
Furthermore, we have added $2 billion in the child care block grant. We 
have made sure it has grown every year.
  There is $170 billion available over the next 5 years from the State 
and Federal governments for TANF. We have a balanced, sound, strong 
bill that will support women and their families as they make the 
transition from welfare to work, and I urge rejection of

[[Page 3791]]

the motion to recommit and passage of this landmark legislation.
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to recommit. 
I am especially supportive of provisions that would encourage funding 
of the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery (UPARR) program. This program 
has helped communities across the United States rebuild and repair 
blighted areas in an attempt to create open and green space 
opportunities for working families.
  In my community, children are often forced to play in abandoned lots 
or next to superhighways. They literally share their playgrounds with 
drug dealers on grounds that are unsafe.
  One project funded by UPARR near my district renovated a hazardous 
park electrical system, repairing damaged and dangerous wiring, and 
improving and installing walkway safety lighting.
  Thanks to the UPARR program, children like those in my community have 
been able to experience more opportunities in a safer, cleaner 
environment. Despite UPARR's success and far-reaching impacts in our 
communities, this omnibus bill will essentially shut down the entire 
program by eliminating almost $30 million dollars in funding for the 
program.
  I support the motion to recommit and am hopeful that this body will 
remember the importance of our urban parks--not only for their 
recreational value but for the health and well being of our children.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). 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.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were 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 
the passage of the bill.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 197, 
nays 221, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 29]

                               YEAS--197

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NAYS--221

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Feeney
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Allen
     Capuano
     Collins
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cubin
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Gephardt
     Holt
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Tiberi
     Weldon (PA)
     Wilson (SC)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are 
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1616

  Mr. GORDON changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 230, 
nays 192, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 30]

                               YEAS--230

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann

[[Page 3792]]


     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Feeney
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--192

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Allen
     Capuano
     Collins
     Combest
     Cubin
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Tiberi
     Weldon (PA)
     Wilson (SC)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1623

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________