[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9577-9586]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           SOCIAL IMPACT PARTNERSHIPS TO PAY FOR RESULTS ACT

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

                               H.R. 5170

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Social Impact Partnerships 
     to Pay for Results Act''.

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

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

[[Page 9578]]

       ``(xvi) The project budget.
       ``(xvii) The project timeline.
       ``(xviii) The criteria used to determine the eligibility of 
     an individual for the project, including how selected 
     populations will be identified, how they will be referred to 
     the project, and how they will be enrolled in the project.
       ``(xix) The evaluation design.
       ``(xx) The metrics that will be used to determine whether 
     the outcomes have been achieved and how the metrics will be 
     measured.
       ``(xxi) An explanation of how the metrics used to determine 
     whether the outcomes have been achieved are independent, 
     objective indicators of impact and are not subject to 
     manipulation by the service provider, intermediary, or 
     investor.
       ``(xxii) A summary explaining the independence of the 
     evaluator from the other entities involved in the project and 
     the evaluator's experience in conducting rigorous evaluations 
     of program effectiveness including, where available, well-
     implemented randomized controlled trials on the intervention 
     or similar interventions.
       ``(xxiii) The capacity of the service provider to deliver 
     the intervention to the number of participants the State or 
     local government proposes to serve in the project.
       ``(D) Project intermediary information required.--The 
     application described in subparagraph (C) shall also contain 
     the following information about any intermediary for the 
     social impact partnership project (whether an intermediary is 
     a service provider or other entity):
       ``(i) Experience and capacity for providing or facilitating 
     the provision of the type of intervention proposed.
       ``(ii) The mission and goals.
       ``(iii) Information on whether the intermediary is already 
     working with service providers that provide this intervention 
     or an explanation of the capacity of the intermediary to 
     begin working with service providers to provide the 
     intervention.
       ``(iv) Experience working in a collaborative environment 
     across government and nongovernmental entities.
       ``(v) Previous experience collaborating with public or 
     private entities to implement evidence-based programs.
       ``(vi) Ability to raise or provide funding to cover 
     operating costs (if applicable to the project).
       ``(vii) Capacity and infrastructure to track outcomes and 
     measure results, including--

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

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

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

       ``(ii) Payment.--The Secretary shall pay the State or local 
     government only if the independent evaluator described in 
     paragraph (5) determines that the social impact partnership 
     project has met the requirements specified in the agreement 
     and achieved an outcome specified in the agreement.
       ``(D) Notice of agreement award.--Not later than 30 days 
     after entering into an agreement under this paragraph, the 
     Secretary shall publish a notice in the Federal Register that 
     includes, with regard to the agreement, the following:
       ``(i) The outcome goals of the social impact partnership 
     project.
       ``(ii) A description of each intervention in the project.
       ``(iii) The target population that will be served by the 
     project.
       ``(iv) The expected social benefits to participants who 
     receive the intervention and others who may be impacted.
       ``(v) The detailed roles, responsibilities, and purposes of 
     each Federal, State, or local government entity, 
     intermediary, service provider, independent evaluator, 
     investor, or other stakeholder.
       ``(vi) The payment terms, the methodology used to calculate 
     outcome payments, the payment schedule, and performance 
     thresholds.
       ``(vii) The project budget.
       ``(viii) The project timeline.
       ``(ix) The project eligibility criteria.
       ``(x) The evaluation design.
       ``(xi) The metrics that will be used to determine whether 
     the outcomes have been achieved and how these metrics will be 
     measured.
       ``(xii) The estimate of the savings to the Federal, State, 
     and local government, on a program-by-program basis and in 
     the aggregate, if the agreement is entered into and 
     implemented and the outcomes are achieved.
       ``(E) Authority to transfer administration of agreement.--
     The Secretary may transfer to the head of another Federal 
     agency the authority to administer (including making payments 
     under) an agreement entered into under subparagraph (C), and 
     any funds necessary to do so.
       ``(F) Requirement on funding used to benefit children.--Not 
     less than 50 percent of all Federal payments made to carry 
     out agreements under this paragraph shall be used for 
     initiatives that directly benefit children.
       ``(4) Feasibility study funding.--
       ``(A) Requests for funding for feasibility studies.--The 
     Secretary shall reserve a portion of the amount reserved to 
     carry out this subsection to assist States or local 
     governments in developing feasibility studies to apply for 
     social impact partnership funding under paragraph (2). To be 
     eligible to receive funding to assist with completing a 
     feasibility study, a State or local government shall submit 
     an application for feasibility study funding addressing the 
     following:
       ``(i) A description of the outcome goals of the social 
     impact partnership project.
       ``(ii) A description of the intervention, including 
     anticipated program design, target population, an estimate 
     regarding the number of individuals to be served, and setting 
     for the intervention.
       ``(iii) Evidence to support the likelihood that the 
     intervention will produce the desired outcomes.
       ``(iv) A description of the potential metrics to be used.
       ``(v) The expected social benefits to participants who 
     receive the intervention and others who may be impacted.

[[Page 9579]]

       ``(vi) Estimated costs to conduct the project.
       ``(vii) Estimates of Federal, State, and local government 
     savings and other savings if the project is implemented and 
     the outcomes are achieved.
       ``(viii) An estimated timeline for implementation and 
     completion of the project, which shall not exceed 10 years.
       ``(ix) With respect to a project for which the State or 
     local government selects an intermediary to operate the 
     project, any partnerships needed to successfully execute the 
     project and the ability of the intermediary to foster the 
     partnerships.
       ``(x) The expected resources needed to complete the 
     feasibility study for the State or local government to apply 
     for social impact partnership funding under paragraph (2).
       ``(B) Federal selection of applications for feasibility 
     study.--Not later than 6 months after receiving an 
     application for feasibility study funding under subparagraph 
     (A), the Secretary, in consultation with the Federal 
     Interagency Council on Social Impact Partnerships and the 
     head of any Federal agency administering a similar 
     intervention or serving a population similar to that served 
     by the project, shall select State or local government 
     feasibility study proposals for funding based on the 
     following:
       ``(i) The recommendations made by the Commission on Social 
     Impact Partnerships.
       ``(ii) The likelihood that the proposal will achieve the 
     desired outcomes.
       ``(iii) The value of the outcomes expected to be achieved.
       ``(iv) The potential savings to the Federal Government if 
     the social impact partnership project is successful.
       ``(v) The potential savings to the State and local 
     governments if the project is successful.
       ``(C) Public disclosure.--Not later than 30 days after 
     selecting a State or local government for feasibility study 
     funding under this paragraph, the Secretary shall cause to be 
     published on the website of the Federal Interagency Council 
     on Social Impact Partnerships information explaining why a 
     State or local government was granted feasibility study 
     funding.
       ``(D) Funding restriction.--
       ``(i) Feasibility study restriction.--The Secretary may not 
     provide feasibility study funding under this paragraph for 
     more than 50 percent of the estimated total cost of the 
     feasibility study reported in the State or local government 
     application submitted under subparagraph (A).
       ``(ii) Aggregate restriction.--Of the total amount reserved 
     to carry out this subsection, the Secretary may not use more 
     than $10,000,000 to provide feasibility study funding to 
     States or local governments under this paragraph.
       ``(iii) No guarantee of funding.--The Secretary shall have 
     the option to award no funding under this paragraph.
       ``(E) Submission of feasibility study required.--Not later 
     than 9 months after the receipt of feasibility study funding 
     under this paragraph, a State or local government receiving 
     the funding shall complete the feasibility study and submit 
     the study to the Federal Interagency Council on Social Impact 
     Partnerships.
       ``(F) Delegation of authority.--The Secretary may transfer 
     to the head of another Federal agency the authorities 
     provided in this paragraph and any funds necessary to 
     exercise the authorities.
       ``(5) Evaluations.--
       ``(A) Authority to enter into agreements.--For each State 
     or local government awarded a social impact partnership 
     project approved by the Secretary under this subsection, the 
     head of the relevant agency, as determined by the Federal 
     Interagency Council on Social Impact Partnerships, shall 
     enter into an agreement with the State or local government to 
     pay for all or part of the independent evaluation to 
     determine whether the State or local government project has 
     met an outcome specified in the agreement in order for the 
     State or local government to receive outcome payments under 
     this subsection.
       ``(B) Evaluator qualifications.--The head of the relevant 
     agency may not enter into an agreement with a State or local 
     government unless the head determines that the evaluator is 
     independent of the other parties to the agreement and has 
     demonstrated substantial experience in conducting rigorous 
     evaluations of program effectiveness including, where 
     available and appropriate, well-implemented randomized 
     controlled trials on the intervention or similar 
     interventions.
       ``(C) Methodologies to be used.--The evaluation used to 
     determine whether a State or local government will receive 
     outcome payments under this subsection shall use experimental 
     designs using random assignment or other reliable, evidence-
     based research methodologies, as certified by the Federal 
     Interagency Council on Social Impact Partnerships, that allow 
     for the strongest possible causal inferences when random 
     assignment is not feasible.
       ``(D) Progress report.--
       ``(i) Submission of report.--The independent evaluator 
     shall--

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

       ``(ii) Submission to congress.--Not later than 30 days 
     after receipt of the written report pursuant to clause 
     (i)(II), the Federal Interagency Council on Social Impact 
     Partnerships shall submit the report to each committee of 
     jurisdiction in the House of Representatives and the Senate.
       ``(E) Final report.--
       ``(i) Submission of report.--Within 6 months after the 
     social impact partnership project is completed, the 
     independent evaluator shall--

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

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

[[Page 9580]]

       ``(i) Chair.--The Chair of the Council shall be the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
       ``(ii) Other members.--The head of each of the following 
     entities shall designate 1 officer or employee of the entity 
     to be a Council member:

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

       ``(7) Commission on social impact partnerships.--
       ``(A) Establishment.--There is established the Commission 
     on Social Impact Partnerships (in this paragraph referred to 
     as the `Commission').
       ``(B) Duties.--The duties of the Commission shall be to--
       ``(i) assist the Secretary and the Federal Interagency 
     Council on Social Impact Partnerships in reviewing 
     applications for funding under this subsection;
       ``(ii) make recommendations to the Secretary and the 
     Federal Interagency Council on Social Impact Partnerships 
     regarding the funding of social impact partnership agreements 
     and feasibility studies; and
       ``(iii) provide other assistance and information as 
     requested by the Secretary or the Federal Interagency Council 
     on Social Impact Partnerships.
       ``(C) Composition.--The Commission shall be composed of 9 
     members, of whom--
       ``(i) 1 shall be appointed by the President, who will serve 
     as the Chair of the Commission;
       ``(ii) 1 shall be appointed by the Majority Leader of the 
     Senate;
       ``(iii) 1 shall be appointed by the Minority Leader of the 
     Senate;
       ``(iv) 1 shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives;
       ``(v) 1 shall be appointed by the Minority Leader of the 
     House of Representatives;
       ``(vi) 1 shall be appointed by the Chairman of the 
     Committee on Finance of the Senate;
       ``(vii) 1 shall be appointed by the ranking member of the 
     Committee on Finance of the Senate;
       ``(viii) 1 member shall be appointed by the Chairman of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives; 
     and
       ``(ix) 1 shall be appointed by the ranking member of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives.
       ``(D) Qualifications of commission members.--The members of 
     the Commission shall--
       ``(i) be experienced in finance, economics, pay for 
     performance, or program evaluation;
       ``(ii) have relevant professional or personal experience in 
     a field related to 1 or more of the outcomes listed in this 
     subsection; or
       ``(iii) be qualified to review applications for social 
     impact partnership projects to determine whether the proposed 
     metrics and evaluation methodologies are appropriately 
     rigorous and reliant upon independent data and evidence-based 
     research.
       ``(E) Timing of appointments.--The appointments of the 
     members of the Commission shall be made not later than 120 
     days after the date of the enactment of this subsection, or, 
     in the event of a vacancy, not later than 90 days after the 
     date the vacancy arises. If a member of Congress fails to 
     appoint a member by that date, the President may select a 
     member of the President's choice on behalf of the member of 
     Congress. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, if not all 
     appointments have been made to the Commission as of that 
     date, the Commission may operate with no fewer than 5 members 
     until all appointments have been made.
       ``(F) Term of appointments.--
       ``(i) In general.--The members appointed under subparagraph 
     (C) shall serve as follows:

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF TANF PROGRAM.

       (a) Family Assistance Grants.--Section 403(a)(1) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(1)) is amended in each 
     of subparagraphs (A) and (C), by striking ``2012'' and 
     inserting ``2017''.
       (b) Healthy Marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood 
     Grants.--Section

[[Page 9581]]

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

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

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

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

       ``(a) Evaluation of the Impacts of TANF.--The Secretary 
     shall conduct research on the effect of State programs funded 
     under this part and any other State program funded with 
     qualified State expenditures (as defined in section 
     409(a)(7)(B)(i)) on employment, self-sufficiency, child well-
     being, unmarried births, marriage, poverty, economic 
     mobility, and other factors as determined by the Secretary.
       ``(b) Evaluation of Grants to Improve Child Well-being by 
     Promoting Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood.--The 
     Secretary shall conduct research to determine the effects of 
     the grants made under section 403(a)(2) on child well-being, 
     marriage, family stability, economic mobility, poverty, and 
     other factors as determined by the Secretary.
       ``(c) Dissemination of Information.--The Secretary shall, 
     in consultation with States receiving funds provided under 
     this part, develop methods of disseminating information on 
     any research, evaluation, or study conducted under this 
     section, including facilitating the sharing of information 
     and best practices among States and localities.
       ``(d) State-initiated Evaluations.--A State shall be 
     eligible to receive funding to evaluate the State program 
     funded under this part or any other State program funded with 
     qualified State expenditures (as defined in section 
     409(a)(7)(B)(i)) if--
       ``(1) the State submits to the Secretary a description of 
     the proposed evaluation;
       ``(2) the Secretary determines that the design and approach 
     of the proposed evaluation is rigorous and is likely to yield 
     information that is credible and will be useful to other 
     States; and
       ``(3) unless waived by the Secretary, the State contributes 
     to the cost of the evaluation, from non-Federal sources, an 
     amount equal to at least 25 percent of the cost of the 
     proposed evaluation.
       ``(e) Census Bureau Research.--
       ``(1) The Bureau of the Census shall implement or enhance 
     household surveys of program participation, in consultation 
     with the Secretary and the Burueau of Labor Statistics and 
     made available to interested parties, to allow for the 
     assessment of the outcomes of continued welfare reform on the 
     economic and child well-being of low-income families with 
     children, including those who received assistance or services 
     from a State program funded under this part or any other 
     State program funded with qualified State expenditures (as 
     defined in section 409(a)(7)(B)(i)). The content of the 
     surveys should include such information as may be necessary 
     to examine the issues of unmarried childbearing, marriage, 
     welfare dependency and compliance with work requirements, the 
     beginning and ending of spells of assistance, work, earnings 
     and employment stability, and the well-being of children.
       ``(2) To carry out the activities specified in paragraph 
     (1), the Bureau of the Census, the Secretary, and the Bureau 
     of Labor Statistics shall consider ways to improve the 
     surveys and data derived from the surveys to--
       ``(A) address underreporting of the receipt of means-tested 
     benefits and tax benefits for low-income individuals and 
     families;
       ``(B) increase understanding of poverty spells and long-
     term poverty, including by facilitating the matching of 
     information to better understand intergenerational poverty;
       ``(C) generate a better geographical understanding of 
     poverty such as through State-based estimates and measures of 
     neighborhood poverty;
       ``(D) increase understanding of the effects of means-tested 
     benefits and tax benefits on the earnings of low-income 
     families; and
       ``(E) improve how poverty and economic well-being are 
     measured, including through the use of consumption measures.
       ``(f) Research and Evaluation Conducted Under This 
     Section.--Research and evaluation conducted under this 
     section designed to determine the effects of a program or 
     policy (other than research conducted under subsection (e)) 
     shall use experimental designs using random assignment or 
     other reliable, evidence-based research methodologies that 
     allow for the strongest possible causal inferences when 
     random assignment is not feasible.
       ``(g) Development of What Works Clearinghouse of Proven and 
     Promising Approaches to Move Welfare Recipients Into Work.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Labor, shall develop a database (which shall be 
     referred to as the `What Works Clearinghouse of Proven and 
     Promising Projects to Move Welfare Recipients into Work') of 
     the projects that used a proven approach or a promising 
     approach in moving welfare recipients into work, based on 
     independent, rigorous evaluations of the projects. The 
     database shall include a separate listing of projects that 
     used a developmental approach in delivering services and a 
     further separate listing of the projects with no or negative 
     effects. The Secretary shall add to the What Works 
     Clearinghouse of Proven and Promising Projects to Move 
     Welfare Recipients into Work data about the projects that, 
     based on an independent, well-conducted experimental 
     evaluation of a program or project, using random assignment 
     or other research methodologies that allow for the strongest 
     possible causal inferences, have shown they are proven, 
     promising, developmental, or ineffective approaches.
       ``(2) Criteria for evidence of effectiveness of approach.--
     The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor 
     and organizations with experience in evaluating research on 
     the effectiveness of various approaches in delivering 
     services to move welfare recipients into work, shall--
       ``(A) establish criteria for evidence of effectiveness; and
       ``(B) ensure that the process for establishing the 
     criteria--
       ``(i) is transparent;
       ``(ii) is consistent across agencies;
       ``(iii) provides opportunity for public comment; and
       ``(iv) takes into account efforts of Federal agencies to 
     identify and publicize effective interventions, including 
     efforts at the Department of Health and Human Services, the 
     Department of Education, and the Department of Justice.
       ``(3) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       ``(A) Approach.--The term `approach' means a process, 
     product, strategy, or practice that is--
       ``(i) research-based, based on the results of 1 or more 
     empirical studies, and linked to program-determined outcomes; 
     and
       ``(ii) evaluated using rigorous research designs.
       ``(B) Proven approach.--The term `proven approach' means an 
     approach that--
       ``(i) meets the requirements of a promising approach; and
       ``(ii) has demonstrated significant positive outcomes at 
     more than 1 site in terms of increasing work and earnings of 
     participants, reducing poverty and dependence, or 
     strengthening families.
       ``(C) Promising approach.--The term `promising approach' 
     means an approach--
       ``(i) that meets the requirements of subparagraph (D)(i);
       ``(ii) that has been evaluated using well-designed and 
     rigorous randomized controlled or quasi-experimental research 
     designs;
       ``(iii) that has demonstrated significant positive outcomes 
     at only 1 site in terms of increasing work and earnings of 
     participants, reducing poverty and dependence, or 
     strengthening families; and
       ``(iv) under which the benefits of the positive outcomes 
     have exceeded the costs of achieving the outcomes.
       ``(D) Developmental approach.--The term `developmental 
     approach' means an approach that--
       ``(i) is research-based, grounded in relevant empirically-
     based knowledge, and linked to program-determined outcomes;
       ``(ii) is evaluated using rigorous research designs; and
       ``(iii) has yet to demonstrate a significant positive 
     outcome in terms of increasing work and earnings of 
     participants in a cost-effective way.
       ``(h) Appropriation.--
       ``(1) In general.--Of the amount appropriated by section 
     403(a)(1) for each fiscal year, 0.33 percent shall be 
     available for research and evaluation under this section.
       ``(2) Allocation.--Of the amount made available under 
     paragraph (1) for each fiscal year, the Secretary shall make 
     available $10,000,000 plus such additional amount as the 
     Secretary deems necessary and appropriate, to carry out 
     subsection (e).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 403(a)(1)(B) of such Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(1)(B)) is amended by inserting ``, reduced 
     by the percentage specified in section 413(h) with respect to 
     the fiscal year,'' before ``as the amount''.

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

       (a) In General.--Section 411(d) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 611(d)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(d) Data Exchange Standards for Improved 
     Interoperability.--
       ``(1) Designation.--The Secretary shall, in consultation 
     with an interagency work group established by the Office of 
     Management and Budget and considering State government 
     perspectives, by rule, designate data exchange standards to 
     govern, under this part--
       ``(A) necessary categories of information that State 
     agencies operating programs

[[Page 9582]]

     under State plans approved under this part are required under 
     applicable Federal law to electronically exchange with 
     another State agency; and
       ``(B) Federal reporting and data exchange required under 
     applicable Federal law.
       ``(2) Requirements.--The data exchange standards required 
     by paragraph (1) shall, to the extent practicable--
       ``(A) incorporate a widely accepted, non-proprietary, 
     searchable, computer-readable format, such as the eXtensible 
     Markup Language;
       ``(B) contain interoperable standards developed and 
     maintained by intergovernmental partnerships, such as the 
     National Information Exchange Model;
       ``(C) incorporate interoperable standards developed and 
     maintained by Federal entities with authority over 
     contracting and financial assistance;
       ``(D) be consistent with and implement applicable 
     accounting principles;
       ``(E) be implemented in a manner that is cost-effective and 
     improves program efficiency and effectiveness; and
       ``(F) be capable of being continually upgraded as 
     necessary.
       ``(3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection 
     shall be construed to require a change to existing data 
     exchange standards found to be effective and efficient.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--Not later than the date that is 24 
     months after the date of the enactment of this section, the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services shall issue a proposed 
     rule that--
       (1) identifies federally required data exchanges, include 
     specification and timing of exchanges to be standardized, and 
     address the factors used in determining whether and when to 
     standardize data exchanges; and
       (2) specifies State implementation options and describes 
     future milestones.

     SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.

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

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and 
to include any extraneous material on H.R. 5170, currently under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  For all our best intentions, we too often see government programs 
fail both the constituencies they are intended to help and the 
taxpayers who fund them.
  Thousands of families across this country continue to be trapped, 
generation after generation, in programs that were well intended but 
are now ineffective or outdated. Our social safety net has instead 
become a poverty trap and not the springboard to prosperity we once 
envisioned.
  Our constituents, all Americans, deserve better. They need their 
Federal Government working together with their communities to focus on 
how we can help members of our society successfully climb that ladder 
out of poverty, not just check them off as another individual served.
  By changing the Federal Government's definition of success in Federal 
social programs, from inputs to actual outcomes, we can help our fellow 
Americans overcome the root causes of poverty and seize economic 
opportunities to work and provide for our families. It is this shift in 
focus, this focus from inputs to outcomes, that could substantially 
transform our safety net to better serve our most vulnerable.
  The Social Impact Partnerships to Pay for Results Act does just that. 
It empowers States, local governments, nonprofits, and the private 
sector to scale up evidence-based interventions that address our 
Nation's most pressing social challenges.
  This legislation would foster the creation of public-private 
partnerships that harness philanthropic and other private-sector 
investments so we can expand and replicate scientifically proven social 
and public health programs. Because social impact partnerships are 
focused on achieving real results, government dollars are paid out only 
when desired outcomes are met.
  Furthermore, this legislation would reauthorize the Temporary 
Assistance for Needy Families program at current spending levels for 1 
year as well as build evidence on our efforts to help our most needy 
families find jobs and achieve self-sufficiency by cataloging the best 
evidence-based approaches.
  The What Works Clearinghouse would make it easier for States to know 
which approaches have been tested using independent, rigorous 
evaluations and, based on those results, an understanding of their 
effectiveness in achieving positive results for individuals and 
families.
  By cataloging the different approaches States are taking in helping 
welfare recipients move into work, we can help empower well-intentioned 
policymakers across all levels of government to improve lives through 
evidence-based policymaking.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF, 
program expires at the end of September. We need to extend this 
program, and this legislation accomplishes that goal; but we have so 
much more to do.
  Once TANF is temporarily extended, our committee and this Congress 
should work toward a more comprehensive review and reauthorization of 
the program. We need to make sure that spending under TANF is focused 
on the core missions of helping needy families and promoting work. We 
need to further open opportunities to education and training so that 
TANF recipients can prepare for and find good jobs. And we need to 
ensure that adequate child care and other supports are available for 
low-income parents in the workforce.
  Of course, if we are serious about reducing poverty, improving TANF 
must be part of a broader agenda that seeks to help Americans 
endeavoring to help themselves. We should substantially increase the 
minimum wage for hardworking Americans, expanding the earned income tax 
credit to childless workers, and expanding access to affordable 
housing. By the way, those are inputs that relate to outputs and 
outcomes. And we should be building on successful programs like the 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the Social Services Block 
Grant, and the Affordable Care Act.
  Instead, the agenda we have seen from the Republican leadership of 
this House is to block meaningful improvements or, even worse, to gut 
programs that now provide opportunities for Americans. Eliminating the 
Social Services Block Grant, as Republicans propose, will make child 
care less available, making it harder for low-income parents to go to 
work. Cutting funding for education and training, as the Republican 
budget suggests, would have the same effect of blocking a path to work. 
And repealing the Affordable Care Act, as Republicans have voted 
repeatedly to do, would make it harder for people to move into work and 
to move between jobs. Republicans say they support work, but time and 
time again, they oppose work supports.
  The programs that arose out of the war on poverty reduced poverty by 
over 40 percent, despite erroneous claims to the contrary by some of 
our Republican colleagues. However, at the same time, we still have 47 
million Americans who live in poverty. These struggling families 
deserve real action, not more of the same old failed policies and empty 
rhetoric that we have heard in the report from the Republican House 
Poverty Task Force several weeks ago. And they certainly deserve better 
than huge cuts to programs they depend on.
  Mr. Speaker, I support this bill because it extends the TANF program, 
a necessary program for low-income families. The bill also includes a 
1-year allocation to test social impact partnerships in which the 
private, nonprofit, and government sectors attempt to come together to 
address certain social problems.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I ask unanimous 
consent that the balance of my time be managed by the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett), ranking member of the Ways and Means Subcommittee 
on Human Resources.

[[Page 9583]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Reed).
  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. 
As someone who was raised by a single mother when my father passed when 
I was 2 years old, and having 11 older brothers and sisters, poverty is 
something that I know firsthand and that we have seen firsthand in our 
household.
  As we go forward and we deal with extending TANF cash welfare for 1 
year, I think what Mr. Young of Indiana has done is try to put forward 
innovative ideas that change the dialogue, that change the debate when 
it comes to our antipoverty measures out of Washington, D.C.
  Mr. Speaker, no longer should we measure the success of a program 
just by the amount of money we spend on that program, but measure it by 
the lives that are positively changed.

                              {time}  1745

  That is what this social impact bonding legislation is all about. It 
is rewarding and standing with people who are moving out of poverty, 
standing on their own two feet.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in support of this 
critical legislation as we care for those young men and women, as well 
as those adults who live in poverty, and break that cycle once and for 
all.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The bill which Mr. Young brings to the floor this afternoon concerns 
five-tenths of 1 percent of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 
program. I want to talk about the other 99.5 percent, and I will 
address the 0.5 percent--the five-tenths--a little later.
  Overall, this legislation perpetuates the myth of compassionate 
conservatism that was originally spun by George W. Bush. It involves a 
Republican strategy that we have seen over the last few weeks to block 
every single Democratic proposal that would reform welfare to work, or 
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families as it is formally known.
  I favor full reform of TANF, to pursue the original objectives of the 
1996 welfare reform that I supported to end generational poverty and 
help poor Americans who are not physically able to work. TANF would 
permit them to climb up the economic ladder into the middle class while 
supporting those who are unable to work.
  Instead, what we are presented is one modest, unproven social 
experiment paid for at the expense of poor children. Over the last 20 
years, the total resources that are available to get people from 
welfare to work have steadily declined. Today's legislation is just one 
more small cut to those resources.
  Republicans previously terminated one major part of TANF that helped 
States with poor populations, like Texas, whacking out $319 million 
from the program. What we have left with TANF today is about one-third 
of the purchasing power that it had 20 years ago when we adopted the 
reform. In Texas, about 1 in 20 children receive assistance from TANF. 
Folks who need a life vest are instead given an anchor.
  While it may have had some initial positive impact, the 1996 welfare 
law has become an example of a failed Federal block grant program. 
Through the years, the States have diverted more and more moneys that 
were intended to support poor mothers finding the education and 
training that they needed and the childcare and placement services they 
needed to go out and have the dignity of a livable wage, long-term job, 
and now the States are spending, on average, 8 cents of every dollar on 
work and another 16 cents on child care.
  To the extent that President Johnson's War on Poverty has not been 
fully won, much of the responsibility goes to those who refuse to 
fight, who surrendered at the first obstacle, who engaged in passive 
resistance, and, in places like Texas, who just abandoned the field of 
battle when it came to protecting their poorest citizens. Clearly, the 
social safety net that TANF was supposed to be has become mostly hole 
and little net.
  If this is a poverty trap, as we have heard, it is because our 
Republican colleagues have shut the door on any efforts to unlock it 
with the exception of this one bill. Now with their recently announced 
poverty plan, they want to take the same kind of thinking--these failed 
block grants--and apply it to the national school lunch program, apply 
it to Medicaid, and according to one of their exhibits, to everything 
from Pell grants to cervical cancer, blocking it all together, and then 
putting the victims on the chopping block.
  Beginning last summer, I encouraged now-Speaker Ryan and other 
Republicans to support a reform, basically saying to them: I know you 
are not going to give another dime to help the poor, but at least ask 
the States to use the moneys that they already have from the Federal 
Government to accomplish the law's original objectives and stop 
diverting this money to plug budget loopholes. Unfortunately, TANF is 
still a welfare program, but it is Republican Governors, largely, who 
are on the dole, who take this Federal money and don't use it for the 
purposes for which it was originally intended.
  Last year, even Speaker Ryan recognized that existing TANF 
limitations impair the ability of the poor to get the educational 
opportunities that they need to get good jobs. Five Republicans, 
including a couple from our committee, offered the Preparing More 
Welfare Recipients for Work Act, which doubled the time that was 
permitted for educational training to count as a work activity, and as 
one of them--our colleague, Mr. Tiberi--said, these commonsense reforms 
streamline and simplify complicated work requirements, leading to 
higher enrollment in work or job training programs. It was common sense 
then, but as soon as it was attacked by rightwing ideologues, they ran 
away from it.
  Republicans could join us in reforming TANF to make it a true pathway 
to work and into the middle class, but they have declined to do that. 
Instead of offering a reauthorization, they split TANF up into six 
pieces that did not continue it. Part of the same package that hasn't 
been brought to the floor this afternoon are two other bills.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record our dissenting views to those 
bills.

                                Congress of the United States,

                                     Washington, DC, May 17, 2016.

                     Dissenting Views for H.R. 2959

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



                                Congress of the United States,

                                     Washington, DC, May 27, 2016.

                     Dissenting Views for H.R. 2952

       The Committee has considered multiple bills regarding 
     Temporary Assistance for

[[Page 9584]]

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

  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I would say that what we have here is an 
attempt to also add by amendment the very reauthorization that I sought 
to offer in committee that was blocked then. I guess today will be the 
first time even our Republican colleagues learn what has been done with 
this authorization.
  Overall, what we have had is a Republican roadblock to real welfare 
reform and poverty reduction that this Congress should be focused on, 
and it obviously will take a new President and a new Congress to do it. 
Like the compassionate conservatism of George W. Bush, Republicans are 
offering us a slogan, not a solution.
  The same day that they rejected our efforts to deal with this issue, 
they were all about more tax breaks. Their poverty agenda is a 
collection of retreads that offer little hope for change. It only 
demonstrates that their approach to poverty is indeed impoverished.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold).
  Mr. DOLD. Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to thank my good friend from 
Indiana for yielding and for his work on this important legislation. I 
also want to thank my good friend from Maryland, who has also put a lot 
of work into what I think is really a unique piece of legislation. I 
want to make sure that I rise in support of the Social Impact 
Partnerships to Pay for Results Act.
  This reform-minded legislation, Mr. Speaker, is so important because 
it offers a fresh approach for the way that the Federal Government 
assists those who are truly in need. It focuses our efforts on 
evidence-based reforms.
  How refreshing is that?
  We spend a tremendous amount of money, Mr. Speaker, trying to make 
sure that we are giving people an opportunity to get out from being 
impoverished. We have too many people today, Mr. Speaker, around the 
country who are fighting poverty. This actually brings entrepreneurs, 
nonprofits, and the government together to actually solve these 
problems.
  The Social Impact Partnerships to Pay for Results Act is a bipartisan 
solution that rewards and promotes programs that actually help 
individuals achieve positive outcomes. It actually helps and relieves 
the taxpayers a tremendous burden. No longer are the taxpayers on the 
hook for failed programs. This actually is providing the opportunity 
for entrepreneurs and those who are in the nonprofit sector to also 
play a role in trying to actually come up with unique solutions in very 
different ways in State-by-State outcomes. This innovative piece of 
legislation will give the States more flexibility to be creative with 
TANF dollars and establish approaches that will uniquely address the 
problems facing local communities.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation will also serve as an extension of the 
TANF program to make sure that we continue to provide necessary 
assistance to individuals looking to achieve self-sufficiency through 
job training and education.
  The challenges we face in fighting poverty are clearly steep. We know 
that in the War on Poverty, we have spent over $22 trillion to move the 
needle from 15 percent in poverty to 14.6 percent in poverty. We need 
to start thinking creatively about how can we focus on outcomes, how 
can we get more people off of the unemployment rolls, how can we get 
more people off the TANF rolls, off the welfare rolls. This is a 
program, this is an idea, a bipartisan reform that is going to focus on 
outcomes and will help start solving the problem. It does require 
meaningful action.
  I believe that the American Dream revolves around the idea that each 
and every one of us has something positive to contribute to our great 
Nation. This legislation is a step in the right direction in helping 
individuals reach their full potential, and gives States flexibility.
  Again, I want to go back and I want to thank my good friend from 
Maryland for his work on this and my friend from Indiana for, again, 
working in a bipartisan way to start thinking outside of the box. The 
government doesn't always have the solution, and we need to leverage 
nonprofits. We need to leverage those who are working out there and 
bringing unique ideas to the fold.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Delaney), a leading advocate for social impact financing 
and, I know, a partner of Mr. Young.
  Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend and 
colleague from Texas for yielding me this time, and I want to express 
my support for his comments and associate myself with his comments. He 
has been a singular champion of the TANF program and the goals that it 
represents. I appreciate his work and the opportunity to work with him 
on this bill.
  I also want to thank my good friend and colleague from Indiana. We 
have spent a considerable amount of time working on this piece of 
legislation together, talking to groups, and he has been a wonderful 
champion and it has been a real pleasure to work with him on this 
concept.
  Mr. Speaker, prior to coming to Congress, I spent my whole career as 
an entrepreneur in the private sector building businesses. The one 
thing I would observe from that experience whenever I would travel 
around the United States, or around the world for that matter, whenever 
you saw good economic outcomes and broad-based prosperity for the 
citizens, you always found a situation where the government, the 
nonprofit sector, and the private sector worked well together to solve 
the problems in society, and it is that spirit that animates the social 
impact partnership that we are here to discuss this evening.
  If you think about what is going on in the world today, Mr. Speaker, 
and the changes that are playing out in our economy based on 
technological innovation and global interconnection, you realize that 
it has helped many of our citizens and it has helped billions of people 
around the world, but it has also hurt many of our citizens. It 
happened too fast; we weren't quite prepared for it; and chronic and 
vexing issues like poverty, educational disparities, income and 
opportunity disparities have only grown based on these trends.
  To make a difference against these problems, Mr. Speaker, we need to 
do several things. First, we need to invest. You cannot definitionally 
make transformative changes, whether it be in the

[[Page 9585]]

private sector or the public sector, unless you make investments.
  The second thing we need, Mr. Speaker, is we need innovation. We need 
the best ideas to be applied against some of these very difficult 
challenges that we have.
  Mr. Speaker, we also need a new sense and spirit of collaboration and 
cooperation among all the stakeholders because the government right now 
has three significant problems when it tries to tackle these issues.
  The first problem it has is a funding problem. Whether it is the 
condition of the Federal budget or the State budget, it is very 
difficult for the government to make investments.
  The second issue the government has is an innovation problem. Mr. 
Speaker, I think we all know that the government has never been the 
incubator necessarily of great innovation. It has been good at 
investing, but we find more innovation often outside of government. 
Right now that gap is growing. So the government has an innovation 
problem.
  The third problem the government has is a transparency problem. I 
used to say in business that if you can't measure it, you can't manage 
it. And we are not getting enough data in terms of a positive feedback 
loop to look at some of these issues and see what works and what 
doesn't work. That is why Pay for Success frameworks and social impact 
partnerships can make such a big difference because it solves those 
problems, it creates pathways for more capital, more investments to 
flow from the nonprofit sector or the private sector against issues 
that have traditionally been funded by the government.

                              {time}  1800

  It creates pathways for innovation and best ideas and new ideas to 
flow into the government sector, and it creates a pathway and a 
framework for more transparency and more metrics as it relates to what 
the results are.
  Whether it is supplied against early childhood education, recidivism 
issues, chronic healthcare issues like asthma, whatever the framework 
can be, this approach can create an opportunity for more investment, 
which we need; more innovation, which we need; greater metrics and 
transparency, which we need; and a renewed spirit of cooperation 
between the government, the private sector, and the nonprofit sector to 
make a difference against these problems, which is why I am very 
supportive of the social impact partnership framework, the Pay for 
Success framework.
  I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, but I also encourage 
my colleagues to think seriously about what my colleague from Texas 
said about the larger TANF program, because there is so much more to be 
done.
  I do believe launching the social impact partnership framework can 
lead to transformative changes against these very, very difficult 
issues and create a situation where prosperity is shared more broadly 
and there is more opportunity for Americans, particularly our American 
colleagues who have been so affected negatively by some of the larger 
changes that are going on in the world.
  I encourage adoption of the bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. MacArthur), my colleague.
  Mr. MacARTHUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
support the Social Impact Partnerships to Pay for Results Act.
  As founding co-chair of the bipartisan Congressional Social 
Investment Taskforce, I believe that we can harness the power of market 
forces and private capital to solve local problems, benefit American 
taxpayers, and uplift communities. This bill will encourage the private 
sector to invest in some of the most pressing challenges we face as a 
nation.
  I believe in the power of government to be a force for good, but 
after 30 years in business, I tremendously believe in the untapped 
potential of the private market to solve problems. The goal of this 
bill is to unleash that power of the private sector to work with local 
governments and communities.
  This bill is based on the pay for results model, in which Federal 
funds are only spent when measurable results have been achieved. 
Instead of simply creating more government programs, this saves 
taxpayer dollars by ensuring funds are only spent on successful 
programs.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Representative Todd Young and my fellow 
co-chair of the taskforce, Representative John Delaney, for introducing 
this important legislation.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I salute and appreciate the commitment of Mr. Young and Mr. Delaney 
to seek new ways to try to combat some old problems. We need creativity 
to address these challenges. There is no one single approach that will 
solve all these problems. Where I disagree with them is over how they 
choose to fund this initiative--a choice that I think they probably 
personally did not make--and the lack of safeguards to assure their 
very laudable objectives.
  This bill takes money that has always been dedicated to benefit 
vulnerable children away from the Department of Health and Human 
Services and authorized its expenditure for other purposes that may be 
very well intentioned, but that have absolutely nothing to do with 
vulnerable children.
  Now is not the time to further reduce this funding for needy children 
just because it happens to be an easy place to take money from. It is 
only $100 million, only five-tenths of a percent of the total TANF 
budget, but I can tell you that it is hard to come by $100 million to 
do anything to try to help vulnerable children, and it is a loss to 
have that money taken away.
  It is true that President Obama finally, after almost 8 years of his 
administration, proposed that the contingency fund be repurposed and 
that money be added to family assistance grants and require the States 
to use more of the resources they get from TANF for the purposes of 
TANF to prevent two-generational poverty. The President's approach was 
to use the TANF contingency fund for a pathway to jobs initiative and a 
generational poverty initiative, not to take it out for other purposes. 
Today, this contingency fund is simply viewed as the easiest place to 
get money for what is not an evidence-based approach, but may still 
have merit.
  In committee, I sought to protect at least some of these moneys for 
children. I appreciate the fact that Mr. Young and Mr. Delaney have 
been receptive and have incorporated in the amended version today a 
measure that will assure that at least half of the money taken away 
from TANF is allocated for children, with the focus being on helping 
those poor children who would otherwise have benefited from the money 
had it stayed with TANF.
  Social impact financing offers the potential of greater private 
investment and resources to tackle some of the serious social ills that 
our country confronts. Without approving any new legislation, there is 
no restriction right now on any of our States from going out and using 
TANF money for social impact financing, so long as they focus on the 
statutory purposes of TANF. If these laboratories of democracy can do 
it already, then I think that is probably sufficient.
  I do know that there are a number of young entrepreneurs with a 
social conscience--a number of them I have talked with in Austin, 
Texas--who want to apply their talents to resolve ills that they see 
around them. There are a number of feasibility studies already underway 
in Austin concerning some of the problems that we have in Texas.
  But not everyone who applies for these funds will have the outlook of 
Mr. Young, Mr. Delaney, some of our colleagues who have come to the 
floor, and some of these young entrepreneurs because, unfortunately, 
with the starving of our social service and educational sector, one 
community after another is so desperate for funds to fight child abuse 
or neglect that they are willing to do almost anything that they might 
be sold upon.

[[Page 9586]]

  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will include in the Record a list of 
safeguards that I hope the gentlemen will consider as this bill 
proceeds to the Senate.
  In designing a new program with $100 million in taxpayer funds, which 
is designed to ultimately attract many additional taxpayer funds, to an 
initiative that is not evidence-based, we need to ensure that those 
dollars are not squandered. And after the Wall Street bailouts, many 
Americans question whether Wall Street is the place to turn to address 
social challenges. We have to consider the possibility of the 
unscrupulous offering false hope to a desperate local community.
  In Committee, I raised a list of questions about the lack of adequate 
safeguards. A state or locality may encounter substantial costs in 
administering the programs, between fees owed to intermediaries, 
service providers, evaluators and the like. This bill caps the amount 
that may be expended on feasibility studies to evaluate a social impact 
financing proposal, but it places no cap on underwriting costs, which 
Wall Street firms can charge. The bill puts no limit on the returns an 
investor can gain in one of these projects. It has no limit on who can 
determine what ``success'' is in one of these proposals. This bill 
fails to require a clear cost/benefit analysis that includes as a cost 
the cost of any related feasibility study.
  Even without proper safeguards, it is far from certain how many 
proposals will actually qualify for funding under this bill. Indeed, 
the Congressional Budget Office notes that ``because there is 
uncertainty as to the extent states conducting the projects will 
achieve the measurable outcomes required for federal reimbursement, CBO 
estimates that not all of the funds reserved for the program will be 
spent.
  House Republicans have been so eager to gain approval of any new idea 
they can claim responds to poverty and related social needs that this 
proposal has emerged without careful evaluation. Hopefully, the Senate 
in its legislative process can correct some of these shortcomings, and 
the Treasury and the Office of Management and Budget can include 
additional safeguards in implementing this measure.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This bipartisan, bicameral bill was developed over the course of 2 
years, incorporating feedback from a variety of stakeholders, ranging 
from State and local governments to child welfare organizations.
  I want to thank these stakeholders, as well as give very special 
recognition to my colleague, Congressman Delaney, my Democratic 
colleague from Maryland, for his leadership and partnership with me on 
this initiative.
  I would also be remiss if I didn't acknowledge the substantial and 
impressive efforts of members of our staff, from the Ways and Means 
committee staff, Ryan Martin, to my own personal office staff, Jaymi 
Light, who literally authored this legislation--we went through about 
50 different versions until we got it right--to Xan Fishman of 
Congressman Delaney's staff, for his hard work. This was a team effort. 
This is the sort of big idea, bipartisan teamwork we need more of in 
Washington, D.C. All of you have helped make it happen here today.
  I want to thank my fellow Ways and Means colleagues who are 
cosponsors of this legislation for their leadership and continued 
support.
  Social impact partnerships address our moral responsibilities to 
ensure that social programs actually improve recipients' lives, and do 
so in a fiscally prudent manner. But they also respond to the 
imperative of improving our economic health by harnessing the 
capabilities of every able-bodied citizen. Our safety net must reflect 
our country's belief that, without exception, Americans aren't 
liabilities to be written off but, instead, assets to be realized.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support the Social Impact Partnerships 
to Pay for Results Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young) that the House suspend the rules and 
pass the bill, H.R. 5170, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________