Welfare Reform: A Comparison of H.R. 3500 an
Congressional research reportFeb 23, 1994
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
94-176 EPW
CRS Report for Congress
Welfare Reform: A Comparison of H.R. 3500 and S. 1795 With Current Policy
Carmen D. Solomon
Specialist in Social Legislation
Education and Public Welfare Division
February 23, 1994
:e The Library of C gress
TABLE OF CONTENTS
AID TO FAMILIES WITH DEPENDENT CHILDREN (AFDC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
GENERALDESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
ELIGIBILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Needy Dependent Children Under Age 18 or 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
FamilyUnit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Children of Minor Parents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Assignment of Child Support Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Citizenship or Alien Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
CONDUCT REQUIREMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Treatment and Testing of Drug Addicts and Alcoholics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Participation in Parenting and Money Management Classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Preventive Medical Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
School Attendance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8
BENEFITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
WORKPROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Program Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Overall Time Limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Participation Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Exemptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15
Measure of Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
Participation Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19
Sanctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Evaluation of Education and Training Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT (CSE) PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
GENERAL DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ESTABLISHING PATERNITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Paternity Establishment Percentage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
W-4REPORTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
STATE INFORMATION SYSTEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
NATIONAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
INCOME WITHHOLDING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
UNIFORMORDERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
WORK REQUIREMENT FOR NONCUSTODIAL PARENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22
22
22
23
24
26
27
29
30
31
WELFARE REFORM: A COMPARISON OF H.R. 3500 AND S. 1795 WITH CURRENT POLICY
SUMMARY
The Family Support Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-485). which put new stress on education, work,
and training for recipients of the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program,
was signed into law on October 13, 1988 by President Reagan. The law established a work,
education, and training program called Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS), for which it
sharply expanded Federal workltraining funds, and it required States to engage in JOBS most
AFDC parents with children age 3 and over. Under the AFDC program, a family can receive
AFDC for an indefinite period, if it meets program income and eligibility rules. The JOBS
program imposes no time limit on general participation, but does limit the length of time a
person may be required to participate in job search or a specific work activity. Because of
severe budget pressures most States used only part of the $1 billion appropriated for JOBS in
Federal matching funds in FY 1991-93. Since JOBS began AFDC rolls rose to historic peaks.
AFDC now serves one in seven children, a total of 9.6 million children in 5 million families.
In his 1994 State of the Union address, President Clinton said he would send a
comprehensive welfare bill to Congress in the spring and that it would impose a 2-year limit on
benefits, provide community service work for those without a private job after AFDC ends,
forbid AFDC for unwed teenage parents not living at home, and increase collection of child
support payments. His call for welfare reform during the Presidential campaign kindled a debate
and has prompted some legislation. In late February 1994, a welfare proposal was being
developed by the Democratic Mainstream Forum of the House, and two major bills were
pending in Congress: H. R. 3500, the Responsibility and Empowerment Support Program
Providing Employment, Child Care, and Training (RESPECT) Act, and S. 1795, the Welfare
Reform Act of 1994. H.R. 3500 was introduced by 160 House Republicans on November 10,
1993, and was referred to eight committees. S. 1795, the Welfare Reform Act of 1994, was
introduced by 17 Senate Republicans on January 25, 1994, and was referred to the Finance
Committee.
This report presents a side-by-side comparison of H.R. 3500 and S. 1795 with current
policy. Both bills would require the JOBS program to include a time-limited "transition"
component and a work component. Both bills would require the transition component to include
job search activities. Unlike the current JOBS program, which exempts mothers whose youngest
child is under age 3 (or under age 1 at State option), both the House and Senate bills would
exempt only mothers with newborns (up to age 6 months for first baby born to an AFDC
mother, 4 months for subsequent babies). Both bills would allow or require States to place more
conditions on AFDC recipients without having to obtain Federal waivers (e.g., end AFDC for
teenage parents and their children, deny AFDC for additional children, pay new residents the
lower benefit of their former State, require AFDC parents to attend parenting and money
management classes). Both bills would require that paternity be established for a higher
percentage of children and add new measures to improve collection of child support payments
(such as State and national information systems, income withholding procedures, uniform
information to be included in child support orders, and work requireme* for noncustodial
parents with child support arrearages). Both bills would limit or ban AFDC for most legal
aliens. The House bill would deny welfare benefits to most legal aliens after a 1-year transition
period. The Senate bill would allow legal aliens to retain eligibility, but their sponsor's income
and resources would be deemed to them until they became naturalized U.S. citizens.
Under current law, States may help a recipient obtain a job under a work supplementation
program, in which the employer receives a wage subsidy paid with the AFDC grant. Both bills
would revise the work supplementation program by allowing States to include food stamp
benefits in the wage supplement and to assign work supplementationparticipants to unfilled jobs.
S. 1795 is unlike current law and H.R. 3500 in that it would require States to establish an
employment voucher program. The voucher would be in lieu of AFDC and food stamp benefits
and for the first 6 months of work, would equal each month the combined monthly value of the
family's AFDC and food stamp benefits. For the second 6 months of work, the voucher would
equal 50 percent of the combined monthly value of the AFDC and food stamp benefits.
Recipients would be required to give the voucher to their employers (as a wage supplement)
during the first year of employment. To obtain a voucher, an employer would have to guarantee
the recipient monthly wages equal to at least twice the employment voucher, or the minimum
wage for hours worked, whichever is greater. After 1 year, the voucher would be eliminated.
Unlike current law, both bills would pennit States to limit the length of time that a person
could receive AFDC. Under both bills participation in the transition component (i.e., job
search, education, and training activities) could not exceed 2 years. H.R. 3500 would give
States the option of dropping an AFDC family from AFDC after the caretaker relative had
participated in the work program for 3 years--after a maximum total of 5 years on AFDC. S.
1795 would give States the option of dropping an individual from AFDC after he or she had
participated in the work component for 1 year--after a maximum total of 3 years on AFDC.
H. R. 3500 would limit Federal funding for AFDC, Supplemental Security Income (SSI),
food stamps, the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), and housing subsidies. Both House and
Senate bills would amend the Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program. The House measure
would require some employees to report child support obligations on their W-4 forms.
A preliminary estimate by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) indicates that the gross
Federal cost of the transition and work components of H.R. 3500 would be $5.4 billion during
the first 5 years of implementation (FY 1994-98) and $7.3 billion in the sixth year (FY 1999).
PROVISIONS RELATlNG TO RECEIPT OF "WELFARE" BY ALIENS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Provisions Related to Alien Eligibility for Federal Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
SSI Benefits for Drug Addicts and Alcoholics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Social Security Benefits for the Criminally Insane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Cap on Funding for Selected Means-Tested Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Option To Conver-t AFDC Program to a Block Grant Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Fraud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
EIectronic Benefit Transfer De~nonstrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Waiver Requests . . .; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
36
Public Housing Rent Reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Eligibility for Food Stamps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Food Assistance Block Grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
WELFARE REFORM: A COMPARISON OF H.R. 3500 AND S. 1795 WITH CURRENT POLICY
Itern
Current law
House Republican bill, H.R. 3500
Senate Republican bill, S. 1795
AID TO FAnlILlES WITH DEPENDENT CHILDREN (AFDC)
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The AFDC program, title IV-A of the Social
Security Act, provides Federal matching grants
to States to enable them to aid "needy" children
and their relative caretakers.
Although many AFDC provisions would remain,
its Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS)
program would be required to have a t'imelimited "transition" component and a work
component .
Although many AFDC provisions would remain,
its JOBS program would be required to have a
time-limited "transition" component and a work
component.
Federal law requires States, to the extent
resources permit, to require most able-bodied
AFDC recipients with no child under age 3 to
participate in the State's education, training, and
work program, the JOBS program.
States would be required to require most ablebodied recipients to participate for up to 2 years
in the transition component, which would be
required to include job search and might include
education, training, and work experience
programs.
States would be required to require recipients to
participate in either the transition o r work
program. States would be required to establish
an employment voucher program as part of both
the transition component and the work
component. T h e purpose of the voucher would
be to help a recipient gain employment by
providing the employer with a subsidy.
After 2 years (or lesser period, at State option),
a person could continue to receive AFDC
benefits only by participating in the program's
work component, which might include a work
supplementation program (subsidized job), a
community work experience program, o r any
other State work program approved by the
Secretary of the Department of Health and
Human Services (DHHS).
If at the end of 2 years (or 1 year, at State
option), the recipient were unable to obtain a job,
h e o r she would have to participate in the work
component o f the JOBS program o r face loss of
his o r her portion of the family's AFDC benefit.
States would have the option of dropping an
AFDC family from AFDC rolls after the
caretaker relative had participated in the work
program for 3 years (after a minimum total of 3
years on AFDC). These persons would continue
to qualify for Medicaid.
States would have the option of dropping an
individual family member from the AFDC rolls
after he o r she had participated in the work
component of the program for 1 year (after a
minimum total of 2 years on AFDC). These
persons would continue to qualify for Medicaid.
Recipients remain eligible for benefits as long as
they meet program rules.
Needy Dependent Children
Under Age 18 or 19:"
1. Who live with one parent
because of the death or continued
absence from home of the othm
*Note: Eligibility for AFDC ends
on a child's 18th birthday, or at
State option upon a chiltl's 19th
birthday if the child is a full-time
student in a secondary or technical
school and is expected to complete
Coverage mandatory,
child born to an AFDC recipient or to an
individual who received AFDC at any time
during the 10-month period preceding the child's
birth (unless the State adopted a law exempting
itself from this Federal provision). [Sec. 30.51
Note: ,4lthough the intent of this provision
appears to require States to deny higher AFDC
benefits to recipients who have z~riditional
children, under H.R. 3500 as currently drafted a
child born to a woman who received AFDC
while she was pregnant would be ineligible for
AFDC benefits, unless the State adopted a law
of exemption. (Under current law AFDC is
available, at State option, for a pregnant woman
in her third trimester.)
benefits to children conceived by women already
receiving AFDC. [Sec. 4031
Item
Current law
4. Who live with one parent and a
stepparent.
AFDC law requires that part of the stepparent's
income be counted in determining AFDC
eligibility and benefit amounts; marriage, hence,
generally reduces benefits (the stepparent is not
part of the AFDC unitlfamily). In a few States,
however, State law requires that all stepparents
assume the legal and financial responsibility of a
natural or adoptive parent. In those States the
stepparent is considered a natural parent for
AFDC purposes and the family would be
entitled to AFDC only if either the parent or the
stepparent were incapacitated o r the principal
earner in the stepparent family were
unemployed. [Sec. 402(a)(3 1) of SSA]
Family Unit
Federal law requires that the AFDC "assistance
unit" include any parent of a dependent child
and any dependent brothers or sisters (except
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients,
stepsiblings, and children receiving foster care
or adoption assistance maintenance payments)
who are living in the home. This means that
eligibility and benefits are based on the income
and needs of these family members. [Sec.
402(a)(38) of SSA]
House Republican bill, H.R. 3500
H.R. 3500 would permit States to continue
AFDC benefits for the parent of an AFDC child
who marries someone other than the child's
other parent. The AFDC benefit (called a
married couple transition benefit) would equal
5 0 percent of the amount payable immediately
before the marriage and would be paid for not
more than 1 year if the family's income does not
exceed 150 percent of the poverty level. If the
stepparent family were to be eligible under
AFDC-UP, as could happen in the event of the
stepparent's unemployment--but only if the
family were living in one of the few States that
make all stepparents legally and financially
responsible for their stepchildren--it could get
the full AFDC-UP benefit rather than the
married couple transition benefit, but not both.
[Sec. 3071
Senate Republican bill, S. 1795
Same as H.R. 3500. [Sec 4041
exempts it from this rule. [Sec. 3021
minor parent, o r in a foster home, maternity
home, o r other adult-supervised supportive
Note: As of September 1993, four States
(Connecticut, Delaware, Wisconsin, and the
Virgin Islands) had chosen this option.
tile teenage parent, or in a foster home,
maternity home, or other supportive living
parent--only if they lived with a parent, legal
child of a teenage parent who lived
State savings resulting from these provisions
would have to be used to fund group homes,
Item
Assignment of Child Support
Rights
Current law
House Republican bill, H.R. 3500
Senate Republican bill, S. 1795
As a condition of AFDC eligibility, applicants
and recipients must assign their rights to child
support to the State. Child Support Enforcement
(CSE) services are available automatically
without charge to AFDC families and upon
application and for a fee to non-AFDC families.
ISec. 402(a)(26) and 454(6) of SSA]
Unless a State adopted an exemption law, the
State would be prohibited from paying AFDC to
the family of a child whose paternity was not
established except in cases where the child was
conceived as a result of rape or incest, or where
the State determined that efforts to establish
paternity would result in physical danger to the
relative applying for AFDC. [Sec. 201(a)] The
custodial parent would have to prove that an
alleged parent was dead. [Sec. 201(a)]
Unless a State adopted an exemption law, the
State would be prohibited from paying AFDC on
behalf of the mother until (1) paternity of the
child had been acknowledged by the father, (2) a
paternity suit had been initiated, or (3) the
custodial parent had demonstrated that the alleged
father was dead or missing; except in cases
where the child was conceived as a result of rape
or incest, or where the State determined that
efforts to establish paternity would result in
physical danger to the AFDC applicant or impose
undue hardship on the family. [Sec. 201(a)]
If paternity of an applicant child were not
established and the relative alleged that any of
up to three men might be the father and
provided the appropriate addresses, and if the
State did not disprove the allegation, then the
State would be required to reduce (rather than
end) the AFDC benefit to the family. The
reduced benefit would be based on a family size
that excluded the child whose paternity was in
question. The entire family would be eligible
for Medicaid benefits. [Sec. 201 (a)]
If the CSE agency found that the man named was
not the father, the mother would be dropped from
the AFDC rolls until paternity was established
(AFDC for the children would be made as a
protective payment; i.e., the AFDC benefit
would be paid to a person, other than the mother,
interested or concerned with the child recipient's
welfare). [Sec. 20l(a)]
Beginning Oct. 1, 1994, the above provisions
would apply to recipients as well as applicants.
[Sec. 20 1 (b)]
Citi~enshipor Alien Status
See page 32.
States would be required to develop procedures
for determining undue hardship when, despite full
cooperation of the custodial parent, the State
were unable to determine paternity. [Sec.
201(a)]
REQUIREMENTS
Addicts and Alcoholics
requirements, regardless of whether they arc
drug addicts or alcoholics.
to be a drug addict or alcoholic would be
required to agree to participate in (and
maintain satisfactory participation in) an
to comply with these requirements would be
disqualified from AFDC during the 2-year
to participate in (and maintain satisfactory
participation in) an appropriate treatment
to comply with these requirements would be
still would be eligible for Medicaid). [Sec. 7021
Money Management Classes
cooperation with child support efforts).
requirements to attend parenting and money
classes on money management. [ S e c . 4061
Item
Preventive Medical Care
Current law
House Republican bill, H.R. 3500
Senate Republican bill, S. 1795
The AFDC program provides benefits to needy
children and their families. AFDC families are
automatically eligible for Medicaid services.
AFDC Law does not make eligibility contingent
upon meeting health care requirements.
AFDC benefits would be denied for children
under age 6 who have not received "preventive
health care" (medical examinations at specified
periods) or immunizations. [Sec. 907(a)]
Unless a State adopted an exemption law, the
State would be required to increase the total
monthly AFDC benefit of a family by up to $50
per month for up to 6 months if each child under
age 6 in the family had received Early and
Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment
(EPSDT) and had been immunized in accordance
with recommendations issued by the Surgeon
General of the Public Health Service. Families
with children under age 6 who did not meet these
requirements would be sanctioned by a benefit
reduction of up to $50 per family per month until
the requirements were met. [Sec. 401(a)]
Same as H.R. 3500. [Sec. 401(a)]
The State would be required to conduct
appropriate education and outreach activities to
increase public awareness regarding the
importance of immunizations for preschool
children, inform the public about the availability
of preventive health care services, clinics
providing free o r reduced-price immunizations,
and transportation and other supportive services
that would help parents get their children
immunized. [Sec. 907(a)]
School Attendance
Under the AFDC JOBS program, most young
AFDC mothers (those under age 20) who failed
to complete high school (or equivalent) must be
required to participate in an "educational
activity," regardless of the age of their youngest
child. [Sec. 402(a)(19)(E) of SSAJ
The law provides that parents who fail to
participate in JOBS shall lose their share of the
AFDC grant and that the children's grant shall
be lwid to another adult selvi~igas a
"protective" payee. See "Sanctions," page 20.
ISec. 402(a)( I9)(G)(l) of SSA]
States would have the option of reducing a
family's AFDC benefit by up to $75 per month
for each parent under age 21 who has not
completed secondary school (or equivalent) and
each dependent child in the family who, during
the previous month, failed, without good cause,
to maintain minimum school attendance. [Sec.
304 1
States would have the option of increasing a
family's AFDC benefit by up to $75 per month if
family members attending an educational
institution or participating in a course of
vocational or technical training met or exceeded
school attendance requirements. Families with
members who failed, without good cause, to meet
school attendance requirements would be
sanctioned by reducing their AFDC benefit by up
to $75 per month. ISec. 4021
who has earned income and has accrued savings
The money saved in the education account would
for each AFDC family member, a funeral
because of earnings. Statesalso could exclude
as a resource for a period of up to 2 years, the
ises owned by a family member.
of the AFDC farnily in a month must be
as a nonrecurring lump-sum payment. [Sec.
eligibility for the number of months that equal
the guaranteed cash income level for AFDC
families with no countable income. As of
consecutive months, to pay the same level of
benefits could be provided for up to 1 year.
in Alaska ($703 in Suffolk County, New York)
to a low of $120 in Mississippi. 145 CFK Sw.
233.20(a)(2)(iii)] Federal regulations provide
Item
Current law
House Republican bill, H.R. 3500
Senate Republican bill, S. 1795
-
Federal law requires that all income received by
the recipient or applicant be counted against the
AFDC benefit except that explicitly excluded by
(1) definition or (2) deduction. [Sec. 402(a)(7)
of SSA] Interest on savings is not excluded.
States would have the option of disregarding any
interest or income earned on a "qualified asset"
account and any qualified distribution from a
qualified asset account. The term "qualified
asset account" means a mechanism approved by
the State that allows savings of an AFDC family
to be used for qualified distributions. The term
"qualified distributions" means payments from
the qualified asset account for the purpose of (1)
attending an education or training program, (2)
improving one's employability (e.g., purchasing
an automobile), (3) buying a home, or (4)
moving to another residence. [Sec. 308(b) and
308(e)l
States would be required to disregard in
determining AFDC eligibility and benefit amount
any savings from a "qualified education account"
that are used for education expenses. [Sec.
408(b)]
Federal law allows some earned income received
by a recipient to be disregarded in determining
the amount of the family's AFDC benefit.
Same as current law.
For the first 4 cot~secutivet?rorrths of AFDC
eligibility irr which the recipient has (1 job:
-- first $90 of monthly earned income,
-- $30 a month of earned income,
-- one-third of remaining earnings, and
-- actual dependent care costs of up to $175 per
month per dependent (up to $200 per month for
a child under age 2)--less for part-time work.
For. trlotrths 5 througli 12:
-- first $90 of monthly earned income,
-- $30 a month of earned income, and
-- actual dependent care costs of up to $175 per
month per dependent (up to $200 per month for
a child under age 2)--less for part-time work.
Afrer. 12 morrths:
-- first $90 of monthly earned income, and
-- actual dependent care costs of up to $175 per
1no11t11per dependent (up to $200 1x1- month fbla child under age 2)--less for part-time wol.k.
(Sec. 402(a)(S) o f SSAj
States would have the option of ignoring the
current Federal earned income disregard rules as
long as the earned income rules applied to an
individual family would be at least as favorable
as current law but not more favorable than
disregarding the first $200 monthly of earned
income plus one-half of remaining earnings.
[Sec. 3061
States would be required, for 1 year, to disregard
wages paid to recipients receiving an employment
voucher (described on page 12) in determining
whether the person were eligible for AFDC or
food stamps. Although persons with an
employment voucher could retain eligibility for
AFDC and food stamps, they would receive
wages instead of those benefits. However, by
retaining eligibility for AFDC they would
continue to qualify for Medicaid benefits. [Sec.
1
CRS- 10
Item
Current law
House Republican bill, H.R. 3500
Federal regulations stipulate that with respect to
self-employment the term earned income means
the total profit from business enterprise resulting
from a comparison of the gross receipts wit11 the
business expenses. However, items such as
depreciation, personal business and
entertainment expenses, personal transportation,
purchase of capital equipment, and payments on
the principal of loans for capital assets or
durable goods are not considered business
expenses. 145 CFR Sec. 233 .ZO(a)(G)(v)(RjJ
States would have the option of considering as
earned income, for a period of up to 2 years,
only the net profits of an AFDC family's
microenterprise. The term microenterprise
means a commercial enterprise with 5 or fewer
employees including the owner. The term net
profits means the gross receipts of the business
n~inus(1) payments of principal o r interest on a
loan to the microenterprise, (2) transportation
expenses, (3) inventory costs, (4) expenditures
to purchase capital equipment, (5) cash retained
by tht: business for future use by the business,
( 6 ) taxes paid by the business, (7) insurance
expenses, (8) reasonable costs of obtaining one
motor vehicle necessary for the operation of the
business, and (9) other expenses of the business.
[Sec. 308(d) and 308(e)]
Federal law states that it is the purpose of the
JOBS program to "assure that needy families
with children obtain the education, training, and
employment that will help them avoid long-term
welfare dependence. " [Sec. 48 1 of SSA]
H.R. 3500 would amend the statement of
purpose to read: " . . . to assure that needy
families with children obtain the education,
training, and work experience needed to prepare
them for a life without welfare." [Sec. 101(a)]
Senate Republican bill, S. 1795
WORK PROGRARlS
Purpose
-
States must establish a JOBS program and, to
the extent that the program is available and
resources otherwise permit, must require
participation by all nonexempt adult recipients to
whom the State guarantees child care. (Sec. 482
of SSA]
No provision.
Item
Program Activities
Current law
House Republican bill, H.R. 3500
Senate Republican bill, S. 1795
State JOBS programs must include educational
activities (as appropriate), including high school
or equivalent (combined with training as
needed), basic and remedial education to achieve
basic literacy level, and education for
individuals with limited English proficiency; job
skills training; job readiness activities; and job
development and placement. [Sec. 482(d) o f
SSA]
Each State's JOBS program would be expanded
to include a transition component and a work
component. Each State's transition component
would have to include a job search program and
might include any other service, activity, or
program of the State's JOBS program (e.g.,
educational activities, job skills training, job
readiness activities, job development and
placement, on-the-job training, etc.). [Sec.
101(b)(l)l
Each State's JOBS program would be expanded
to include a transition component and a work
component. The transition component would
have to include a job search program and the
employment voucher program (described on page
12) and might include any other service, activity,
or program of the State's JOBS program (e.g.,
educational activities, job skills training, job
readiness activities, job development and
placement, on-the-job training, etc.). [Sec.
103(a>l
Each State would be required to have applicants
engage in job search, and at the time of their
AFDC enrollment, to refer recipients to either the
transition or work components of the JOBS
program. [Sec. 101(a) and 103(a)]
At the end of 6 months in the transition
program, the State would be required to
determine whether the recipient had made "clear
and substantial" progress toward preparing for
work. [Sec. 103(a)]
If at any time during a person's participation in
the transition component, he or she were
determined to be employable, the person would
be assigned to the work component of the
program. [Sec. l03(a)]
In addition, States must offer at least two of the
four following items: group and individual job
search; on-the-job training; work
supplementation program; or community work
experience program (CWEP) (or another work
experience program approved by the Secretary
of DHHS). [Sec. 482(d) of SSA]
Each State's work component might include a
work supplementation program (as revised by
the bill), a community work experience program
(as revised by the bill), or any other work
program of the State that is approved by the
Secretary of DHHS). [Sec. lOl(b)(l)l
Noie: In a work supplementation program, the
AFDC gla~itsubsidizes a ,iob.
The work component would have to include a
work supplementation program (as revised by the
bill), a community work experience program (as
revised by the bill), and the employment voucher
program, and might include any other work
program approved by the Secretary of DHHS.
[Sec. 103(a)J
I
CRS- 12
Item
Current law
House Republican bill, H.R. 3500
Senate Republican bill, S. 1795
Each State would be required to establish an
employment voucher program. Recipients of
AFDC benefits only, food stamp benefits only, or
both AFDC and food stamps benefits who
obtained employment would qualify for tlie
voucher. The voucher would be in lieu of AFDC
and food stamp benefits and for the first 6
months ot work, would equal each month the
combined monthly value of the family's AFDC
and food stamp benefits. For the second 6
months of work, the voucher would equal 50
percent of the combined monthly value of the
family's AFDC and food stamp benefits.
Recipients would be required to give the voucher
to their employers (as a wage supplement) during
the first year of employment. To obtain a
voucher, an employer would have to guarantee
the recipient monthly wages equal to at least
twice the employment voucher, or the minimum
wage for hours worked, whichever is greater. At
the end of 1 year, the voucher would be
eliminated entirely. T o obtain a voucher
employers also would be required to adhere to
specified work standards, such as the prohibition
against displacement of currently employed
workers or positions and provision of workers'
compensation and tort claims protection to
recipients in the einployment voucher program.
[Sec. 1021
Item
Senate Republican bill, S. 1795
Current law
House Republican bill, H.R. 3500
Federal law stipulates that no work assignment
under the JOBS program result in the
displacement of any currently employed worker
or position or the employment or assignment of
a participant or the filling of a position when (I)
any other individual is on layoff from the same
or any equivalent position or (2) the employer
has ended the employment of any regular
employee or otherwise reduced its workforce
with a participant subsidized under the JOBS
program. It states that no participant may be
assigned under Sec. 482(e), work
supplementation, or (0, community work
experience, to fill any established unfilled
position vacancy. [Sec. 484(c) of SSA]
H.R.3500 would allow States to assign work
Under H.R.3500, States would be able to use
food stamp benefits as well as AFDC benefits to
provide subsidized jobs for work
supplementation participants. [Sec. 103(b)(l)]
Employers would have to pay work
supplementation participants a "salary" as least
equal to the family's prior AFDC benefit and if
the State elected to include food stamps as part
of the subsidy, the State would have to pay the
participant a salary at least equal to what the
family would have otherwise received in
combined AFDC and food stamp benefits. [Sec.
103(b)(2)1
Same as H.R.3500. [Sec. 103(c)]
The State AFDC agency may require job search
by an individual applying for AFDC beginning
at the time such individual applies for aid and
continuing for a period of not more than 8
weeks. Moreover, at the end of the 8-week
period the State agency may require the
recipierit to participate in job search activities
for another p e r i d of not more than 8 weeks in
any 12-month period. [Sec. 482(g)(2) of SSA]
Unless a State adopted an exemption law, the
State would have to require each AFDC
applicant to participate in job search activities
while his or her application was pending. The
State would be required to reimburse the
applicant for necessary transportation and child
care expenses caused by job search. [Sec. 9041
States would have to require each AFDC
applicant to participate in job search activities
w h ~ l ehis or her application was pending. The
State would be required to reimburse the
applicant for necessary transportation and child
care expenses caused by job search. [Sec.
101(a)]
Same as H.R.3500. [Sec. 103(c)]
supplementation participants to unfilled jobs.
[Sec. 103(a)]
CRS- 14
Overall Time Limit
The JOBS program imposes no time limit on
person if the person had participated in the
transition component for 24 months, unless the
person found a job o r was participating in the
work component. [ S e c . l03(a)] Note: At State
option, the num8)cr of months of participation
could be reduced to 12.
spend in job search is 8 ~ e r k for
s AFDC
app!icants and 8 v;.r.ei.;s per year for . V D C
participate in the work program for a period
(determined by the State) of at least 3 years.
CWEP position and at the conclusion of each
CWEP assignment, the AFDC agency must
reassess and revise, as. appropriate, the
recipient's employability plan. After 9 months
in a CWEP position, the maximum number of
family's AFDC benefit could be reduced by an
amount allocated to one person and the person
Persons who have exhausted their time in the
transition or work programs would remain
eligible for Medicaid benefits. [Sec. 103(a)]
As under current law, States would be directed to
make an assessment of the family's needs and
skills. If the adult member were deemed
employable, he or she would be assigned to the
States must require participation by all
nonexempt recipients to whom the State
H.R. 3500 would require .each "qualified"
At the time of AFDC enrollment, families would
be referred to the AFDC transition or work
CRS- 15
Item
Exempt ions
Current law
House Republican hill, H.R. 3500
Exempt from JOBS are (1) persons who are ill,
incapacitated, or of advanced age; (2) children
under age 16; (3) children between ages 16 and
18 (or 19, at State option) who are attending full
time an elementary or secondary school or who
are enrolled in a vocational or technical
program full time; (4) parents or other relative
caretakers of a child under age 3 (at State
option, under age 1) who are personally
providing care for the child; (5) parents or other
relative caretakers of a child between 3 and 6,
unless child care is "guaranteed" (required
participation cannot exceed 20 hours per week);
(6) persons whose presence in the home is
required because of the illness or incapacity of
another household member; (7) persons working
30 hours or more a week; (8) pregnant women
in their second or third trimester; and (9)
persons living in areas where the program is not
available. [Sec. 402(a)(19)(C) of SSA]
Qualified individuals are defined as (1) persons
eligible for AFDC who applied for such aid on
or after Oct. 1, 1994 and are not exempt from
participation requirements and (2) beginning
Oct. 1, 1998, persons eligible for AFDC
(regardless of when they applied) who are not
exempt from participation requirements. [Sec.
101(b)(2)1
Exempt individuals are (1) persons who are
incapacitated; (2) persons who work 30 or more
hours per week; (3) persons who attend full
time, an elementary, secondary, or vocational
(or technical) school; (4) parents of a child who
was removed from the home and recently
returned (within preceding 2 months); (5)
persons providing full-time care for a disabled
dependent; (6) at State option, persons who are
making progress in a substance abuse treatment
program, unless the person has already been
exempt for 12 months; (7) first-time mothers
during such 6-month period that they choose that
encompasses the birth of the child; and (8)
mothers who already have a child during such 4month period that they choose that encompasses
the birth of their second or subsequent child.
[Sec. 101(b)(3)]
Senate Republican bill, S. 1795
Exempt individuals are (1) persons who are ill,
incapacitated, or of advanced age; (2) persons
working 35 hours or more a week; (3) children
under age 16 who are attending full time an
elementary, secondary, or vocational (or
technical) school; (4) persons providing full-time
care for a disabled dependent; ( 5 ) at State option,
persons who are making progress,in a substance
abuse treatment program, 12-month limitation;
(6) first-time mothers during a 6-month period
after they give birth to the child; and (7) mothers
who already have a child during a 4-month
period after they give birth to their second or
subsequent child; and (8) persons living in areas
where the program is not available. [Sec. 1051
CRS- I6
A qualified individual could be permitted but not
required to participate in the transition
component if, on the basis of demographic
criteria, the State finds it unlikely that she or he
would be an AFDC recipient during a
"significant length" of time. [Sec. 101(b)(2)]
If an individual were making progress In a
months. [Sec. lOS(a)]
Item
Measure of Participation
C u r r e n t law
Federal regulations stipulate that paiticipation is
to be measured in terms of a 20-hour-per-week
standard. Under this rule, the welfare agency is
instructed to count as participants the largest
number of persons whose combined and
averaged hours during the month equal 20. [45
CFR Sec. 250.781
Federal law requires that at least one parent in
each AFDC-UP family participate at least 16
hours a week in a work activity. T h e
percentage of AFDC-UP families required to
meet this work requirement is 40 percent in FY
1994, 5 0 percent in FY 1995, 6 0 percent in FY
1996, and 75 percent in FY 1997-98. (A State
may substitute participation in an educational
program in the case of a parent under age 25
who has not completed high school or
equivalent.) [Sec. 403(1)(4) of SSA]
House Republican bill, H.R. 3500
Senate Republican bill, S. 1795
Each qualified individual in the transition
component would have to participate for an
average of not fewer than 10 hours per week.
[Set 101(b)(2)1
Each qualified individual in the transition
component would have to participate for an
average of not fewer than 20 hours per week.
[Sec. 103(a)]
If a qualified individual (who is not a member of
an AFDC-UP family) were not participating in
the transition component, the State would have
to require the person to participate in the work
component for 35 hours per week (30 hours per
week if the individual also were required to
engage in job search). [Sec. 101(b)(2)]
At State option, each person participating in the
work component would have to participate in
work activities for an average of at least 35 hours
per week o r in work activities for an average of
30 hours per week and engage in job search for
an average of at least 8 hours per week. [Sec.
103(a)l
The State would have to require at least one
parent in an AFDC-UP family to participate in
the work component by engaging in work
activities for 32 hours per week and by engaging
in job search activities for 8 hours per week.
[Sec. 101(b)(2)]
Same as H.R. 3500. Further, the community
work experience program hour requirements
would be changed to require recipients to work
for 32 hours per week and engage in 8 hours of
job search. [Sec. 103(a)]
CRS- 18
States would be required to regard as
participants (in the transition component)
persons enrolled in a full-time program of study
at an educational institution who are making
satisfactory progress in his o r her studies as
determined by the institution. H.R. 3500 would
require the DHHS Secretary to prescribe mles
govenning how to convert time spent in this kind
of study program into hours of participation in
the transition program. [Sec. 101(b)(2)]
Same as H.R. 3500. [Sec. 103(a)]
States would have to require one parent in an
AFDC-UP family to participate in the work
component. States would have the option of
requiring one parent to participate in the
transition component. [Sec. 106(b)]
In the case of an AFDC-UP family, a State
would be allowed to substitute participation in an
educational program In the case of a parent under
eted high school (or
Item
Participation Rates
Senate Republican bill, S. 1795
Current law
House Republican bill, H.R. 3500
Federal law sets the general JOBS participation
rates at 7 percent in FY 1990-91, 11 percent in
FY 1992-93, 15 percent in FY 1994, and 20
percent in FY 1995. For years after FY 1995,
no participation rates are specified in the law.
[Sec. 403(1)(3)(A) of SSA]
Under H.R. 3500, with respect to nonexempt
persons who applied for AFDC before Oct. 1,
1994, the general participation rates would be
the same as in current law, except that the
schedule would extend beyond FY 1995,
providing a 20-percent rate in FY 1996-98.
[Sec. lOl(b)(5)]
Same as H.R. 3500. [Sec. 106(a)l
With respect to nonexempt persons who applied
for AFDC on or after Oct. 1, 1994, the general
participation rates would be 30 percent in FY
1996, 40 percent in FY 1997, and 50 percent in
FY 1998. [Sec. 101(b)(5)]
Same as H.R. 3500. [Sec. 106(a)]
With respect to all nonexempt persons,
regardless of when they applied for AFDC, the
general participation rates would rise to 60
percent in FY 1999, 70 percent in FY 2000, 80
percent in FY 2001, and 90 percent in FY 2002.
[Sec. 101(b)(5)]
Same as H.R. 3500. [Sec. 106(a)]
Under H.R. 3500, the special participation rates
for persons in the AFDC-UP program would be
the same as under current law, except that in FY
1998 the rate would be 90 percent. [Sec.
10l(b)(6)]
Same as H.R. 3500. [SK. 106(b)]
Federal law sets participation rates for persons
in the AFDC-UP program at 40 percent in the
case of the average of each month in FY 1994,
50 percent in the case of the average of each
month in FY 1995, 60 percent in the case of the
average of each month in FY 1996, and 75
percent in the case of the average of each month
in FY 1997-98. [Sec. 403(1)(4)(B) of SSA]
the entire Family (of the noncooperating
compIies o r 6 months, whichever is longer.
1 . s 402(a)(lS))(G)
~
of SSR]
be deemed to have started the second offense. In
the case of the second failure to comply, at least
6 months would have to elapse before AFBC:
benefits would be restored. If the recipient still
case of the third failure to comply, the parent
more than 3 months would be considered the
third failure to comply. Families that lost
AFDC because of failure to comply would
continue to be eligible for Medicaid benefits.
Note: Although the noncomplying recipient's
family cash loss would equal 25 percent, his o r
her total benefit loss would be less than 25
percent (17.5 percent) because food stamp
benefits generally increase 30 cents for every
dollar lost in income. (The food stamp increase
and payments on behalf of the children would be
made as protective payments. [Sec. 1041
I tern
Senate Republican bill, S. 1795
Current law
House Republican bill, H.R. 3500
Evaluation of Education and
Training Programs
Federal law requires the Secretary of DHHS to
conduct a study to determine the relative
effectiveness of the different approaches used by
States under the JOBS program for helping longterm recipients and potentially long-term
recipients. The study is to be based on data
gathered from demonstration projects in five
States (which are required to operate for at least
3 years). The projects are to use an
experimental design. The law authorized $5
million for FY 1990-91. [Sec. 203(c) of P.L.
100-4851
The Secretary of DHHS would be required to
conduct research projects for at least 5 years to
examine the impact of education and training
programs on the ability of individuals to get off
the AFDC program, AFDC expenditures, wage
rates, employment histories, and the resumption
of AFDC participation. At least one of the
projects would have to include random
assignment of adult AFDC recipients to control
and experimental groups. [Sec. 9031
Same as H.R. 3500. [Sec. 7031
Funding
Federal law entitles each State to a share of
JOBS matching funds equal to its share of adult
AFDC recipients. Authorized is $1 billion
yearly in FY 1991-93, $1.1 billion in FY 1994,
$1.3 billion in FY 1995, and $1 billion in FY
1996 and years thereafter. The Federal
matchi& rate for JOBS activities and cost of
full-time JOBS personnel ranges from 60 percent
to 80 percent (90 percent for the State's share of
the first $126 million, FY 1987 appropriation
for the predecessor Work Incentive (WIN)
program), but is 5 0 percent for administrative
expenses other than full-time personnel and for
work-related expenses other than child care
(separately funded). [Sec. 403(k) and 403(1) of
SSA]
Each State that has used its full allocation of
Federal JOBS funds (under terms of current law)
would be entitled to additional funds for JOBS.
The following amounts would be authorized:
$300 million in FY 1996, $1 billion in FY 1997,
and $1.9 billion in FY 1998. Allocations of
these funds would be based on each State's
share of adult AFDC recipients. The Federal
matching rate for the new JOBS funds would
range from 70 percent to 80 percent (statutory
maximum 83 percent) for work activities and
costs of full-time personnel, but would be 5 0
percent for administrative expenses other than
full-time personnel and for work-related
expenses. [Sec. I0 l(c)]
Same as H.R. 3500. [Sec. 1071
The Federal matching rate for the new JOBS
funds would fall to a flat 50 percent for work
activities and all administrative expenses if a
State failed to achieve these overall participation
rates: 15 prrct.nt ill FY 1994, 20 percent in FY
1995, 30 percent in FY 1996, 40 percent in FY
1997, 50 percent in FY 1998, 60 percent in FI'
1999, 70 percenl in FY 2000, 80 percent in FI'
2001, and 90 ~,c.r.centin FY 2002. [ S e . I0 I (c)]
Same as H.R. 3500. [Sec. 1071
-
- -- ---
-
-
No change in stated purpose.
IV of the Social Security Act, is to establish and
colleci child support obligations, locate absent
parents, and establish paternity.
paternity and new measures to encourage
paternity and new measures to encourage
support obligations of some employes, State
and national information systems, income
withholding procedures, uniform terms and
information to be included in child support
orders, and work requirement for noncustodial
parents with child support arrearages.
paternity of a child. Federal law allows
Under the "good cause" regulations, the CSE
identifies the prospective father and, after the
child is born, cooperates in establishing the
interests of the child to seek to establish
would be required to encourage the woman to
Federal law requires States to have laws and
I tern
Paternity Establishment
Percentage
Current law
House Republican bill, H.R. 3500
States are required to meet Federal standards for
the establishment of paternity. The standard
relates to the percentage obtained by dividing (a)
the number of children in the State who are born
out of wedlock, are receiving AFDC o r CSE
services, and for whom paternity has been
established by (b) the number of children who
are born out of wedlock and are receiving
AFDC or CSE services. T o meet Federal
requirements, this percentage in a State must:
(a) be at least 75 percent, on the basis of the
most recent reliable data or (b) m e t these
standards of improvement from the preceding
year: percentage between 50 and 75 percent, up
3 percentage points from the score of the
preceding year; percentage between 45 and 50,
up 4 percentage points; percentage between 40
and 45 percent, up 5 percentage points; and
percentage below 40 percent, up at least 6
percentage points from preceding year. [Sec.
452(g) of SSA]
T o meet Federal requirements, the paternity
establishment percentage in a State would have
to: (a) be at least 90 percent or (b) meet these
standards of improvement: percentage between
50 and 90, up 6 percentage points from score of
preceding year; o r percentage below 50 percent,
up at least 10 percentage points from preceding
year. [Sec. 2041
Senate Republican bill, S. 1795
Same as H.R. 3500. [Sec. 2031
to establish a system for reporting child support
obligations on W-4 forms. Employees with a
legal obligation to pay child support that is to be
collected through wage withholding would be
required to indicate on the W-4 form (1) the
existence of the obligation, (2) the amount of the
obligation, (3) the name and address of the
person owed, and (4) whether health care
insurance is available through the employer to
the employee's family. Employees in designated
industries would also be required to provide this
information on their W-4 forms. In addition,
every employee would be required to file a onetime update of the above described information
on a W-4 form during a period prescribed by
e in which the person works. [Sec.
information from an employee regarding his or
her child support obligation would be required,
within 10 days, (1) to forward the information
to the State's child support enforcement agency,
and (2) to withhold from the income of the
employee, the amount indicated on the W-4
form (or if the State indicates that the W-4
information is incorrect, the amount that the
State indicates should be withheld). [Sec.
Item
Current law
House Republican bill, H.R. 3500
States would be required to have a law that
establishes procedures under which the State
must designate a public agency to maintain the
W-4 form information provided by employers in
a manner that allows other States easy access to
the information through the Interstate Locate
Network and to determine whether the
information provided by the employer is
accurate. If the information is correct (verified
by comparing it to the copy of the child support
order on file with the State registry), the State
would be required to notify the custodial parent
who lives in the State of the information. If the
information is not correct, the State would be
required to notify the employer and to correct
the information. If the State registry does not
contain a copy of the support order, the State
would be required to search other State
registries for a copy of the child support order.
[Sec. 501(b)]
States would be required to have a law that
establishes procedures under which the State
must (I) designate at least one industry as an
industry with respect to w h ~ c huniversal
employment reporting would improve child
support enforcement in an effective manner, (2)
prescribe the period during w h ~ c hemployees
would be required to file updated W-4 forms,
(3) impose a fine against an employee who fails
to file a W-4 form with his or her employer; the
fine would be equal to the average cost of
noncompliance or $25. wh~cheveris less. [Sec.
5 0 1 (b)l
Senate Republican bill, S. 1795
Senate Republican bill, S. 1795
Current law
House Republican bill, H.R. 3500
The State must provide that, at the request of
either parent, child support payments be made
through the agency that administers the State's
income withholding system regardless of
whether there is at1 arrearage. The State must
charge the parent who requests the service a fee
equal to the cost incurred by the State for these
of $25 per year.
services, up tc; a nlaxjrn~~ni
[Stx. 466(c) or' SSA]
States would be required to have a law
establishing procedures under which the
designated State agency would have to maintain
a child support order registry. The registry
would include a copy of each child support
order being enforced under the State CSE plan,
and at the request of an individual who has or is
owed a legal obligation to provldt: child support,
a copy of the order that imposes the obligation.
[Sec. 502(a)]
Same as H.R. 3500. [Sec. 301(a)]
States would be required to have a law
establishing procedures that provide other States
access to "locate" illformation through the
Interstate Locate Network. States would be
permitted to charge reasonable fees for access to
their State records. [Sec. 502(b)]
Same as H.R. 3500. [Sec. 301(b)]
States would be required to have a law
establishing procedures under which (1)
noncustodial parents would be given access to
State parent locator services to aid in the
establishrnent or enforcement of visitation rights
and (2) custodial parents would he b'w e n access
to State parent locator services to aid in the
establishment and enforcement of child support
obligations. [Sec. 502(b)]
Same as H.R. 3500. [Sec. 301(b)]
Itern
NATIONAL INFORMATION
SYSTEMS
Current law
House Republican bill, H.R. 3500
The law requires that the Federal Parent Locator
Service (FPLS), established as part of the CSE
program, be used to obtain and transmit
information about the whereabouts of any absent
parent when that information is to be used for
the purpose of erforcirrg child support
obligatiorrs. Upon request, the Secretary of
DHHS must provide to an authorized person the
most recent address and place of employment of
any absent parent if the ~nformationis contained
in the records of DHHS, or can be obtained
from any other department or agency of the
United States or of any State. The FPLS also
can be used in connection with the enforcement
or determ~nationof child custody and in cases of
parental kidnapping. [Sec. 453 and 463 of SSA]
H.R. 3500 would expand the FPLS "purpose"
language to include establishing parentage, and
establishing and modifying child support
obligations. Also, the bill would require use of
the FPLS to obtain (and transmit to the
noncustodial parent) information regarding the
whereabouts of the custodial parent when the
information is to be used for the purpose of
enforcing child visitation rights and obligations.
[Sec. 503(a)]
The Secretary of DHHS would be required to
establish an Interstate Locate Network linking
the FPLS to State databases relating to child
support enforcement. Any State could use the
network to locate a noncustodial parent by
accessing the records of any Federal, State, or
other source of locate or child support
information, directly from one computer system
to another. Any State could direct a locate
request to another State or a Federal agency, or
to selected States or to all States. The network
would allow on-line access for cases in which
information was needed immediately and batch
processing to locate individuals or update
information periodically. The network would
enable courts to access information through a
computer term~nallocated in the court. [Sec.
503(b)l
Senate Republican bill, S. 1795
Same as H.R. 3500. [Sec. 302(a)]
Information would not be disclosed to a custodial
parent or noncustodial parent if it would
jeopardize the safety of any person. [Sec.
302(a)]
The Secretary of DHHS would be required to
establish an Interstate Locate Network linking the
FPLS to State databases relating to child support
enforcement. The network would help States to
locate noncustodial parents who owe child
support and custodial parents who are not
complying with the vis~tationrights of the
noncustodial parent. [Sec. 302(b)]
Secretary of DHHS (Director of the Office of
Child Support Enforcement) to prescribe
regulations governing information sharing
among States, within States, and between States
and the FPLS, to ensure that the response time
for locate information not e x c d 48 hours.
escribe regulations governing information
aring among States, within States, and between
tates and the FPLS, to ensure that the response
for locate information not exceed 48 hours.
r the regulations, a State trying to locate a
oncustodial parent or collect child support
ayments would be required to compare all
outstanding cases with information in the
employment records of the State. If the State
failed to find the ~~oncustorliai
parent or collect
child support and had reason to believe that the
noncustodial parent were in a particular State or
States, information would be requested from that
State or States. Otherwise information would be
Item
INCOME WITHHOLDING
Current law
House Republican bill, H.R. 3500
Senate Republican bill, S. 1795
Since Nov. 1, 1990, all new or modified child
support orders that were being enforced by the
State's CSE agency were subject to immediate
income withholding. Beginning Jan. 1, 1994,
States are required to provide for immediate
income withholding for all support orders
initially issued on or after that date, regardless
of whether a parent has applied for CSE
services. [Sec. 466(b)(3) and 466(a)(8)(B) of
SSA]
H.R. 3500 would require the designee of the
Secretary of DHHS to develop a uniform order
to be used in all cases in which income is to be
withheld for the payment of child support,
which is to contain the name of the individual
whose income is to be withheld, the number of
children covered by the order, and the individual
or State to whom the withheld income is to be
paid. The order would apply to all sources of
income. [Sec. 504(b)]
The Secretary of DHHS would be required to
develop a uniform order to be used in all cases in
which income is to be withheld for the payment
of child support, which is to contain the name of
the individual whose income is to be withheld,
the amount to be withheld, the number of
children covered by the order, and the individual
or State to whom the withheld income is to be
paid. The order would apply to all sources of
income. [Sec. 303(b)]
States would be required to designate a public
agency to collect child support and distribute
promptly all amounts collected as child support.
States would be required to require courts that
establish or modify child support orders to
transmit a copy of the order to the State CSE
agency, unless both parents object and the order
does not provide for income withholding. States
would be required to designate a State agency to
use the uniform income withholding order to
notify involved parties of the ~dentityof the
individual, the amount to be withheld, and the
State agency to which the withheld amount is to
be paid. [Sec. 504(a)]
States would be required to designate a public
agency to collect child support and distribute
promptly all amounts collected as child support.
States would be required to require courts that
establish or modify child support orders to
transmit a copy of the order to the State CSE
agency, unless both parents object and the order
does not provide for income withholding. States
would be required to designate a State agency to
use the uniform income withholding order in
connection with child support collection efforts.
[Sec. 303(a)]
Item
UNIFORM ORDERS
Current law
No provision.
House Republican bill, H.W. 3500
Senate Republican bill, S . 1795
States would be required to have laws requiring
employers to withhold child support pursuant to
uniform income withholding orders. After
receiving a copy of an order, the employer
would be required to provide a copy to the
employee subject to the order, and within 10
days after receipt of the order, to withhold
income from the employee. l'he State would be
required to impose a civil fine equal to the
average cost of noncompliance (as determined
by the State) or $25, whichever is less, on an
employer who fails to comply with the order
within 10 days after receipt. Any fee imposed
by the employer for the administration of child
support income withholding and related
reporting requirements could not exceed the
average cost of such administration, as
determined by the State. [Sec. 504(c)]
Same as H.R. 3500. [Sec. 303(c)]
Under H.R. 3500, the designee of the DHHS
Secretary would be required to develop, in
conjunction with State executive and judicial
organizations, a uniform abstract of a child
support order, for use by all State courts to
record, with respect to each child support order
in the child support order registry the same
basic information--such as the date support
payments are to begin, the circumstances under
which support orders are to end, the amount of
child support payable, social security numbers of
both parents, name, date of birth, and social
security number of the child, etc. (Sec. 5051
Same as H.R. 35QO. [Sec. 3041
Item
Current law
House Republican bill, H.R. 3500
Senate Republican bill, S. 1795
WORK REQUIREMENT FOR
NONCUSTODIAL PARENT
Federal law authorizes the Secretary of DHHS
to grant waivers to up to five States to allow
them to provide services to noncustodial parents
under the JOBS program. [Sec. 482(d)(3) of
SSA]
States would be required to have a law
providing procedures under which 2 to 4 weeks
of job search would be imposed (by court order)
on able-bodied noncustodial parents who are
delinquent in paying their child support by an
amount at least equal to twice the monthly child
support obligation and who are not subject to a
court-approved plan for payment of such
arrearages, provided the arrearage has not been
reduced by a specified percentage within 30
days after notification by the State CSE agency
that he or she is required to pay child support
and subject to fines and other penalties for
failure to pay the full amount in a timely
manner. The required State law also would
have to provide that if the arrearage has not
been decreased by a specified percentage by the
end of the 30-day period that began when an
order to require the parent to participate in job
search was entered, the parent must participate
in a work program for at least 35 hours per
week (30 hours per w e k if the program
includes job search). [Sec. 5061
Same as H.R. 3500, except that the parent would
have to participate in a work program for at least
32 hours per week (rather than 30) if the
program includes job search. [Sec. 3051
Itern
Current law
Senate Republican bill, S. 1795
House Republican bill, H.R. 3500
PROVISIONS RELATING TO RECEIPT OF "WELFARE"BY ALIENS
Provisions Related to Alien
Eligibility for Federal Assistance
Aliens who are lawful permanent residents or
are otherwise legally present on a permanent
basis (e.g., refugees) generally are eligible for
Federal benefits on the same basis as are
citizens. Illegal (undocumented) aliens are
eligible only for emergelicy Mediclrid services.
In determining the SSI eligibility and/or benefit
amount for a pe.rsor, who is an aiien, a portion
of the income and rescwrces of any person (and
spouse) who sponsors an alien (i.e., by signing
an af'fidavit of support) is deemed to be the
income and resources of the alien for a period of
3 years after the alien's entry into the United
States. [Sec. 1621 of SSA]
H.R.3500 would prohibit most aliens from
As under current law, illegal aliens would be
prohibited from receiving AFDC, Medicaid
(except emergency services), food stamps, SSI,
o r Federal unemployment compensation. [Sec.
60 l(a)l
receiving Federal assistance. The exceptions
would be refugees until they had been in this
country for 6 years, and persons aged 75 and
older who had been lawfully admitted for
permanent residence and who had resided in the
United States for at least 5 years. Aliens would
be barred from 61 Federal programs, including
With respect to legal aliens, their sponsor's (and
sponsor's spouse's) income and resources would
AFDC, SSI, Food Stamp, child nutrition
I be attributable to the alien until the alien had
programs, housing programs, education
programs, job training programs, etc.. The only become a naturalized U.S. citizen. [Sec. 601(b)]
program from which they would not be barred
would be the Medicaid emergency services
Any legal alien who receives welfare benefits for
12 months would be reported to the Immigration
program. The bar would go into effect 1 year
and Naturalization Service (INS) as a public
after enactment. [Sec. 6011
charge for possible deportation. [Sec. 60 1(b)]
1
1
State welfare agencies would be required to
report to the Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS) the name, address, and other
relevant information that it has concerning any
person unlawfully in the United States who is
the parent of a child with citizenship (by birth).
[Sec. 6021
Item
House Republican bill, H.R. 3500
Current law
Senate Republican bill, S. 1795
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SSI Benefits for Drug Addicts
and Alcoholics
Under the SSI program an individual is
considered to be a medically determined drug
addict o r alcoholic only if (1) he o r she is
disabled (as defined by SSI law), and (2) drug
addiction o r alcoholism is a contributing factor
to such disability. The presence of a condition
diagnosed or defined as addiction to alcohol or
drugs does not by itself qualify an individual for
SSI benefits.
The Secretary of DHHS would be required to
identify all SSI recipients whose disability is the
result of addiction to illegal drugs. The
Secretary would be required, on a random basis
and periodically, to test each identified recipient
to determine whether the recipient is using
illegal drugs. Any individual found to be using
illegal drugs or who refused to submit to testing
would become ineligible for SSI. [Sec. 902(a)]
Same as H.R. 3500. [Sec. 705(a)]
Section 1631(a)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act
requires SSI recipients disabled because of drug
addiction o r alcoholism to have a representative
payee; section 16 11(e)(3)(A) of the Social
Security Act requires these recipients to
participate in an approved treatment program
when available and appropriate; and section
161 1(e)(3)(B) of the Social Security Act requires
recipients to allow their participation in that
treatment program to be monitored by SSA.
Government agencies would be allowed to
become paid representative payees. H.R. 3500
would set the maximum fee payable to a
representative payee at no more than 10 percent
of the individual's monthly SSI benefit. [Sec.
902(b)1
Same as H.R. 3500. [Sec. 705(b)]
Social Security Benefits for the
Criminal1y Insane
Social Security benefits are not paid to prisoners
convicted o f felonies. But, some persons who
have committed violent crimes are able to
receive social security benefits because they
were found "not guilty by reason of insanity."
[Sec. 202(x)(1) of SSA]
No provision.
Persons who have been found "not guilty by
reason of insanity" or guilty, but insane, would
not be able to collect Social Security benefits
during the period in which they were confined in
prison or other public institution. [Sec. 7011
Cap on Funding for Selected
Means-Tested Programs
AFDC, SSI, food stamps, and the Earned
Income Tax Credit (EITC) are treated as openended entitlements. Housing subsidies are not
entitlements, and many eligible persons are
excluded for lack of funding.
H.R. 3500 would limit funding for AFDC, SSI,
food stamps, rental assistance, public housing
assistance, and EITC to a base level, adjusted
for ~nflation,plus 2 percent per fiscal year.
(Sec. 701 and 7021
No provision.
F'rogram to a 'Block Grant
Control Act of 1985 established a series s f
declining annual deficit targets and created a
process known as sequestration intended to
ensure that the deficit targets are adhered to.
Under the sequestration process, across-the-
sequestrations have been made, specified meanstested program accounts would be sequestered to
achieve reductions sufficient to eliminate a
budget-year breach of the aggregate spending
cap on the selected means-tested programs
(noted above). [Sec. 7021
program. The States are entitled to matching
receive its Federal AFDC funding as a block
conform to their only State plan. The State
eligibility requirements, and the F d e r a I
payments to the State for each fiscal year in an
funds based on a prescribed formula. The
to which the State was entitled in FY 1992.
children, but the State would not be subject to
match). It also pays 50 percent of
after the end of each fiscal year block grant
otherwise would be payable to a State if the
State failed to provide cash benefits to needy
and (b) pl.oct.dr~resFor referring to l a w
e~lforce~iient
oficials cases in which fraud is
Item
Current law
House Republican bill, H.R. 3500
Federal law requires States to have in effect an
income eligibility and verification system
covering AFDC, food stamps, Medicaid, and
unemployment compensation. [Sec. 402(a)(25)
of SSA]
H.R. 3500 would require the DHHS Secretary
to establish a commission to determine the cost
and feasibility of creating an interstate system to
compare the Social Security account numbers of
all AFDC recipients in order to identify any
persons who receive AFDC from two or more
States. The Secretary would be required to
submit a report to the Congress containing the
commission's findings within 2 years of
enactment. [Sec. 905(b)]
Same as H.R. 3500. [Sec. 704(c)]
States also have the option of establishing an
AFDC fraud control program. Under this
program, persons found to have intentionally
made a false or misleading statement or
misrepresented, concealed, or withheld facts, or
committed any act intended to mislead,
misrepresent, conceal, or withhold facts in order
to gain AFDC eligibility or maintain or increase
the family's AFDC benefit are to be disqualified
from the AFDC program for 6 months for the
first offense, 1 year for the second offense, and
permanently for the t h ~ r doffense. [Sec. 416 of
SSA]
No provision for "fraud control" program.
States would be required to establish an AFDC
fraud control program. Under this program,
persons found to have intentionally made a false
or misleading statement or misrepresented,
concealed, or withheld facts, or committed any
act intended to mislead, misrepresent, conceal, or
withhold facts in order to gain AFDC eligibility
or maintain or increase the family's AFDC
benefit would be permanently disqualified from
the AFDC program. [Sec. 7061
Electronic Benefit Transfer
Demonstrations
-
- .
-
,,
-
.
Senate Republican bill, S. 1795
Same as H.R. 3500. [Sec. 704(a)] However,
Federal approval of Electronic Benefit Transfer
(EBT) demonstrations would be conditioned on
cost neutrality, distribution of cost savings
between the State and Federal Government,
reasonable time frames for development and
~mplementation,reasonable limits on the number
of transactions and the amount of service fees,
st~pulationof anti-fraud procedures to prevent
msuse of EBT cards, privacy protections, an
equ~tablecost accounting system for expand~ng
EBT to other State and Federal programs, and
submittal of evaluat~onreports to the DH HS
Secl.etary. [Sec. 704(h)]
.
.. - . . .
-,
H.R. 3500 would authorize the DHHS Secretary
to conduct demonstration projects in several
States to determine whether providing benefits
based on need through the use of electronic
cards and automatic teller machines would
reduce administrative costs and fraud. The
Secretary would be required to report to
Congress, within 5 years of enactment, a
summary of the results of the project and
recommendations concerning whether and how
more States might he required or encouraged to
use elrctlonic funds transfer in providing
benefits based on need. ISw. 905(a)l
--
,
-
--
-,
-
Current law
House Republican bill, H.R. 3500
Senate Republican bill, S, 1795
Waiver Requests
The primary way in which a State may receive
Federal matching finds for AFDC program
expenditures that otherwise would be
disqualified because of not conforming to State
AFDC plan provisions is for the State to obtain
a waiver under Section 11 15 of SSA. Section
11 15 authorizes the Secretary of DHHS to waive
compliance with s p ~ i f i e di-qmirernents of the
Act that the Secretary judges likely, via
experimental, demonstration, o r pilot projects,
to assist in promoting the objectives of the
AFDC, child support, or Medicaid programs,
among others. [Sec. 1115 of SSA]
H.R. 3500 would establish an Interagency
Waiver Request Board to develop and coordinate
waiver requests designed to improve
opportunities for low-income individuals and
their families, [Sec. 4011
The chairperson of the board would be required
to approve o r disapprove an application within
9 0 days after receipt. [Sec. 4031 Entities that
obtain waivers would be required to submit
annual reports to the chairperson on the
program's principal activities and achievements.
[Sec. 4041 Entities that seek a waiver must
establish a public-private partnership committee
to aid in the development and implementation of
the program. [Sec. 4051 The General
Accounting Office would be required to issue
two reports on the implementation and
effectiveness of the waiver request process on
the covered Federal assistance programs. [Sec.
4071 The authority for the Waiver Request
Board would expire 7 years after enactment.
[Sec. 4081
Same as H.R. 3500. However, the Interagency
Waiver Request Board would be required to
provide States assistance and technical advice in
applying for waivers. The board would be
required to develop a standardized 5-year waiver
process. If a waiver request has not been finally
acted on within 9 0 days, the waiver would be
deemed approved. If the waiver were denied, the
board would be required to give the State specific
reasons for the denial so the State could make
corrections and reapply. [Sec. 501 -5071
Public Housing Rent Reform
As of December 1993, "adjusted income" used
to determine rent charged in public housing and
Section 8 housing is defined as annual gross
income minus: $480 per dependent, $400 for an
elderly family, excess medical cost for an
elderly family, and costs of child care and
handicapped assistance. P.L. 101-625 increased
deductions from income used to calculate rent
(and established a work reward: disregard of 10
percent of earnings), but the chan,<yeswere
dependent upon appropriations to fund them (not
yet provided). A family living in public housing
is required to pay 30 percent of the a?jl~sted
inconle for rent.
Under H.R. 3500, the amount of any Federal,
State, and local income taxes and social security
payroll taxes paid by any member of a family
living in public housing would be disregarded in
determining the family's income for purposes of
paying rent. [Sec. 906(b)]
No provision.
Item
H.R. 3500 would give a public housing
authority (PHA) the option of disregardin!: from
consideration as income for purposes of
determining rent charges, all or part of any
increases in the earned income that results from
the employment of a pre\liol~slyu~iemployrd
member of a family that is living in puhlic
housing during that ~ n c ~ n b e rfirst
' s 2 years of
employ~nent. [Sec. 906(b)]
Item
Current law
House Republican hill, H.R. 3500
Senate Republican bill, S. 1795
Under H.R. 3500, the Secretary of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) could authorize up to 5 0 PHAs or
resident management corporations (RMCs) to
c a w out demonstration programs to determine
the feasibility and desirability of giving PHAs or
RMCs authority to establish policies for the
operation, maintenance, management, and
development of public housing projects. The
objective of the demonstration programs would
be to encourage resident empowerment and
reduce the poverty of public housing residents.
The demonstrations could not operate for longer
than 5 years. The PHAs or RMCs conducting
demonstrations would be required to submit
annual reports to the Secretary of HUD and the
Secretary would be required to submit a report
to Congress describing and evaluating the
demonstrations not later than 6 years after
enactment. [Sec. 906(c)]
Eligibility for Food Stamps
--
The Food Stamp program has financial,
employmentttraining, and "categorical" tests for
eligibility. Its financial tests require that
recipients have monthly cash income and liquid
assets below limits set by food stamp law.
Under the employmentltralning-relatedtests,
certain household members must register for
work, accept suitable job offers, and fulfill work
or training requirements established by State
welfare agencies. Categorical eligibility rules
make some people automatically eligible for
food stamps (e.g., most AFDC, SSI, and
general assistance recipients), and automat~cally
deny eligibil~tyto others (e.g., strikers, illegal
aliens. some postsecondary students, and those
who quit a job).
Same as current law.
Same as current law.
Item
Food Assistance Block Grant
Current law
House Republican bill, W.R. 3500
The Food Stamp Act, the National School Lunch
Act, the Child Nutrition Act, the Emergency
Food Assistance Act, and provisions in a
number of other laws (such as the Older
Americans Act) establish federally supported
food assistance progranis that aid low-income
persons and specific vulnerable population
groups, including children, the elderly, infants,
and pregnant and postpartun1 women. These
progratns include the Food Stamp program, the
School Lunch program, the School Breakfast
program, the Summer Food Service program,
the Child and Adult Care Food program, the
Special Milk program, the Special Supplemental
Food Program for Women, Infants, and
Children (WIC), the Commodity Supplemental
Food program, the Emergency Food Assistance
program, Older Americans Act programs
providing congregate and home-delivered meals
to the elderly, programs providing Federal
commodities to Indian tribes, schools, child care
agencies, and chaiitable agencies, and programs
providing States and school food service
agencies with administrative cost assistance and
nutrition education and training. Although most
Federal support is directed to low-income
recipients, a significant portion goes to persons
from families with incomes well above Federal
poverty guidelines: e.g., all lunches served in
the School Lunch program are federally
subsidized, but subsidies are greaten. for those
served to lower income children; the WIC
program serves women with incomes as high as
185 percent of the poverty guidelines.
Title VIII would repeal all provisions of current
law establishing Federal food assistance
programs and replace them with annual food
assistance block grants to States, the District of
Columbia, Indian tribal organizations with
governmental jurisdiction, Puerto Rico, Guam,
the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the
Northern Marianas, the Marshall Islands,
Micronesia, and Palau. States and other
,jurisdictions would use their block grant funds to
provide food assistance to "economically
disadvantaged" persons (i.e., individuals or
families whose income does not exceed the
Labor Department's most recent "lower living
standard" income levels--which ranged for a
four-person family in 1993 from $20,420 in
nonmetropolitan areas of the South to $24,890 in
metropolitan areas of the Northeast, higher in
Alaska, Hawaii, and Guam). States and other
jurisdictions could continue to operate programs
as they now exist or design their own initiatives.
However, any "entitlement" costs above the
amount of their block grant would have to be
absorbed by the State.
Senate Republican bill, S. 1795
No provision.
Item
Current law
House Republican bill, H.R. 3500
The Food Stamp program, the School Lunch and
Breakfast programs, the Summer Food Service
program, the Child and Adult Care Food
Program, and the Special Milk program (which
together represent the overwhelming majority of
food assistance spending) are "entitlement"
programs where appropriations are made for all
benefits claimed by eligible recipients. Under
the Food Stamp program, the Federal
Government pays the full cost of federally
established benefits and half of States'
administrative expenses; under the school food
programs, the Child and Adult Care Food
program, and the Special Milk program, the
Federal Government pays schools specific
subsidies per meal (or per half-pint of milk)
varying by the income of the recipient; in all
cases, benefits and eligibility limits are
automatically adjusted for inflation. Spending
on the remaining programs depends on the size
of each program's annual appropriation. In
some cases, there is no direct spending: i.e.,
the provision of "bonus" commodities acquired
through farm price-support operations to Indian
tribes, schools, and other agencies.
Authorized appropriations would be $35.6
billion in FY 1995 and such sums as are
necessary for FY 1996-99. Beginning with FY
1996, the total amount to be allotted to States
and other jurisdictions each year would be
limited to previous year's funding level adjusted
to reflect (1) the percentage change in
population and (2) the percentage change in the
food at home component of the Consumer Price
Index. T o afford adequate notice for planning,
"advance" appropriations would be allowed.
Appropriations would be allocated among the
States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto
Rico according to their share of all ecorrornically
disadvarrraged persons. Indian tribal
organizations would receive an "equitable" share
of the 0.24 percent of total appropriations
reserved for them. Guam, the Virgin Islands,
American Samoa, the Northern Marianas, the
Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau would
each receive a share of the 0.21 percent of
appropriations reserved for them.
Senate Republican bill, S. 1795
and Indian tribaI organizatior~sparticipate in
used to provide food assistance to resident
economically disadvantaged persons and
families, (2) no more than 5 percent of the grant
will be spent on administrative costs, (3) at least
12 percent of the grant will be spent to provide
assistance to pregnant, postpartum, and
breastfeeding women, infants, and young
children, and (4) at least 20 percent of the grant
wiil be spent to provide the following types of
assistance to children from economically
disadvantaged families--lunch and breakfast
programs in schools, milk programs in schools
and child care settings, food service programs in
child care institutions, and summer food service
Item
I
Current law
House Republican bill, H.R. 3500
Certain residual Federal responsibilities would
remain, in addition to allocating and overseeing
the use of food assistance block grants. T o the
extent that States and other jurisdictions chose to
use food stamp-like coupons as their method of
issuing benefits, the Federal Government would
assume responsibility for printing coupons,
approving food concerns as eligible to accept
coupons, and redeeming them for cash through
banks and the Federal Reserve. To carry this
out, Title VlII reenacts those portions of the
Food Stamp Act governing redemption of
coupons, approval of food concerns, and
penalties for food coupon trafficking, and States
and other jurisdictions would, out of their block
grant, pay the face value of any federally issued
coupons they provided to recipients. The
Federal Government also would be allowed to
sell surplus and other food commodities held by
the Department of Agriculture to the States to
provide food assistance.
Although Title VIII would become effective on
enactment, provisions repealing existing food
assistance laws would not become effective until
a fiscal year for which block grant funds are
appropriated at least 180 days in advance.
Senate Republican bill, S. 1795
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.