Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Permanently Ending Receipt by Prisoners Act, also known as the PERP Act. I am pleased to be joined by Representatives Todd Young, Mike Kelly, Tim Griffin, Jim Renacci, Tom Reed, and Charles Boustany, all Members of the Committee on Ways and Means Human Resources Subcommittee, which I chair. As a former sheriff and now Chairman of this Subcommittee that has jurisdiction over the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program, this bill blends the expertise I developed in my past career with my present committee responsibilities.

Under existing UI program rules that operate in all States, an individual must be able, available, and actively seeking work in order to be eligible to collect UI benefits, which are paid to those who are unemployed through no fault of their own. Individuals confined in jails, prisons, and other penal institutions are by definition not ``able and available'' to work and have historically been presumed to be not eligible for UI benefits.

Despite this fact, news articles in multiple States have revealed a nationwide epidemic of unemployment benefit payments to incarcerated individuals. Recent headlines include: Illinois: ``State: More than $2M in Unemployment Benefits Went to Inmates'' (10/9/12); New Jersey: ``Audit Says 20,000 Inmates Were Mistakenly Paid Nearly $24M in State and Federal Benefits'' (5/29/13); Pennsylvania: ``Inmates Collect Millions in Unemployment Benefits in Philadelphia Jails'' (2/20/13); and South Carolina: ``Government Waste--Inmates Collecting Millions in Fraudulent Unemployment Checks'' (2/21/13). The list unfortunately does not end there, and these and other articles make it clear that taxpayers are wasting millions of dollars each year on unemployment benefit payments to prisoners.

We must make it very clear that incarcerated individuals should not be receiving unemployment benefits, and that States need to make affirmative efforts to end this obvious abuse. Unemployment benefits are designed to support people who are able and trying to find work and provide for their families, but who have fallen on hard times. It is an injustice that the tax dollars of law-abiding citizens are being used to provide assistance to people who have broken the law and simply should not qualify for these benefits.

The PERP Act provides the solutions to this problem by taking the following steps:

Barring States from paying UI checks to local, state and federal prisoners, strengthening a current implied prohibition because prisoners are not ``able and available'' for work; and

Requiring State UI agencies to regularly compare UI rolls with currently available inmate rosters to ensure UI checks are not paid to current inmates. At a minimum, States must access and use prisoner information the Social Security Administration has collected and used since the late-1990s to prevent the payment of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefit checks to currently incarcerated individuals. This current data match is simple, quick, and efficient, and can readily be replicated by States to ensure that UI benefit checks are not paid to prisoners.

During 2011, the UI program made a staggering $10.3 billion in improper payments, some of which were to individuals in our nation's jails and prisons. Those payments were made because under current practice too many States rely on the inmate to report their change of residence to the jail so that their UI benefits would end. Not surprisingly, few inmates volunteer to stop collecting these checks, and no benefit program should rely on the honesty of inmates to ensure taxpayer funds are properly spent. This legislation ends the practice of relying on self-reported information by inmates to prevent this type of UI benefit misspending. It does so simply by expecting all State UI agencies to tap into an existing Federal database of prisoners, already used to ensure that inmates do not collect disability checks. This system is fast, efficient, and affordable.

Again, I want to thank my colleagues on the Human Resources Subcommittee, Representatives Todd Young, Mike Kelly, Tim Griffin, Jim Renacci, Tom Reed, and Charles Boustany, for their support as original cosponsors of this bill. I invite all Members to join me in supporting this important legislation and look forward to its speedy consideration so that we can ensure we put an end to the outrageous practice of prisoners collecting benefit payments intended for the truly unemployed.

Mr. Chair, each and every one of us is unique, with different talents and strengths. We all know this--our teachers certainly understand this. And yet, when it comes to our children and their education we persist in treating them as if they're all cookie cutter versions of one another, with the same learning styles.

I understand this all too well. Because of my own learning style and challenges (I have dyslexia), having a more interactive, practical exam, in addition to the standardized test, was a far more accurate assessment of my abilities than the standardized test alone. With both being taken into consideration, I became one of the highest scoring applicants, and before too long I was Sheriff of one of the largest counties in the Pacific Northwest.

This is why I urge my colleagues to support Congressman Reed's amendment. Our children deserve better than a one-size-fits-all single standardized test to measure their academic achievement. Multiple learning assessments and score indicators more accurately reflect true student and school performance.

Madam Speaker, 2 weeks ago, the administration announced a delay of a crucial piece of

ObamaCare: the employer mandate. Why? Because they were petitioned by businesses from across this great Nation of ours to do that. Why did they petition the White House to waive the employer mandate? Because they recognize, Madam Speaker, that this was a burdensome law on their business; that this was a tax burden that they couldn't bear; that this would slow their businesses, slow hiring, and slow growth. They recognize that. My constituents in Washington State recognize that. Even the President's biggest allies--labor unions--agree. They have warned that ObamaCare will ``destroy the health and wellbeing of hardworking Americans.''

But, Madam Speaker, this legislation also recognizes another dangerous precedent that this administration has been setting in that this legislation will delay the employer mandate for 1 year so that the law is in line with what the President decided to do. This is not how our government should work, but that's how this President operates, and we've seen this from him time and time again: A problem with the health care law? Let's just delay it. Welfare-to-work requirements? I'll just waive those. A change in unemployment insurance laws? I don't have to implement that.

I know about enforcing laws. I was a cop for 33 years. You don't pick and choose. You enforce the law. That's what this President should do, and we're making a law in line with what the President wants.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this amendment.

My colleague was absolutely right, the unemployment rate is 7.5 percent. People do want to go back to work. This is what this bill does: it helps people go back to work. Currently, the government has 83 programs to help people.

I'm the chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources. We just had a hearing last week with Sada Randolph. Sada Randolph testified before our committee that she was under a government program. All they did was provide benefits to her until she got under TANF. That's where she got the help to find a job. We need to help people find jobs, keep jobs, support their families and give them hope.

I support this bill wholeheartedly because it gives the American people who are out of work today hope.

Mr. Speaker, I'm honored to rise to welcome my good friend, the Reverend James Rehder and his daughter, Mele, who is with him today. Jim and I have known each other since our college days at Concordia Lutheran University in Portland, Oregon, before he went on to receive his Master of Divinity from Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, Missouri.

Reverend Rehder was ordained into the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church at Our Redeemer Evangelical Lutheran Church in Honolulu, Hawaii, and is currently a pastor at Bellevue Pilgrim Lutheran Church and Preschool in Bellevue, Washington.

His passion for service extends far beyond the four walls of his home church. He has been a committed volunteer and supporter of causes like the Northwest Lutheran Ministry Services, the Emergency Feeding Program of Seattle, the Sophia Way Women's Shelter, and the Free Burma Rangers.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Reverend Rehder for being with us here today, and I thank him for his dedication in serving others.

Mr. Speaker, our country remains in a state of economic stagnation. Nearly 12 million of our fellow Americans are out of work, and 4.4 million people have been out of work for 6 months or more. We deserve better. America deserves better. We deserve more than the political posturing with which Washington Democrats continue to respond to the problems facing our Nation.

House Republicans offer real solutions. We have passed a long-term student loan fix to keep rates from doubling this summer, a plan that is similar to the President's plan, but yet the Democrats and the Senate cannot even get that bill passed.

It's time to get past politics here. We need to create jobs, we must grow our economy and secure the future for all Americans. That's what hardworking

taxpayers deserve, and that's what House Republicans offer.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1896) to amend part D of title IV of the Social Security Act to ensure that the United States can comply fully with the obligations of the Hague Convention of 23 November 2007 on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the subject of the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleague from Texas (Mr. Doggett) to urge support of H.R. 1896, the International Child Support Recovery Improvement Act of 2013.

This bill provides the implementing legislation for The Hague Convention on International Recovery of Child Support and other forms of family maintenance, ensuring that law enforcement authorities will be able to enforce child support orders even when a child or parent lives overseas.

Mr. Speaker, as a former sheriff in King County, which is in Seattle, Washington--for those in the Chamber who may not know, I worked there for 33 years--I had the opportunity of putting together a unit that was devoted to finding parents who weren't taking on their financial responsibility for their children and providing those financial needs.

What we learned was not only is it important for the parents to be a part of their child's life when they leave financially--to give them the health care benefits they need, the education that they might need, any other financial needs that the child might need--but it also provides a social benefit, a real benefit of involvement by that parent. Once that parent gets financially involved, that parent is intimately involved with that child's life.

Usually it is the father--sad to say just a couple of days after Father's Day. Ninety-five to 98 percent of the parents who leave and don't continue to support their child financially, it is usually the father.

When that father and that parent gets involved financially, they all of a sudden realize they've missed out on that child's life. They've missed soccer games, baseball games. They've missed their theatrical performances, their participation in every school support, and the rest of their lives.

This also reduces crime in my experience--again, going back as the sheriff--if these kids have both parents involved. It keeps them involved with the family and not in other activities that we would really prefer them not to be involved in.

Currently, States have the option to recognize child support orders from other countries--and many of them do. However, States have found that other countries are less cooperative in recognizing our orders.

The Hague Convention seeks to address this issue by establishing a standardized process so more countries cooperate in collecting child support. Negotiation of this treaty began in 2003, and it was signed eventually in 2007. The Senate acted on this in 2010. They gave their consent. The treaty provides many protections for our children, but States cannot take advantage of the benefits until Congress moves forward.

Enforcement of child support orders should not end at the water's edge. Children, regardless of where they or their parents live, should receive financial support from their parents.

The United States cannot ratify The Hague Convention until all States make the necessary changes, so the time to act is now.

This bill also includes a continuation of our subcommittee's bipartisan efforts to standardize and improve the exchange of data within human services programs. While the child support system already relies heavily on data exchanges, it is important for those exchange efforts to be consistent with the provisions we've recently enacted in the child welfare, TANF, and unemployment programs. The goal is simple: improve government efficiency, provide benefits to those who are eligible, and drive out waste, fraud, and abuse.

Finally, this bill expands researcher access to a database maintained by the Office of Child Support Enforcement. The National Directory of New Hires collects employment outcome information for individuals working in most jobs in the United States. Expanding access to earnings data in the Directory will improve our ability to determine whether Federal education, training, and social service programs help people find and keep their jobs.

According to the administration, most Federal agencies do not currently have reliable access to data that can show the impact of their programs on participants' employment or their earnings. In an era of tighter resources, it is crucial that we have reliable data to conduct rigorous evaluations to make sure that Federal programs are getting results.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record letters of support for this legislation from MDRC and the National Child Support Enforcement Association.

In addition, key parts of this legislation are supported by respected organizations like the Conference of State Court Administrators, the Conference of Chief Justices, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Labor, the Office of Management and Budget, and from the research community, Abt Associates, Mathematica Policy Research, RAND, Social Policy Research, and the Urban Institute.

I want to thank the subcommittee's ranking member, Mr. Doggett, who joins me on the floor today, and other members of the subcommittee for their support as original cosponsors.

I invite all Members to join us in supporting this important bipartisan legislation. It will move us a step closer to ratifying The Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and will ensure that more children living in the U.S. receive the financial support they deserve.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

National Child Support

Endangerment Association,

May 3, 2013.

Hon. David G. Reichert, Chairman,

Hon. Lloyd Doggett, Ranking Member,

Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources, Longworth

House Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Reichert and Ranking Member Doggett: The

National Child Support Enforcement Association (NCSEA)

supports the bipartisan International Child Support Recovery

Improvement Act of 2013 (H.R.

1896) and urges the Committee to consider it as soon as

possible.

NCSEA members helped craft the language in the 2007 Hague

Convention Treaty on the International Recovery of Child

Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance. The provisions

in Section 2 of the bill provide the language necessary to

implement it. The Treaty contains procedures for processing

international child support cases that are uniform, simple,

efficient, accessible, and cost-free to U.S. citizens seeking

support in other countries. It is founded on the agreement of

countries ratifying the Convention to recognize and enforce

each other's support orders.

This bill will assist state and county child support staff

who encounter challenging and time-consuming international

cases. Presently, there are no agreed upon standards of

proof, forms or methods of communication. As more parents

cross international borders leaving children behind,

international child support enforcement is more important

than ever. Ratification of the Convention by the United

States will mean that more children will receive financial

support from their parents residing in countries that are

also signatories to the Convention.

NCSEA has long sought congressional action on this issue,

and welcomed last year's bipartisan action by the full House

which adopted a nearly identical bill. This measure will help

to ensure our nation's children receive the financial support

to which they are entitled.

Thank you again for your leadership on this bill.

Sincerely,

Colleen Delaney Eubanks,

Executive Director.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I think it's very clear that this is a very bipartisan piece of legislation which is really focused on strengthening the family, protecting children, and, for parents who have left their homes, reengaging them with their families, getting them involved in their children's activities and providing for them financially.

One statistic that I recall when I first became sheriff in 1997 is that we began this program at the State level. Since 72 percent of juvenile males were without fathers, 72 percent of those committed homicide. It's just a stark figure, a stark statistic, that really highlights the need for parents to be involved in their children's lives.

So, Mr. Speaker, once again, I wholeheartedly, of course, endorse this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the life of Washington State Trooper Sean O'Connell. Trooper O'Connell was respected by both community and colleagues, and deeply loved by his family and friends. His life was cut tragically short when he was struck by a truck while redirecting traffic on his motorcycle near the site of the 1-5 bridge collapse. He was 38 years old and left behind a wife and a young son and daughter.

His memorial service, held last Thursday, was attended by thousands. Officers and troopers came from across the United States and even Canada to honor him. Washington State Patrol Chief John Batiste called Trooper O'Connell a ``tremendous human being'' who ``exemplified service with humility.'' This husband, father, and friend cannot be replaced, but his sacrifice will always be remembered and his legacy of compassion and service will live on after him. He is gone but not forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, I salute Trooper Sean O'Connell, badge 1076, and I thank him for all he gave back to the people of Washington State.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 2217, and I thank the chairman and Mr. Delaney.

As a former law enforcement officer, I know very well the needs of first responders. That is why I am proposing that we increase funding for the United States Fire Administration by $1.8 million.

This would restore total funding for the administration to the fiscal year 2013 level of $44 million. My amendment is offset by cutting $2.8 million from the Secretary of Homeland Security's departmental operation and administrative account. According to the CBO, the amendment would reduce net budget authority by $1 million and will have no impact on fiscal year 2014 outlays.

Continued funding for the brave men and women who protect American citizens by fighting fires is extremely critical, as we all know. The fire death rate in the United States is one of the highest in the industrialized world. We can prevent deaths by ensuring that the USFA has better resources. Data collection, public education, research, and training are all ways the USFA works to reduce the Nation's fire death rate.

Last year, my district experienced record devastation from forest fires, fires that quickly burned out of control and threatened both homes and entire communities. Tens of thousands of acres were destroyed, and it took over 1,000 firefighters and volunteers to get them under control. Hundreds of families lost their homes, and it was only due to the valiant efforts of our fire personnel that more were not lost.

One of the key roles of the USFA is to work to prepare and prevent those types of fires from happening. They do this by working directly with the local communities and stakeholders. They work to promote the adoption of local codes, protection plans, preventative measures, and much more. They are also a key component of the National Wildfire Coordinating Group, which coordinated wildland fire prevention, preparedness, mitigation, and response programs of various Federal agencies. They do all of this, not just to fight a common natural menace, but to protect lives.

I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment, which is endorsed by the International Association of Firefighters, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, and the Congressional Fire Services Institute. Together, we can ensure the safety of our first responders and the American people they serve.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, today I, along with Ranking Member Doggett and other Members of the Human Resources Subcommittee, introduce the International Child Support Recovery Improvement Act of 2013. This bill is nearly identical to H.R. 4282, which passed the House by voice vote on June 5, 2012, and serves as the implementing legislation for the Hague Convention on International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance. This multilateral treaty, to which the Senate provided its consent in 2010, provides for the structured exchange of information and consistent enforcement of international cases of child support.

The bill also builds on the Subcommittee's recent bipartisan efforts to standardize data within and across social programs. This includes applying to the child support enforcement program the same no-cost data standardization provision recently enacted in the child welfare, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and unemployment insurance programs.

The data provision is designed to recognize the need for standards in the exchange of data both across state-level programs and between states and the federal government. The goal is to better organize data within programs so that data can then be more easily shared across multiple human services programs that serve similar populations.

The data provision recognizes that multiple standards may well be needed to address different types of data exchanges, and that some data exchanges may already be standardized. It provides some authority to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to exercise some flexibility in situations where standardized systems are found to operate efficiently. Certain sectors, such as financial institutions, that interact with covered programs have well-established data exchange standards that need to be taken into account and should serve as the base for moving forward. In the case of child support, this data provision does not require that systems such as the Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS) be retrofitted, but instead encourages incremental, cost-effective implementation of consistent data standards across human services programs.

I invite all Members to join me in supporting this important legislation and look forward to its speedy consideration. That way we can take the next step toward ratifying the Hague Convention so that more child support is collected in international cases, providing more children the financial support they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, on National Teacher's Appreciation Day, to recognize and honor the teachers of America. Year in and year out, they dedicate their lives to educating our children and helping them to succeed both in and out of the classroom. They not only teach us to read and write, but for many of us, it is a teacher who first shows us that we can achieve whatever we put our minds to; they tell us that anything is possible, that it is okay to dream. The confidence and curiosity that teachers instill in their students are just as important as the traditional subjects they teach; it is these life lessons that will resonate with our children well into adulthood.

In my own experience, the teacher who brought these truths home to me was Mr. Gowenlock. Mr. Gowenlock was my high school geometry teacher as well as one of my football coaches. He made sure I knew that I had the ability to be a great man, and the only thing that would get in the way was my own doubt. He was one of the first to fully believe in me, and that is a gift that has made it possible for me to be where I am today.

I hope that students and parents everywhere will join with me in recognizing the importance and value of good teachers. Without them, America would not be the beacon of hope that it is today. We owe them our gratitude and our respect. I have fought for teachers in the past, with legislation such as the Teacher Tax Relief Act, and I will continue to fight for them. Teachers must have the tools and support they need to ensure our children receive the best education possible for they will be the ones shaping the future of this great nation. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor and remember the life of Washington State Governor Booth Gardner. He brought thought and care to everything he did. While running for King County Sheriff, Governor Gardner and four other Washington State governors came together to an event to show their support for me. It touched me deeply that he would take the time to make that public gesture, and his words of encouragement still resonate with me today. Governor Gardner fought for what he believed in with passion and conviction, and was a champion of many of the causes close to my own heart, such as improving U.S. trade relations and the education of our children. With his death last month, Washington lost one of its fiercest advocates, but his legacy lives on.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to applaud the Kittitas Valley Healthcare (KVH) Hospital for being named among the top 100 critical access hospitals in the nation. Having immediate, quality care can make the difference between saving a life and losing it, and I am so proud that a facility like KVH is serving the constituents of Washington's 8th District. Critical access hospitals are institutions that are at least 35 miles away from another hospital and have a maximum of 27 acute care beds. All 100 of these institutions are to be commended for their work ensuring access to quality healthcare for all citizens, and especially those living in rural areas. KVH was chosen to be in the top 100 because it provides exceptional quality of care, patient outcomes post-hospitalization, patient satisfaction, and affordability.

This is only the second time such a list has been released and KVH Hospital has been on the list both times. KVH is one of only two hospitals in Washington State to receive this distinction and has repeatedly shown itself to be a champion for the well-being of their patients. It is truly committed to improving the communities it serves. Again, I applaud KVH for its dedication to providing communities with superior patient care and achieving this high honor. I encourage it to continue its practices shown to improve patient health outcomes and satisfaction, and I hope that other critical access hospitals from Washington State and across the nation will strive to copy KVH's success.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the program Washington's Most Wanted. This television program began in Washington State in partnership with Crime Stoppers of Puget Sound and Tacoma- Pierce County Crime Stoppers in November of 2008 and expanded to Spokane, Yakima, and the Tri-Cities as well as Portland, OR in February of 2009. The weekly half hour telecast was created by Seattle's Q13 FOX General Manager Pam Pearson and hosted by anchor David Rose and has evolved into a state-wide effort to encompass much of the Pacific Northwest region.

This month, the program saw its 400th capture. This means that 400 individuals were arrested for such crimes as murder, rape, theft, assault and other travesties. I applaud Washington's Most Wanted for its successful efforts towards creating safer communities and giving a voice to the victims of violent crime.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to Chairman Camp's arguments against the Motion to Recommit, the following are additional reasons for opposing this motion.

1. Totally unnecessary and obviously political. The States already have complete flexibility to decide which needy families with children to cover. So States can and should place a priority on the groups the MTR specified--the unemployed, veterans, victims of violence, grandparents, as well as anyone caring for children with financial need. Democrats argued in the general debate on H.R. 890 that States should be trusted when it comes to the work requirements and that States should have virtually unlimited flexibility in implementing them. Why do they think in their MTR that States cannot be trusted when it comes to the even more elemental issue of whom to cover with TANF assistance? The answer is the MTR is an obviously political statement in search of a problem.

2. Potentially harmful. Current law includes a broad provision allowing States to screen for and identify victims of domestic violence and then create special programs and services designed to address their needs, such as waiving time limits, child support cooperation and related requirements as appropriate. Many States have done so. The MTR, coming afterward, suggests that ``Nothing in this Act shall prohibit or limit'' States from ``providing assistance, job opportunities, or educational training'' for ``women who are victims of domestic violence.'' Why is this necessary? Are the current law protections applied by States, which would be extended for nine months under H.R. 890, not sufficient? Are States implementing them poorly or not at all? The MTR does not say. But given that the current protections afforded by States may be broader than the short list of protections in the MTR, is the MTR supposed to be limiting on States in terms of how and what they provide in terms of special help for such individuals? Again, the MTR does not say, creating confusion and potentially narrowing protections for a sensitive group.

3. Restoring the individual entitlement to welfare benefits-- regardless of income? The MTR suggests a fundamental change in the nature of the TANF program. States must now spend TANF funds on ``needy'' families with children, with States defining financial need. However, the MTR suggests that ``Nothing in this Act'' (which if added to the underlying bill would mean effectively the TANF program) ``shall prohibit or limit'' States from providing ``assistance'' to ``unemployed parents'' or ``grandparents'' caring for the children of individuals in, or who died while serving in, the Armed Forces. It does not State that such adults and families must be ``needy.'' While many of these families will no doubt be ``needy'' by States'' definition, not all will be. Yet the MTR says that all must receive ``assistance'' (which generally means a welfare check) from the TANF program. Is it really the intention of the authors of the MTR to require the payment of welfare checks to families that are not ``needy''? This smacks of a return to the pre-TANF era when there was an individual entitlement to welfare benefits in Federal law, which was a key impediment to States' engaging low-income families in work and productive activities needed to help them support themselves. Even worse, especially given the capped nature of TANF funds, requiring States to provide welfare checks to households in which one parent may be unemployed, for example, while the other works full-time in a high-paying job, would certainly diminish funds available to assist truly needy families with children.

4. Points to other key flaws in the Administration's waiver proposal. When Ways and Means staff reviewed HHS internal documents about their waiver plan on February 8, 2013, one of the key findings was that HHS staff has long believed the Secretary has the authority not only to waive work requirements for welfare recipients, but also other key program features like time limits and even the requirement that States must limit TANF benefits to families that include children. Yet the MTR, whose supporters argued in support of the Administration's waiver authority, lists supposed protections for parents and grandparents caring for children. Which begs the question--do supporters of the Administration's waiver authority and MTR want to allow States to pay welfare checks to single adults without children, as the Administration believes it has the authority to do? Or do they think that TANF assistance should continue to be payable only to families with children, as current law provides and the MTR seems to suggest?