John Linder

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your kind remarks.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this bill comes to the floor in a fashion too many bills have not in this Congress:

First, we held a subcommittee hearing. Then the legislation was drafted with bipartisan support. Finally, we ensured that it does not increase the deficit by a penny. It is an example of what can happen if we pursue goals that are widely shared and that have been demonstrated to achieve results.

The legislation before us would allow all States to follow the successful child welfare reform model tested in Florida and other places. As we learned in our hearing, those reforms reduced the number of Florida children in foster care by 36 percent. It increased adoptions by 12,000, and it improved child safety, all without spending more taxpayer money.

I would like to insert into the Record a letter of support for this legislation from Youth Villages, which has worked with local officials to achieve such successes in Florida.

Since 1994, 22 States have joined Florida in using child welfare waivers. This legislation extends the authority for all States to do so for 5 years. This will allow other States to test and replicate policies that are working. It is my hope that this one day will pave the way for successful Federal reforms covering all States.

While it appears to be good policy to allow States to waive Federal rules, perhaps future Congresses will find it equally propitious to abolish them. Meanwhile, let's move this bill forward and continue our efforts to improve the lives of all children.

Youth Villages,

Arlington, VA, September 20, 2010.

Chairman Jim McDermott,

Ways and Means Subcommittee on Income Security and Family

Support, Washington, DC.

Ranking Member John Linder,

Ways and Means Subcommittee on Income Security and Family

Support, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman McDermott and Ranking Member Linder. On

behalf of Youth Villages, I am writing in support of your

bill, H.R. 6156. This legislation provides critical authority

for the Department of Health and Human Services to extend the

Title IV-E waiver program, which has demonstrated substantial

impact since creation in 1994. These waivers provide states

with greater flexibility in the use of Federal funds for

alternative services and supports that promote safety,

permanency and well-being for children in the child

protection and foster care system.

Youth Villages is a leader in innovative and effective

services for troubled youth and their families. Since 2008,

Youth Villages has had the opportunity to work

collaboratively with several local, privatized child welfare

organizations, known as Community Based Care agencies in

implementing Florida's Title IV-E waiver. Youth Villages has

three offices in Florida and is working with local entities

to implement our intensive in-home Intercept services,

identify and serve underserved or `stuck' populations, and

provide them with outcome data to support the impact of their

waiver effort.

As a result of the flexibility afforded by the Title IV-E

waiver, intensive reunification and targeted prevention

services are given greater focus in the state's child welfare

service approach. Without the award of the waiver, it would

have been difficult for Youth Villages to expand its

Intercept program into the state to serve the child welfare

population. In the two years that Youth Villages has been

operating in Florida, we have served over 225 children and

families across the Central and Southern regions of the

state. Over 77% at six months post-discharge are still living

at home or in a home-like environment. The savings associated

with serving these 225 children through Intercept instead of

congregate, out-of-home placements amounts to roughly $19

million dollars when considering recidivism rates associated

with both Intercept and non-Intercept placements.

Youth Villages pledges its full support of H.R. 6156, as

this legislation has the ability to transform the child

welfare system from one that incentivizes out-of-home

placement to a system that promotes in-home treatment and

family unification.

Regards,

Patrick Lawler,

CEO, Youth Villages.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to order the previous question. I oppose it so that the minority might have the opportunity to offer legislation that has been endorsed by the American people through the YouCut program, legislation that is strongly supported by Members on both sides of the aisle. That legislation is H.R. 5885, a bill introduced to terminate the advance earned income tax credit, saving American taxpayers more than $1 billion over the next decade.

An August 10, 2007, report by the GAO revealed significant noncompliance and fraud with the advance EITC. The GAO found that 20 percent of the recipients did not have a valid Social Security number, almost 40 percent of the recipients did not file a tax return, and 80 percent of the recipients failed to comply with at least one program requirement. And yet, despite evidence of significant fraud, abuse, and general non-compliance, GAO found that only 3 percent of the EITC- eligible individuals used the advance option.

Given the low level of utilization and the high error rates among those who do use it, several members of the majority party have proposed to terminate the advance EITC option. President Obama has promised to repeal it in both of his annual budgets. Earlier this week, Senator Reid included repeal as an offset in the small business bill on the Senate floor. And last week, four of our Democrat colleagues here in the House introduced deficit reduction legislation that included the very same language on repealing the advance EITC that is the subject of my legislation.

Republicans agree with our Democrat colleagues that the advance EITC is a waste of taxpayer money and should be terminated. I ask my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we may consider this legislation on the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, some Democrats have said the welfare expansion in this bill is about jobs. It's not. It's about more welfare.

This bill would expand the welfare emergency fund Democrats created in last year's failed stimulus bill. That fund made available up to $5 billion in new ``welfare emergency funds'' over fiscal years 2009 and 2010. The bill before us would make available another up to $5 billion for just fiscal year 2011, which starts in October.

So they propose to double the welfare funds for this program, all in just one year.

That is so much new welfare money that CBO estimates States wouldn't be able to spend it all. Still, the $3.5 billion CBO estimates States would spend next year would almost match the $4 billion States have spent in the last two years.

No matter how you slice it, spending out of this welfare emergency fund would accelerate rapidly under this bill.

What would this money be spent on? The same things it is currently spent on--almost exclusively more and bigger welfare checks.

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has prepared a report on how the welfare emergency fund has been spent so far. As of July 22, 2010, only 25 percent had been spent on ``subsidized employment,'' or the salaries of what are short-term positions.

And data from liberal advocates for these programs admit that nearly half of those positions have been summer youth jobs. Since summer is just about over, many of the jobs the other side talks about are nearly over, too.

And the other side's own rhetoric admits these jobs in general are as temporary as the Federal funding--which must be extended, they say, or else the ``jobs'' will end.

The fact is, despite the other side's newfound but empty ``jobs'' rhetoric, a full 75 percent of this money has been spent on basic assistance--that is, on welfare benefits.

But these are not just any welfare checks. States have had to be creative to spend this welfare emergency fund money.

Last summer New York State used its share of welfare emergency funds to provide one-time $200 ``back to school checks'' to families already on welfare. Instead of spending the money on back to school supplies, many recipients used the money, as CBS News put it, to purchase ``flat screen TVs, iPods and video gaming systems.'' Convenience stores in low-income areas ``noted marked increases in beer, lotto and cigarette sales.''

Perhaps our colleagues think that creates jobs.

I disagree.