[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 128 (Thursday, September 20, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H6174-H6185]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISAPPROVING RULE RELATING TO WAIVER AND EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY WITH
RESPECT TO THE TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES PROGRAM
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 788, I call up
the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 118) providing for congressional
disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule
submitted by
[[Page H6175]]
the Office of Family Assistance of the Administration for Children and
Families of the Department of Health and Human Services relating to
waiver and expenditure authority under section 1115 of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1315) with respect to the Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families program, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 788, the joint
resolution shall be considered as read.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:
H.J. Res. 118
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress
disapproves the rule submitted by the Office of Family
Assistance of the Administration for Children and Families of
the Department of Health and Human Services relating to
waiver and expenditure authority under section 1115 of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1315) with respect to the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program (issued July
12, 2012, as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
Information Memorandum Transmittal No. TANF-ACF-IM-2012-03,
and printed in the Congressional Record on September 10,
2012, on pages S6047-S6050, along with a letter of opinion
from the Government Accountability Office dated September 4,
2012, that the Information Memorandum is a rule under the
Congressional Review Act), and such rule shall have no force
or effect.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Debate shall not exceed 1
hour, with 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means, and 30
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Levin), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), and the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) each will control 15
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp).
General Leave
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to
include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 118.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J.Res 188, a resolution to
disapprove of the Department of Health and Human Services rule waiving
the work requirements in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families,
or TANF, cash welfare program. The requirement that 50 percent of a
State's welfare caseload work, or prepare for work, was a central part
of the bipartisan 1996 welfare reforms signed into law by President
Clinton. Those reforms were overwhelmingly successful in reducing
welfare dependency and poverty while increasing work and earnings.
Unfortunately, President Obama said that he would have opposed such
reforms had he been in Congress at that time. And so on July 12 of this
year the Obama administration issued an ``information memorandum'' to
waive the welfare work requirements in a blatant end-run around the
current Congress.
The administration's action is unlawful on two fronts. First, the
welfare work requirements are contained in a section of the Social
Security Act, section 407, that may not be waived according to that
law. Second, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office
determined that the administration's ``information memorandum''
qualifies as a rule and therefore should have been officially submitted
to the Congress for review before being issued. It was not.
Just yesterday, GAO released another report that found that HHS has
never before issued any TANF waivers in the history of the program,
including involving the TANF work requirements. More importantly, they
found that when previous HHS Secretaries were asked about the
possibility of waiving work requirements, HHS responded that ``the
Department does not have authority to waive any of these provisions.''
That was the conclusion of the Clinton administration, the Bush
administration, and at least, to date, the Obama administration.
When it comes to welfare work requirements, I guess we can say
President Obama was for them before he was against them. Unfortunately,
for the President, the American people do not agree with his original
and most recent position on this issue. A recent survey shows that 83
percent support a work requirement as a condition for receiving
welfare. And for good reason. The work requirement and other 1996
reforms are responsible for increasing employment of single mothers by
15 percent from 1996 to 2000, and decreasing welfare caseloads by 57
percent over the last decade-and-a-half.
But inexplicably, these results don't sit well with the Obama
administration. They refuse to acknowledge their mistake and rescind
their memorandum. That's why we've brought this resolution to the floor
today.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
preserve the successful welfare work requirements and join me in
passing this resolution.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 3 minutes.
This bill has one purpose: to provide a fig leaf of credibility for a
political attack ad that has no credibility whatsoever. Every
independent fact checker has said the attack ad on the President is
false. Governor Romney's claim that President Obama is eliminating work
requirements for welfare recipients has been called ``a pants on fire''
lie and given four Pinocchios for dishonesty.
{time} 1430
The Republican staffer, Ron Haskins, who helped draft the 1996
welfare law says the charge is baseless. I quote:
The idea that the administration is going to overturn
welfare reform is ridiculous.
Here are the facts. Any demonstration project allowed under the
guidance announced by HHS would have to be designed to increase the
employment of TANF recipients, would be subject to rigorous evaluation,
and would be terminated if it failed to meet employment goals.
The whole administration effort is about promoting ``more work, not
less,'' as eloquently stated by President Clinton, who led efforts on
welfare reform.
The administration heard from State officials that if they're allowed
to focus more on outcomes and less on paperwork, they can put more
people to work. So HHS said to the States, including Republican
Governors who asked for this: Prove it.
We may hear the majority state that HHS does not have the authority
to provide waivers, but that's not the conclusion reached by the
nonpartisan CRS. In fact, CRS said the current HHS waiver initiative is
``consistent with prior practice.''
And now we've heard Republicans say that TANF waivers have never been
provided before now, even when requested. But here's what the GAO said
about past requests:
States were not asking for waivers to test new approaches
through experimental, pilot, or demonstration projects, which
would be necessary in order to get a waiver under section
1115.
In other words, in the past, States weren't asking for the waivers
that HHS is allowed to provide under the law and is now offering.
At the end of the day this debate isn't about process or even policy.
It's about politics, pure politics, indeed, impure politics.
This is the same Republican Party that passed their own much broader
versions of welfare waivers in 2002, 2003, and 2005.
Let me read to you what the Congressional Research Service said about
those bills:
The legislation would have had the effect of allowing TANF
work participation standards to be waived.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
Guess who voted three times for the waiver of the work participation
requirement in TANF? Not only the chairman of Ways and Means, but the
chairman of the Budget Committee and Governor Romney's running mate,
Paul Ryan.
We should be debating today issues that matter in terms of action
today, a credible jobs plan.
[[Page H6176]]
Instead, House Republicans, who are doing nothing on these issues,
are doing something totally political, a disservice to this great
institution.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CAMP. I yield myself 30 seconds only because the gentleman
referred to me.
I will just say that the issue that he refers to was actually to
extend the work requirements to other programs, which actually would
have increased the work requirements.
Let me just say, I'm glad my friend brought up the fact checkers,
because The Washington Post fact checker calls the Democrats' claims of
increasing work ``a stretch,'' stating that it is not clear that ``the
net result is that more people on welfare will end up working,'' and
actually gave the ``eloquent speech'' by President Clinton my friend
referenced two Pinocchios for saying that it would increase work by 20
percent.
At this time I would yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen), a Member of the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 118.
This is a resolution that will protect welfare work requirements from
executive overreach, ensuring that welfare recipients must continue to
work in order to qualify for benefits.
As acting chairman of the Human Resources Subcommittee, I just want
to talk real quickly about how this resolution accomplishes two very
simple objectives.
First, the resolution simply affirms congressional authority over
welfare programs by invalidating the overreaching HHS rule.
Back in July, HHS unilaterally granted itself the authority to
rewrite the work requirements, claiming that they can approve or
disapprove work rules at the State level. But that's just not how
Congress intended this to work.
Both the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office and the
Congressional Research Service agree that this HHS proposal is far more
than guidance to States. It constitutes a new rule that must first be
submitted to Congress for review before it can take effect.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, this resolution lets States know where
Congress stands on the importance of strong work requirements.
The 1996 welfare reform law, which first created these strong work
requirements, was a historic bipartisan achievement. The result was a
program that heavily emphasizes engaging welfare recipients in work and
pro-work activities. Before the HHS guidance, States knew what the
rules were. However, in the wake of this new HHS rule, it's not clear
what the rules are now.
HHS seems intent now to simply make up the rules as they go along.
That's what an anonymous HHS official told The Washington Post
recently, describing how this policy of waiving work requirements was
evolving in an ``iterative process.''
The administration's defense that these changes will strengthen the
work requirements is not reassuring because it just doesn't make sense.
If States want to engage more welfare recipients in work for more hours
and with tougher penalties for failing to work, there's nothing that
stops them from doing so under current law. They don't need a waiver to
apply to do any of that.
Simple logic simply says that the HHS guidance is about weakening,
not strengthening, work requirements for welfare recipients.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Speaker, we cannot allow HHS to circumvent Congress
and undermine welfare work requirements.
I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.
Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman
from New York, Charles Rangel.
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for allowing me this opportunity
to participate in the Republican Presidential campaign, because that's
exactly what this is.
I saw a commercial with a white guy with leather gloves on working
and sweating, and, oh, God. It looked like America to me except they
had something in there about President Obama wanting people who didn't
want to work, that all they had to do was ask for a welfare check, and
I think it had something like ``I paid for this commercial,'' or
something like, ``I'm proud of it.''
This is the first time I've seen a standing committee manipulate
itself to give credibility to a guy who just really doesn't know what
this business is all about.
I never thought I'd be in the well talking about States' rights, but
I do recognize there are different employment needs of people in Alaska
and people in Hawaii, people in New York, people in Mississippi. They
just don't all have the same job opportunity.
And the whole idea of asking for Governors, Republican and Democrat,
to have the flexibility not to fill out forms, but to say, What's
working? How are they putting people to work?
But I think the most important thing that we're forgetting is that
not having a job and facing your family each and every day is more than
not having a paycheck; it is not having self-esteem.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 10 seconds.
Mr. RANGEL. To believe that people who are used to working hard,
having dignity, having pride in their kids, just because the candidate
for President made another mistake, that we're going to have to now
legislate something to show that we think he makes any sense on that
issue, it is wrong, and it ain't going nowhere.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Graves).
Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, we're here today to head off at
the pass President Obama's and the administration's attempt to gut the
welfare reform work requirements. Americans don't want something for
nothing. Americans want to work. Why? Because it's the American way.
But this issue is bigger than welfare. It's a skirmish in a war over
America's future, the direction we're going in.
Now, under this President's watch just here in the last, what, 3\1/2\
years, the number of able-bodied adults receiving food stamps has
doubled. The Federal debt is up by $5 trillion, spending on welfare up
41 percent. More debt and greater dependency. It's the wrong vision for
America.
{time} 1440
Now, what's happened here in the last several years--I guess the last
3 years--is opportunity has diminished.
There's a clear choice right now, Mr. Speaker. It's a choice between
two futures. We can continue down this path of debt and dependency, or
we can choose a different path, and that's one of opportunity and
prosperity. So I thank the gentleman for bringing this bill forward
because the choice before America is very clear, and we choose
opportunity and prosperity for every American.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 15 seconds.
I hope everybody heard that last statement. It shows someone coming
down and essentially endorsing, in a broad way, the 47 percent
statement, the horribly misguided statement of the Governor of
Massachusetts--former Governor.
I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).
Mr. NEAL. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, this is a paid political broadcast brought to you by the
majority side of the Ways and Means Committee.
I chaired the Democratic Party position in 1996 on welfare reform. I
voted for it and supported the work requirement at the behest of
President Clinton. The idea was to provide child care, transportation
assistance, educational assistance and child support payments, and to
balance that with a work requirement. But most importantly, at the
request of names like Tommy Thompson and Bill Weld, John Engler and
George Pataki, their request was that in the crucible of State
opportunity, that they would position themselves with some flexibility
to play out the work requirement. We never moved away from the 5-year
requirement.
[[Page H6177]]
Their suggestion was simply: let us determine how we get to the 5-year
requirement through some experimentation.
So what we're doing here today is trying to offer a criticism of the
President 6\1/2\ weeks before an election based upon misinformation
that borders on being malevolent because of the content of what is
being attempted here.
Welfare reform worked overwhelmingly, and it worked because it was a
compromise in the end, but not to understate the role that Republican
Governors played in bringing this issue to that experiment.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of
the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).
Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the chairman.
I for the life of me don't understand why our friends on the other
side of the aisle are defensive about this. This is nothing to defend.
This is to say the White House made an error in engaging substantively
in downgrading work requirements for welfare. And rather than being
defensive about it, say, look, they messed up. Let's not defend them;
let's make sure that they don't color outside the lines.
This is not some abstract thing, Mr. Speaker. There are very serious
voices that have come out, and they've made this argument that the
following things are work and should be included, Mr. Speaker, under
the work definitions for welfare, things like: bed rest, personal care
activities, massage, exercise, journaling, motivational reading,
smoking cessation, weight-loss promotion, participation in parent/
teacher meetings, and helping a friend or relative with household tasks
or errands.
So there are some folks that are making the argument that if you go
help your neighbor rake the lawn, then somehow that's work under the
welfare-to-work requirement. This is not some abstract thing. This is
not something that the GOP is looking for. This is a sense of clarity
that most Americans said, look, we recognize that if people need help,
they should get help, but not to be manipulated through absurd
definitions that are coming from who knows where--some States with a
straight face that actually want to manipulate this to their benefit.
This is an area where everybody should come together. This should
pass with a voice vote. This is an admonition to the White House to
say: don't do this; do not weaken these work requirements. Instead,
make sure that they're fast and solid and that they move people to
work. But don't subsidize massage therapy and pump a lot of sunshine
and tell hardworking Americans that that's work because it's not.
Let's do the right thing. Let's pass this quickly.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 30 seconds.
Those statements, indeed, are an insult, an insult. That isn't what
the administration has in mind. I read a letter from the Governor of
Utah to the Secretary of HHS. In discussion with HHS officials, Utah
suggested that:
We be evaluated on the basis of the State's success in
placing our customers in employment, while also using a full
participation model. This approach would require some
flexibility at the State level and the granting of a waiver.
That's what this is about. Don't massage the truth.
I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
California (Mr. Thompson).
Mr. THOMPSON of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
rise in opposition to this political poppycock.
I've got a real personal interest in this issue in this legislation.
When I was in the State senate, I wrote California's welfare reform
legislation, and the work requirement was a major part of that. It was
a bipartisan effort in California. It was signed by a Republican
Governor, Pete Wilson; and today it's still being followed by
Democratic Governor Jerry Brown.
Welfare reform has worked. Fifteen years later, the program caseload
in California is roughly 60 percent of what it was in 1998--even in the
face of this terrible recession that we're looking at today. Waivers
were an important part of that, as they are in every State across the
Nation. Those waivers allow flexibility to Governors to run Federal
programs in the most effective and the most efficient way possible. One
size does not fit all, and that's why we have these waivers. In this
case, they work because they move more people from welfare to work, and
that's what we want.
This bill should be roundly defeated.
Mr. CAMP. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 118.
The Department of Health and Human Services, in July, essentially
stripped many of the provisions of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act in
regard to TANF, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and they
should not do that. They absolutely should not do that.
This resolution, of course, calls for action under the Congressional
Review Act--our authority, Mr. Speaker, as Members of Congress to say,
no, you cannot do this, HHS, by any kind of executive order, and we are
going to challenge it. Because people, sometimes, yes, they do need a
little bit of a nudge to get off welfare and onto work; but in the
final analysis, these individuals have the pride of having a job. There
is nothing that compares to that. And as long as you have that
opportunity, I think most individuals--and as I say, some may need a
little bit of a nudge--but most people would gladly embrace that
opportunity.
So that's what this is all about. We're just simply saying we want to
make sure that the provisions--in a very bipartisan way--President
Clinton, in agreeing with Congress to have that welfare reform, it was
worked out very carefully. We as a Congress will not permit those
provisions to be stripped out of welfare to work. So, please, my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, join me in supporting H.J. Res.
118.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 118, a bill
expressing Congress's disapproval of the administration's waiving of
TANF work requirements.
This legislation would utilize the Congressional Review Act to
restore the welfare to work requirements of the 1996 welfare reform law
that the Department of Health and Human Services unilaterally stripped
in July. When President Clinton signed welfare reform into law, he
said, ``First and foremost, it should be about moving people from
welfare to work.'' Mr. Speaker, the administration has absolutely no
justification to waive the reforms required by this bipartisan law.
Welfare to work requirements have proven to lower poverty levels,
increase earnings, and reduce government dependence. This legislation
will restore the reforms that are an integral part of helping people
become independent and self-sufficient.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 118 because we
cannot allow the Administration to roll back key features of the 1996
reforms.
{time} 1450
Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us today is an
exercise in hypocrisy.
Mr. Speaker, just a few days ago, before coming down to D.C., we had
a commemoration for Monsignor Vincent Puma, who started rehab for drug
addicts and for those folks addicted to alcohol. One of his famous
statements--he only passed 6 months ago--was: Treat each person with
dignity.
With all of this talk and all that you've done, you not only make a
political farce out of this--because I've heard a lot of political
partisanship, which is not allowed on this floor apparently,
supposedly--but you know what you do? You make people, the great
majority of people who legitimately--legitimately--are on welfare and
have sought a job--and have sought a job--you make them feel less than
human.
But Monsignor said treat everybody, every person with dignity, and
that's what this is all about.
And for you to put this sham up here in front of us only adds to the
disgrace. But only if States show they will use that flexibility to
increase workforce. It says it right in the law, quote and unquote.
Never mind that this is a policy that you folks on the other side of
the aisle--including Mitt Romney, when he was back in Massachusetts,
and our colleague, Congressman Ryan--have asked for.
[[Page H6178]]
I will quote the letter written by the Republican Governors
Association in 2005, 8 years, at least, after the welfare reform was
signed. Here's Governor Romney.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind the Members to direct
their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. PASCRELL. We're going to start with me?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members to direct
their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. PASCRELL. This is what Governor Romney signed in 2005, Mr.
Speaker:
Increased waiver authority, allowable work activities,
availability of partial work credit, and the ability to
coordinate State programs are all important aspects of moving
recipients from welfare to work.
I didn't say it; you didn't say it; he didn't say it. Governor Romney
signed the letter.
The administration's policy has nothing to do with waiving the work
requirement. If anything, you're increasing the work requirement, if
you read the rules and not conjecture.
This resolution would block Governors across the country from putting
more people back to work. How do you like those fish?
Mr. CAMP. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. It's now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
Mr. CROWLEY. I thank my friend and colleague, the ranking member, for
yielding me this time.
With just days to go before the majority adjourns until after the
election, there are numerous pressing bills we should be completing,
but it seems that nothing will stop my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle from the opportunity to spend time criticizing our President
with a political stunt bill once again.
I would think that an effort to move at least 20 percent more--that's
20 percent more--people from welfare to work would be applauded by my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle. That's right, an increase in
employment among TANF recipients under the proposal by the President.
But, instead, that bill we're considering today actually stops people
from moving towards work.
Now, I know there has been a resistance to passing a jobs bill by
this majority, but this is absolutely ridiculous. It's one thing not to
have a jobs bill on the floor, but to have a bill on the floor that
would actually say ``don't incentivize more people to find work
opportunity'' just really is ridiculous.
The truth is my colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem much
more interested in attacking the President than in truly working to
improve programs and policies, as evidenced by the unfinished work that
they are leaving behind.
I hope my colleagues will see through this charade on both sides of
the aisle and will all vote ``no'' on this bill so we can get back to
work on serious issues and not political gamesmanship.
Mr. CAMP. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, could you tell us the time that's left for
us?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has
2\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) has 4
minutes remaining.
Mr. LEVIN. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CAMP. I have no further speakers. I believe I have the right to
close. I'm prepared to close when the gentleman is through with his
speakers.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself the balance of my time.
You know, I think the public should ask why this resolution, why
trying to provide some kind of a smokescreen for an ad that has been
called a ``pants on fire lie'' and ``four Pinocchio's dishonest,'' why
do that? I think the reason is very clear. This is manipulating the
truth to try, I think, to appeal to the worst instincts.
I worked with Ron Haskins on welfare reform, and he says this, I
quote: ``There is no plausible scenario on which it''--he means this
ad--``really constitutes a serious attack on welfare reform.''
He goes on to say, ``the idea''--I repeat this--``that the
administration is going to try to overturn welfare reform is
ridiculous.''
And then he says, ``Republicans are the ones who talk about giving
the States more flexibility. Now, all of a sudden, the States shouldn't
get the flexibility because they are going to mess it up? It doesn't
make sense.''
But it's worse than nonsense. It's pernicious. The ad is pernicious,
and it's beneath the dignity of this House for Republicans in the House
who are doing nothing on major issues to do something to try to protect
the former Governor of Massachusetts, their candidate for President.
This House deserves much better than becoming a political plaything,
a political plaything. It won't happen. Despite this vote, it won't
happen.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
When the bipartisan welfare reform bill was passed in 1996 and
ultimately signed by President Clinton, the work requirement was a key
part of that welfare bill. And the work requirement is this: that at
least 50 percent of the caseload has to be engaged in work. And the
principle was that, if you're able-bodied, you ought to be working if
you're going to be receiving Federal benefits.
Now, the statute named 12 different things that qualify as work. Most
of us think of work as going actually to employment, but there are 12
things. And a couple of them, let me just say, such as job search and
job readiness actually, under current law, qualify for work. Vocational
training and education qualifies for work as long as it doesn't exceed
1 year.
Also put into the statute was a clear statement that the work
requirement could not be waived, because changing the paradigm on
welfare was absolutely critical. And as I said in my opening statement,
it has been important to reducing welfare caseloads, to bringing people
to independence, to reducing child poverty. Those were all critical
goals that have been met.
Let me read what Dr. Haskins, the Staff Director of the Ways and
Means Committee--and I was on the Ways and Means Committee; I helped
write the welfare bill; I was on the conference committee--said at that
time, in terms of waivers. ``Waivers''--and this is the committee
report.
Waivers granted after the date of enactment may not override
provisions of the TANF law that concern mandatory work requirements.
That's because this was such an important part of the change that we
were trying to bring to welfare. And it's been very successful, some
might say the most successful social change that has occurred.
{time} 1500
So every administration since then, whether it was the Clinton
administration or the Bush administration or even at the beginning of
the Obama administration, recognized that work requirements could not
be waived. There is plain language in the statute in section 407 that
says the work requirement cannot be waived.
Then here comes the Obama administration, through an information
memorandum, that now both the GAO and the Congressional Research
Service say is really a rule; and I would like to place in the Record
both the letter of September 4 and the September 12 Congressional
Research Service memorandum, both which say that the administration
action was a rule.
The full CRS report I am inserting
in the Record is available online at
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/evaluating_whether_the
_tanf_information_memorandum_is_a_rule_under_the_cra_redacted_ 5.pdf
Now comes the administration saying, Well, we don't have to go to
Congress to change the law. Even though Congress voted on this in a
bipartisan way and this was a critical piece of major legislation,
we're just going to send in an information memorandum and have
unelected bureaucrats change the law of the land.
People who sort of referee things around here, like the GAO and CRS,
said, No. Hold it. Stop. This is not an information memorandum. This is
a rule.
[[Page H6179]]
If an administration wants to promulgate a rule, there are certain
criteria that they have to follow. The reason is that unelected people
are making law. So, in order to do that, they have to inform the
Congress, and they have to do certain things, none of which the
administration did. Let me read a piece of this information memorandum:
Projects that test systematically extending the period in
which vocational education training or job search-readiness
programs count toward participation rates, either generally
or for particular subgroups, such as an extended training
period.
Under the law I just said, vocational training can only last a year.
This information memorandum reads you can be in training for longer
than a year. Number one, that is weakening the work requirement. Number
two, they did not follow the law by notifying the Congress. They need
to go back, and they need to issue a rule.
Frankly, if this is that important to them, come engage the Congress.
There has been no consultation. There has not been one staff person
from HHS who has come up and had an opportunity to brief any of us on
this. I am willing to work with the administration. I'd like to hear
their ideas. I'd like to have that opportunity to do so. I think it is
regrettable that we've gotten to this point, but we've gotten to this
point because there has been a mistake. They made a mistake, and they
need to withdraw that.
I urge that we support the resolution. This is too important to have
unelected bureaucrats make the law of the land.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Government
Accountability Office,
Washington, DC, September 4, 2012.
Hon. Orrin Hatch,
Ranking Member, Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate.
Hon. Dave Camp,
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of
Representatives.
By letter of July 31, 2012, you asked whether an
Information Memorandum issued by the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) on July 12, 2012 concerning the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program
constitutes a rule for the purposes of the Congressional
Review Act (CRA). The CRA is intended to keep Congress
informed of the rulemaking activities of federal agencies and
provides that before a rule can take effect, the agency must
submit the rule to each House of Congress and the Comptroller
Genera1. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that
the July 12, 2012 Information Memorandum is a rule under the
CRA. Therefore, it must be submitted to Congress and the
Comptroller General before taking effect.
BACKGROUND
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant,
administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, provides federal funding to states for both
traditional welfare cash assistance as well as a variety of
other benefits and services to meet the needs of low-income
families and children. While states have some flexibility in
implementing and administering their state TANF programs,
there are numerous federal requirements and guidelines that
states must meet. For example, under section 402 of the
Social Security Act, in order to be eligible to receive TANF
funds, a state must submit to HHS a written plan outlining,
among other things, how it will implement various aspects of
its TANF program. More specifically, under section
402(a)(1)(A)(iii) of the Social Security Act, the written
plan must outline how the state will ensure that TANF
recipients engage in work activities. Under section 407 of
the Social Security Act, states must also ensure that a
specified percentage of their TANF recipients engage in work
activities as defined by federal law.
In its July 12 Information Memorandum, HHS notified states
of HHS' willingness to exercise its waiver authority under
section 1115 of the Social Security Act. Under section 1115,
HHS has the authority to waive compliance with the
requirements of section 402 in the case of experimental,
pilot, or demonstration projects which the Secretary
determines are likely to assist in promoting the objectives
of TANF. In its Information Memorandum, HHS asserted that it
has the authority to waive the requirement in section
402(a)(1)(A)(iii) and authorize states to ``test approaches
and methods other than those set forth in section 407,''
including definitions of work activities and the calculation
of participation rates. HHS informed states that it would use
this waiver authority to allow states to test various
strategies, policies, and procedures designed to improve
employment outcomes for needy families. The Information
Memorandum sets forth requirements that must be met for a
waiver request to be considered by HHS, including an
evaluation plan, a set of performance measures that states
will track to monitor ongoing performance and outcomes, and a
budget including the costs of program evaluation. In
addition, the Information Memorandum provides that states
must seek public input on the proposal prior to approval by
HHS.
ANALYSIS
The definition of ``rule'' in the CRA incorporates by
reference the definition of ``rule'' in the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA), with some exceptions. Therefore, our
analysis of whether the July 12 Information Memorandum is a
rule under the CRA involves determining whether it is rule
under the APA and whether it falls within any of the
exceptions contained in the CRA. The APA defines a rule as
follows:
``[T]he whole or a part of an agency statement of general
or particular applicability and future effect designed to
implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or
describing the organization, procedure, or practice
requirements of an agency and includes the approval or
prescription for the future of rates, wages, corporate or
financial structures or reorganizations thereof, prices,
facilities, appliances, services or allowances therefor or of
valuations, costs, or accounting, or practices bearing on any
of the foregoing[.]''
This definition of a rule has been said to include ``nearly
every statement an agency may make.''
The CRA identifies 3 exceptions from its definition of a
rule: (1) any rule of particular applicability; (2) any rule
relating to agency management or personnel; or (3) any rule
of agency organization, procedure, or practice that does not
substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency
parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3).
The definition of a rule under the CRA is very broad. See
B-287557, May 14, 2001 (Congress intended that the CRA should
be broadly interpreted both as to type and scope of rules
covered). The CRA borrows the definition of a rule from 5
U.S.C. 551, as opposed to the more narrow definition of
legislative rules requiring notice and comment contained in 5
U.S.C. 553. As a result, agency pronouncements may be rules
within the definition of 5 U.S.C. 551, and the CRA, even if
they are not subject to notice and comment rulemaking
requirements under section 553. See B-316048, April 17, 2008
(the breadth of the term ``rule'' reaches agency
pronouncements beyond those that require notice and comment
rulemaking) and B287557, cited above. In addition to the
plain language of the CRA, the legislative history confirms
that it is intended to include within its purview almost all
rules that an agency issues and not only those rules that
must be promulgated according to the notice and comment
requirements in section 553 of the APA. In his floor
statement during final consideration of the bill,
Representative McIntosh, a principal sponsor of the
legislation, emphasized this point:
``Although agency interpretive rules, general statements of
policy, guideline documents, and agency policy and procedure
manuals may not be subject to the notice and comment
provisions of section 553(c) of title 5, United States Code,
these types of documents are covered under the congressional
review provisions of the new chapter 8 of title 5.
Under section 801(a), covered rules, with very few
exceptions, may not go into effect until the relevant agency
submits a copy of the rule and an accompanying report to both
Houses of Congress. Interpretive rules, general statements of
policy, and analogous agency policy guidelines are covered
without qualification because they meet the definition of a
`rule' borrowed from section 551 of title 5, and are not
excluded from the definition of a rule.''
On its face, the July 12 Information Memorandum falls
within the definition of a rule under the APA definition
incorporated into the CRA. First, consistent with our prior
decisions, we look to the scope of the agency's action to
determine whether it is a general statement of policy or an
interpretation of law of general applicability. That
determination does not require a finding that it has general
applicability to the population as a whole; instead, all that
is required is that it has general applicability within its
intended range. See B-287557, cited above (a record of
decision affecting the issues of water flow in two rivers was
a general statement of policy with general applicability
within its intended range). Applying these principles, we
have held that a letter released by the Centers for Medicare
and Medicaid Services to state health officials concerning
the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was of
general applicability because it extended to all states that
sought to enroll children with family incomes exceeding 250
percent of the federal poverty level in their SCHIP programs,
as well as all states that had already enrolled such
children. Similarly, the July 12 Information Memorandum is of
general, rather than particular, applicability because it
extends to all states administering Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) programs that seek a waiver for a
demonstration project.
Next we must determine whether the action is prospective in
nature, that is, whether it is concerned with policy
considerations for the future and not with the evaluation of
past conduct. In B-316048, we held that the SCHIP letter was
intended to clarify and explain the manner in which CMS
applies statutory and regulatory requirements to states that
wanted to extend coverage under the SCHIP programs.
Similarly, the July 12 Information Memorandum is concerned
with
[[Page H6180]]
authorizing demonstration projects in the future, rather than
the evaluation of past or present demonstration projects.
Specifically, the Information Memorandum informs states that
HHS will use its statutory authority to consider waiver
requests, and sets out requirements that waiver requests must
meet. Accordingly, it is designed to implement, interpret, or
prescribe law or policy.
In addition, the Information Memorandum does not fall
within any of the three exclusions for a rule under the CRA.
As discussed above, the Information Memorandum applies to all
states that administer TANF programs, and therefore is of
general applicability, rather than particular applicability.
The Information Memorandum applies to the states, and does
not relate to agency management or personnel. Finally, the
Information Memorandum sets out the criteria by which states
may apply for waivers from certain requirements of the TANF
program. These criteria affect the obligations of the states,
which are non-agency parties.
GAO has consistently emphasized the broad scope of the
definition of ``rule'' in the CRA in determining the
applicability of the CRA to an agency document. Other
documents deemed to be rules include letters, records of
decision, booklets, interim guidance, and memoranda. See, for
example, B-316048, April 17, 2008 (a letter released by the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services of HHS concerning a
State Children's Health Insurance Program measure, to ensure
that coverage under a state plan does not substitute for
coverage under group health plans, described by the agency as
a general statement of policy, was a rule) and B-287557, May
14, 2001 (a ``record of decision'' issued by the Fish and
Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior in
connection with a federal irrigation project was a rule).
Finally, the cases where we have found that an agency
pronouncement was not a rule involved facts that are clearly
distinguishable from the July 12 Information Memorandum.
We requested the views of the General Counsel of HHS on
whether the July 12 Information Memorandum is a rule for
purposes of the CRA by letter dated August 3, 2012. HHS
responded on August 31, 2012, stating that the Information
Memorandum was issued as a non-binding guidance document, and
that HHS contends that guidance documents do not need to be
submitted pursuant to the CRA. Furthermore, HHS notes that it
informally notified Congress by providing notice to the
Majority and Minority staff members of the House Ways and
Means Committee and Senate Finance Committee on the day the
Information Memorandum was issued.
We cannot agree with HHS's conclusion that guidance
documents are not rules for the purposes of the CRA and HHS
cites no support for this position. The definition of
``rule'' is expansive and specifically includes documents
that implement or interpret law or policy. This is exactly
what the HHS Information Memorandum does. It interprets
section 402(a) and section 1115 to permit waivers for a
demonstration program HHS is initiating. We have held that
agency guidance, including guidance characterized as non-
binding, constitutes a rule under the CRA. See B-281575,
cited above. In addition, the legislative history of the CRA
specifically includes guidance documents as an example of an
agency pronouncement subject to the CRA. A joint statement
for the record by Senators Nickles, Reid, and Stevens,
submitted to the Congressional Record upon enactment of the
CRA, details four categories of rules covered by the
definition in section 551. These categories include formal
rulemaking under sections 556 and 557, notice-and-comment
rulemaking under section 553, statements of general policy
and interpretations of general applicability under section
552, and ``a body of materials that fall within the APA
definition of a `rule' . . . but that meet none of procedural
specifications of the first three classes. These include
guidance documents and the like.'' Finally, while HHS may
have informally notified the cited Congressional committees
of the issuance of the Information Memorandum, informal
notification does not meet the reporting requirements of the
CRA.
CONCLUSION
We find that the July 12 Information Memorandum issued by
HHS is a statement of general applicability and future
effect, designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or
policy with regard to TANF. Furthermore, it does not come
within any of the exceptions to the definition of rule
contained in the CRA. Accordingly, the Information Memorandum
is a rule under the Congressional Review Act.
We note that this opinion is limited to the issue of
whether the Information Memorandum is a rule under the CRA.
We are not expressing an opinion on the applicability of any
other legal requirements, including, but not limited to,
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the APA, or
whether the Information Memorandum would be a valid exercise
or interpretation of statutes or regulations.
Accordingly, given our conclusions above, and in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. Sec. 801(a)(1), the
Information Memorandum is subject to the requirement that it
be submitted to both Houses of Congress and the Comptroller
General before it can take effect.
If you have any questions concerning this opinion, please
contact Edda Emmanuelli Perez, Managing Associate General
Counsel at (202) 512-2853.
Lynn H. Gibson,
General Counsel.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today in strong support of H.J. Res. 118, a resolution
disapproving the Obama administration's attempt to roll back successful
welfare reforms. The resolution we are considering today is quite
simple. It preserves bipartisan policies that serve low-income
families, and it reins in this latest example of executive overreach by
this administration.
In 1996, a Republican Congress worked with a Democratic President to
fix a broken welfare system. By promoting work as a central focus of
helping individuals achieve self-sufficiency, this bipartisan
achievement reduced poverty and strengthened the income security of
millions of needy families. The success of the law is a testament to
the power of work and personal responsibility as well as what we can
achieve when both sides work together in good faith. Unfortunately, the
bipartisan spirit of welfare reform has been tarnished by the Obama
administration's decision to waive the historic work requirements,
ending welfare reform as we know it.
While this action is troubling, it isn't surprising. The President
has a track record of weakening work requirements in other Federal
programs, including with unemployment benefits and food stamps. The
results have been disappointing. A memo by the Congressional Research
Service notes the number of able-bodied adults on food stamps doubled--
that's right, doubled--after the President suspended the program's work
requirement, and now we are supposed to believe a similar experiment
will help families on welfare.
This is also not the first time the President has been guilty of
executive overreach. The Obama administration has coerced States to
adopt its education agenda through conditional waivers, ignoring
congressional efforts to reauthorize the law. Now States and schools
face more uncertainty than ever about the future of our Nation's
education system, and they remain tied to a broken law. Additionally,
the President has announced which immigration laws he will and will not
enforce, and has installed unconstitutional, nonrecess recess
appointments to the National Labor Relations Board.
Despite all of these heavy-handed attempts to advance the President's
agenda, 23 million workers are still searching for a full-time job, and
46 million Americans are still living in poverty. Too many of our
fellow citizens are unemployed and trapped in poverty, not because of
failed welfare policies but because of President Obama's failed
leadership. If the President had ideas for enhancing flexibility in
welfare policies, he must submit those proposals to Congress and work
with us to change the law. He has not done that. Instead, he has chosen
to adopt a controversial waiver scheme that rewrites law through
executive fiat.
The good news is we have an opportunity today to tell the President:
Stop. Stop rewriting Federal law behind closed doors. Stop promoting
schemes that undermine personal responsibility and that encourage
government dependency. Stop advancing failed policies, and start
working with Congress on positive solutions that will grow our economy
and great jobs. The American people desperately need and expect as much
from their elected leaders.
I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 118 and to take a stand
against the President's effort to roll back reforms that continue to
lift families out of the poverty.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4
minutes.
The House meets today to spend time debating a resolution that is on
a purely fabricated problem. Rather than focusing on the real problems
facing American families, we are, instead, focusing on a resolution of
disapproval--a resolution that does not create a single job.
In July, the administration announced a waiver process under the
welfare law that would allow Governors to use innovative approaches to
move more welfare recipients into employment. Immediately, Washington
Republicans claimed the waiver would
[[Page H6181]]
gut the welfare reform; but fact checker after fact checker has
publicly discredited attempts to characterize the waiver as going soft
on work requirements, and we are still waiting for the majority to show
us exactly where the administration's waiver proposal eliminates the
work requirement.
Even the Republican staff director of the Ways and Means Committee
subcommittee at the time of the 1996 welfare reform law says that these
claims are false. In fact, the administration has even clarified the
rules, writing that no State will get a waiver unless it shows an
increase in employment of 20 percent.
Actually, the Republican position here is fairly consistent. They
haven't done anything here to create new jobs. They're against welfare
recipients getting jobs, and they're against Governors increasing
employment opportunities by 20 percent. So I guess we now know, in
these last waning days of session, that the Republican Party here is
against all jobs. No matter who is standing in line for the jobs,
they're against those jobs even though the Republican Governors have
petitioned for the right to change the welfare law so they can put more
people to work. The administration says you can do that if you put 20
percent more people to work. Imagine putting 20 percent more people to
work on the welfare rolls of California or New Jersey or Texas, but the
Republicans say no.
The Republican Governors and Democratic Governors asked for this
authority in 2002, 2003, and 2005, and the House passed a much broader
waiver authority in trying to give the Governors, if you will, State
flexibility. That's what they were asking for, but now all of a sudden,
in this political year, their candidate is running a little behind, so
we see this as an effort to try to attack the President of the United
States for doing exactly what the Republican Governors and what the
Republicans in Congress have done and have voted on and passed.
As President Clinton says, it takes brass to denounce something that
you, yourself, have already supported. The hypocrisy doesn't stop
there, but you've got to have a lot of hypocrisy when you're defending
a candidate who believes in everything and stands for nothing.
Just weeks before the administration announced its waiver process,
the Republican Workforce Investment bill was reported out of my
committee. The mantra of the Republicans all through that bill and all
through the consideration over the last couple years has been ``State
flexibility.'' Well, they accomplished it in this bill. It provides so
much State flexibility that the State with an approved unified
workforce training plan can, at the State's discretion, eliminate all
work requirements from TANF. It passed out of the Education and the
Workforce Committee on a partisan vote, with all Republicans supporting
that effort to let Governors eliminate all work requirements.
So this debate is a little bit behind the times and is probably not
dealing with the serious problem, which is the reauthorization of the
Republican Workforce Incentive Act. What a difference a few weeks and a
convention make, and here we are using the valuable time of this House
before we go to adjournment to carry out a political prank--a
manufactured problem, a fabricated problem--based upon fabricated
facts. Yet still we don't see ourselves dealing with the questions of
middle class tax cuts, and we don't see ourselves dealing with jobs
bills that we've been asking for time and again while this Congress has
been in session.
{time} 1510
It's a sad way to end this session of the Congress of the United
States without providing the access to those jobs that this Congress
could have been providing throughout this entire year to strengthen the
economy. Then again, as the Senate leader has said, they don't want to
work with this President. They want him to fail. And for him to fail,
that means the American people can't have jobs. That's the goal here.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased now to yield 2 minutes to a
distinguished member of the committee, the gentlelady from North
Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for yielding
time.
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that our colleagues across the aisle
are attempting to paint Republicans as inconsistent on welfare work
requirements to distract from their position in favor of undermining
successful welfare reforms. They suggest that the Workforce Investment
Improvement Act, WIIA, that I offered with my colleagues,
Representatives Buck McKeon and Joe Heck, would gut the 1996 TANF work
requirements. That is so far from the truth.
WIIA would neither contradict nor supplant the 1996 work
requirements. The WIIA legislation allows Governors to reduce the
number of redundant taxpayer subsidized employment and job training
programs and offer real assistance to the millions of Americans who are
unemployed and suffering because of the policies of this
administration. WIIA would reduce inefficiencies and have States
administer these programs, not undermine welfare reform. Republicans
have a clear record of strengthening the work requirements at the heart
of the 1996 welfare reform bill, and we have a record of working with a
Democrat President to accomplish that reform.
I urge my colleagues to stand with us and with the 83 percent of
Americans who want to see welfare's work requirements upheld by voting
in favor of this resolution.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I'm sure America has been watching the ads.
The ads say that black is white, and they say it over and over and over
and over again. And they hope the American people believe that black is
white.
But it's not enough for them to say it on ads, now they bring it to
this floor in the last 7 hours of the session of Congress before the
election. Are we dealing with jobs? No. Are we dealing with violence
against women? No. Are we dealing with farmers who are in distress? No.
Are we dealing with middle class tax cuts? No. Are we dealing with
postal reform as the postal department goes broke? No. What are we
doing? We are trying to reaffirm an ad that some people are spending
tens of millions of dollars on to misrepresent the facts.
Mr. Speaker, black is not white. I can say it one time, a hundred
times, a thousand times: black is black, and white is white. This
action the administration has taken is to produce more jobs, more work
to get more people back to work. How? To respond to Republican
Governors and Democratic Governors who say, I have a better way of
doing it. By the way, that's what you proposed when you were in charge
and we had President Bush in office on at least the three occasions
that the chairman has just mentioned.
White is not black, and black is not white.
Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today exemplifies the do-nothing
Republican Congress. Once again, Republicans are choosing to focus on a
political message over serious issues like jobs, middle class tax cuts,
or the farm bill. Instead, we're here today discussing a Republican
bill that misrepresents the facts in an attempt to simply score
political points. How sad for the American people.
At issue is the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program which
was created in 1996 when Republicans and Democrats worked together to
achieve welfare reform. So you understand on that side of the aisle, I
was a Democrat who voted for welfare reform. I was a Democrat who said
we ought to expect people to work if they can work. I'm also a Democrat
that says we have to help people when through no fault of their own
they can't work or have lost work.
The previous speaker talked about how we weren't concerned about
jobs. In the Bush administration, 4.4 million jobs were lost in the
last 12 months of the Bush administration. Over the last 30 months,
we've created 4.6 million jobs. I ask you, who cares about jobs? Who
creates jobs? There were, of course, 22 million jobs created in the
Clinton administration. We heard a lot of talk about that at our
convention. I didn't hear anything about the Bush administration at the
Republican convention. George Bush was not there, he was not mentioned,
and the record was
[[Page H6182]]
certainly hidden. We care about jobs. We care about people getting to
work. We also care about helping people. We can do both.
Defeat this bill.
Black is not white, and white is not black.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes
to a member of the committee, the subcommittee chair, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
Mr. WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There has been 8 percent unemployment for 43 straight months. I think
the record speaks for itself.
I come from the great State of Michigan, where a Governor, like a
number of others in this great country, now is trying to do everything
possible to undermine the malaise that is going on with lack of
employment in this country because of the wrong approach to helping
people with the dignity of work.
In the eighties and nineties in Michigan, we struggled with high
unemployment. We struggled with a welfare system that was putting
people really in servitude, and in many cases against their own will
and their own desires. They wanted to work.
I still have at my home office copies of leaflets that were handed to
people coming from other States to Michigan because it said you can
cross the line and immediately get welfare assistance with no work
requirements and no residency requirements. We struggled with that.
Then in 1994, under a Republican administration and through the
efforts of many of us, we put through what we called ``workfare-edufare
reform'' and promoted the dignity of individuals with an opportunity to
work. We saw amazing results begin to take place not overnight, but
almost. We heard testimonies of people who were formerly on welfare
assistance saying, I didn't really think it would work, but I can now
say on my own I am paying for my own way and my kids. I have got an
education. I have got work now that gives me dignity. And I'm moving
forward.
We've continued on with that. And now here, when Governors have asked
for some flexibility with TANF--not asking for the removal of work
requirements--we're going to do that. Well, I said ``no,'' and I'm glad
our committee has said ``no,'' and we've moved forward with this
resolution that speaks to the dignity and the value of individuals, but
also of the work experience, the educational experience, and training
for that.
We don't want to move backwards. We don't want to put further
roadblocks in the way of achieving all that America and its dream can
be. We don't have to. We can support a resolution like this. We can
spur our President, this administration, on to doing the right thing
for the right people. That's the American people, people that will work
with dignity and achieve things for the future.
This country is great. Let's work together. Let's pass this
resolution, H.J. Res. 118.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
{time} 1520
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding. Ladies and gentlemen of
the House, this resolution repeals a rule that doesn't exist and
ignores some problems that really do exist.
The policy from the Department of Health and Human Services says
this: if a Governor thinks he or she has a better way to move people
from welfare to work as two Republican Governors have asked for since
that time, they can get a waiver from some of the rules in the welfare
law if, and only if, they move more people from welfare to work than
they otherwise would have done. The bill that the majority did report
out of committee abolishes the work requirement.
In fact, the only way to save the work requirement is to let this
rule go into effect. That's the illusionary rule they are trying to
repeal for the real problems that concern us, though.
If you're a small business person that would like to have a tax cut
when you create jobs, the House is ignoring that problem because we're
not voting on that bill today. If you're a teacher or a police officer
who's been laid off in the last 2 years, the House is ignoring your
problem because we're not voting on that bill today.
If you're an engineer or construction worker who would like to go to
work building roads or bridges or trains, the House is ignoring your
problem because we're not voting on that bill today.
This resolution repeals an imaginary rule at a time of real, acute,
and serious problems for the American people. The majority does have a
plan to deal with those problems. They're going home for 6\1/2\ weeks.
The American people shouldn't have to wait for 6\1/2\ weeks to solve
these problems.
We should vote down this bill, stay on the job and pass jobs
legislation that really helps the American people and a farm bill that
helps American farmers.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the
committee, the subcommittee chairman of the Health Subcommittee, the
gentleman from east Tennessee, Dr. Roe.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 118. This
resolution will express Congress's disapproval of the Obama
administration's attempt at weakening bipartisan welfare reform and
prevent the administration from implementing their plan to waive the
work requirements of the current law.
Sixteen years ago, a Republican-led Congress worked with President
Clinton to fix a broken welfare system, a bipartisan law that resulted
in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant. Our ranking
member said there is about a 20 percent requirement to increase work,
and I think that's a great idea. But how do you define work?
Well, the GAO in 2005 issued a report that said some States counted
work as such activities as bed rest, personal care, massage, exercise,
journaling, motivational reading, smoking cessation, weight-loss
promotion, helping a friend with a household task or running errands.
That makes a mockery of work, and that doesn't pass the laugh test.
Independents, Democrats, and Republicans in our area of the country
know what work is, and that isn't it.
Since then, since the passage of the law, a number of individuals
have dropped off the welfare, a 57 percent decrease. The poverty level
among single women dropped by 30 percent while their income and
earnings increased. More than 80 percent of the people in this country
support work requirements in the welfare reform bill, and this
legislation ensures that the hard work of the 104th Congress and
President Clinton isn't weakened by the Obama administration.
Let me speak to my friend, Mr. Andrews, for just a moment. It's a
great idea to hire teachers and firefighters. I've done that as a mayor
of a city of 60,000 people. Democrats have it just backwards. What you
do is you create a work environment with decreased regulations and
decreased government interference where the private sector can go out
and create the jobs that create the taxes that pay for all of these
services that we want.
That's what we did. It works, and that's a very basic difference in
philosophy.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, here we are, Mr. Speaker, 24 hours before the
majority closes shop and sends us home for 7 weeks, and what are we
debating?
Are we talking about creating jobs for families who are struggling to
make ends meet and wondering what happened to the American Dream? No,
of course not. Instead, we're taking up yet another divisive partisan
measure that will do nothing to kick-start the economy or help people
who have been kicked in the teeth by this recession.
The Obama administration's TANF waivers promote work. They allow
States the flexibility. For example, they allow States to consider
education as work, providing education and training, to move people off
welfare so that they can find jobs that actually pay a living wage so
they can support their families.
Mr. Speaker, I've been on public assistance. I know what it's like.
It's a bad, bad feeling. It doesn't make you proud. I did it because I
had to, certainly not because I wanted to.
[[Page H6183]]
I would wake up in the middle of the night frozen in fear of what
would happen if one of my three children, they were 1, 3 and 5 years
old, got ill. What if they broke an arm. They were rowdy little kids.
What if they grew out of their shoes before I planned to buy new shoes?
It was a very scary time.
The day that I went off welfare was the day that I celebrated because
I didn't need it. I could stand on my own two feet. But I guess we
shouldn't be surprised by this debate. The majority party's current
standard bearer has said he believes 47 percent of the American people
are essentially--and that would have been me back there with my
children--freeloaders and parasites who don't take responsibility for
themselves. That's outrageous and it is class warfare.
Denigrating the poor and the middle class is a favorite strategy on
the right. It should be creating jobs, but it doesn't seem to be the
way they go.
I would like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we stop all this
tomfoolery and we think about the people in this country. We know we
have a job to do, and that job should be done before we leave here.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains on
each side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota has 5\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from California has 3\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy).
Mr. GOWDY. I thank the chairman. Mr. Speaker, some of our colleagues
on the other side of the aisle wish to change the law, and that's fine.
They just need to do it navigating this testy little thing we call the
Constitution and respect the separation of powers between the various
branches.
Mr. Speaker, I want to read the proposed rule to you in part: HHS has
the authority to waive compliance with this work requirement and
authorize the State to test approaches and methods other than those set
forth in section 407, including definitions of work activities and
engagement, specify limitations and verification procedures.
Then the next sentence, Mr. Speaker, is essentially this, and I'll
paraphrase it; it's by the HHS Secretary: trust us, trust us that we're
going to have the right motives when we weigh what Congress has
expressly said to do.
To my lawyer friends on the other side, I would ask you this, why do
we have something called substantive due process and procedural due
process? I'll tell you why, Mr. Speaker. Because the way things are
done matters. For my friends who prefer literature, the end does not
justify the means.
We have separation of branches under our system of government. Among
my many limitations, Mr. Speaker, is an inability to deign the motives
of other people. Their motives may be laudatory. I don't know that. I
know this. We have a process in this country which must be followed,
and this President has repeatedly said if Congress won't do it, I will
do it alone.
Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is, no, sir, you will not. In a
democracy you will not do it alone, whether it's the NLRB or EPA or
most recently HHS with the health care mandate or now with this.
{time} 1530
There has been an erosion of Congress' authority and we have ceded it
to the executive branch. And I will say this to my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, the sun does not always shine on
the same people all the time. There will come a time where there will
be a Republican chief executive. So I would be careful about ceding
this body's responsibility to the executive branch. And when that time
comes, when there is a Republican President, I will stand up for the
right of Congress to make the laws and not the executive branch, just
as I am now.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is all interesting, except the fact is there's
nothing in what the Secretary of Health and Human Services has proposed
that's inconsistent with the Republican position over the years, with
the Bush administration position over the years, with the Clinton
administration position over the years and the Obama administration
position over the years, and that is that when they passed historic
welfare reform there would be an authority in there so, as the
Governors lived with this over time, they could make adjustments. And
that's why we keep reciting to the various instances when Governors
have asked for this--29 Governors of both parties, a couple of
Republican Governors recently--asking for this authority, because they
thought they had a better way to put it to work.
It's rather interesting today that one of the questions is whether or
not we would extend the education time so people can get the proper
credentials, the proper training for a job. Many people have been
unemployed now for a couple of years from a job that may not be coming
back and the skills they have need to either be updated or they have to
learn new skills to get the job that's available in their locality or
maybe a ways down the road.
It's also interesting that the Business Roundtable is in Washington
this week talking about this exact problem: How do we develop those new
skills because of the skills mismatch that exists in this country today
for hundreds of thousands of jobs that are available, but apparently
the skills are not there?
Now, I wonder if that skills training so that that person can get a
job in a good industry and a good job, what if that takes 13 months as
opposed to 12 months or what if it takes 8 months instead of 6 months?
Why don't we live with the Governors having the flexibility if they
believe that's the economic plan for their arrangement?
We see consortiums now, because of the Higher Ed Act, coming
together--community colleges, State universities, manufacturing
consortiums, employer consortiums--developing the programs to develop
the skills for the American workforce. And some of that is inconsistent
with the requirements under this law, and that's why Governors who want
to move to the future came and asked for that relief. And that waiver
authority exists in the Social Security Act. That waiver authority is
explicitly for this purpose.
But in the name of politics, we're going to deny those States that
are struggling, those Governors that are struggling, with the ability
to do this. And under the rules, as the memorandum has suggested, they
would have to show a very substantial increase in moving people from
welfare to work. Supposedly, that's the goal of everybody who's a
Member of this body, but politics is has overwhelmed that.
If you had these concerns, we could have fixed it and moved on with
getting people off of welfare to work. But we will leave here with some
kind of political statement, a hollow political victory that means
nothing except that those people will still be waiting to get off of
welfare and go to work. The Governors will still be waiting to
implement the program to get them off of welfare and go to work. And
the Congress will go home.
In the face of the desperate need of these people to acquire these
skills to improve their talents, to provide for these families, to feed
their kids, to educate them, to provide for health care, the Congress
will go home. It won't give the Governors this authority because it'll
look bad for their Presidential candidate. They won't give the
Governors this authority because they can score a point here. Those
Governors weren't trying to score a point. They were trying to score
some jobs. They were trying to score some jobs for their citizens.
But political games are going to win out here because the clock is
running out on this Congress. So we could have helped those Governors.
You could have tweaked this so you could have said you change from what
President Obama wanted, and we could have gone on and people could have
had opportunity in America. You keep saying you're for it, you just
don't get around to providing it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KLINE. I yield myself the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 3 minutes.
Mr. KLINE. I have got a number of issues to address here. We've heard
so much in a relatively short period of time here.
We heard from some of our colleagues that we haven't brought a jobs
[[Page H6184]]
bill. My colleagues on both sides of the aisle know very well that we
have brought many jobs bills. In fact, over 30 of them have passed this
House--most of them in a bipartisan way--and are sitting in the Senate.
We just don't happen to believe that trillions more of borrowed money
to jump-start the economy is a jobs bill. That's been proven to fail.
This, in fact, is a jobs bill because we want people on welfare to get
to work.
And so we've heard that, no, this information memorandum, which has
been now correctly determined to be a rule--an information memorandum
designed to bypass Congress--will in fact weaken the work requirements.
And so how do we draw that conclusion? From a number of things.
One, we're very concerned about the definition of ``work.'' We've
heard the number, 20 percent increase. It actually means instead of 1.5
percent of people leaving with a ``job'' that we still haven't quite
defined, apparently, we'd have 1.8 percent. Not an overwhelming number.
And then we have the nonpartisan, ever-present Congressional Budget
Office that has joined us with this opinion. Under the memorandum:
CBO expects the penalties for States that don't meet the
work requirements specified in the Social Security Act would
be reduced.
It sounds like waiving work requirements to me. And they go on:
Thus, CBO estimates that enacting Resolution 118 would
reduce direct spending by $59 million over the 2012-2022
period, as some States would pay increased penalties to the
Federal Government for failing to meet the work requirements.
The work requirements in section 407, which the Congress explicitly
said may not be waived.
And we heard from the other side that Republicans in the committee,
including the chairman, voted for the Workforce Investment Improvement
Act, which waives all work requirements. We disagree with that. We
disagree with that. Even the CRS concedes that the purpose of the
provision in that bill is to reduce administrative inefficiencies, not
to gut welfare reform.
But we have some disagreement. It could be controversial. In an open
system, an open process, we can address that question when it comes to
the floor of the House; and if there is confusion, we can make it
crystal clear that we do not want to waive work requirements that have
been so important to the success of welfare reform. We're here today
because the President decided he would exercise power he does not have
in order to waive welfare work requirements Congress has said must not
be waived.
I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important piece of
legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, is it possible that I missed
some fundamental shift in philosophy during the Republican Convention
last month? I thought my Republican colleagues actually favored states'
rights and empowering our governors. I thought my Republican colleagues
wanted to eliminate ``job killing'' government regulations. I thought
my Republicans colleagues were focused on the economy and putting
people back to work.
Well, the Obama Administration's proposal to grant waivers to states
under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program would do
those very things. It will reduce some of the more burdensome
regulations associated with TANF, it will provide states with the
flexibility they have been seeking to pursue more innovative
strategies, and it will set a standard requiring participating states
to move 20% MORE people from welfare to work.
That sounds like a JOBS bill to me . . . and a bipartisan one no
less. Republican governors from Utah and Nevada recently requested
these waivers, and 29 Republican Governors, including Governor Romney,
have sought this kind of flexibility in the past. If that weren't
enough, some of my Republican colleagues even voted to grant similar
waivers when they were proposed by fellow Republicans in 2002, 2003 and
2005.
So why then are my Republican colleagues not supporting this common-
sense, bipartisan proposal? Because it undermines their election-year
narrative for attacking the President--a narrative on this very issue
that multiple fact checkers have labeled as bogus.
This resolution of disapproval is nothing more than an exercise in
crass political cynicism. If my Republican colleagues were serious
about helping the economy, we'd be celebrating this as a bipartisan
accomplishment that will put more people back to work. Instead they
will vote against their own principles just to deny this President any
semblance of a victory . . . even if it means keeping people out of
work. You know, I had a friend who once said, ``If you're going to be a
phony, at least be sincere about it.'' No wonder the American people
view this Republican Congress with such disdain. I urge my colleague to
reject this resolution.
Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition of
H.J. Res. 118. This resolution expresses opposition to a condition that
does not exist. Republicans, led by their presidential nominee, have
been spreading the falsehood that the Obama administration has weakened
the work requirement of the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, one of the
landmark achievements of the Clinton administration. The claim is
false, and has been conclusively refuted by the foremost authority on
welfare reform, former President Bill Clinton himself.
Here is what really happened. When some Republican governors asked
for waivers to try new ways to put people on welfare back to work, the
Obama administration listened. The administration agreed to give
waivers to those governors and others only if they had a credible plan
to increase employment by 20 percent, and they could keep the waivers
only if they did increase employment. As noted by President Clinton,
the waivers actually ``ask for more work, not less.''
The claim that the administration weakened welfare reform's work
requirement is just not true. This is simply a political stunt for the
fall campaign that wastes precious time that could be spent working
together on solutions for the real problems confronting American
families like creating jobs and strengthening the economy.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that H.J. Res. 118 is purely a messaging
bill and not a bill for the American people. This is an effort to
distract Americans from the Republicans' dismal job record. Republicans
should be passing the administration jobs package, middle class tax
cuts, and a comprehensive deficit deal to stop sequestration instead of
engaging in this election-year maneuvering as they leave town. This
bill is a waste of time and shouldn't have been introduced on the
floor. I strongly oppose H.J. Res. 118 and urge my colleagues to do so
as well.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the
resolution of disapproval before us today. Yet again, the House is
wasting valuable time considering a resolution that is not about good
policy, or helping Americans get back to work, but about political
games and rhetoric driven by half-truths.
In July of this year, the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) issued a memo outlining a program for the consideration
of state proposals for alternative job placement performance measures
for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) recipients. This was
in direct response to the requests from at least 29 states who wanted
more flexibility on how they measured work participation among
recipients. Many of these states requested a waiver so they could focus
on more outcome-based measures, rather than job placement rates. The
memo released by HHS outlines the conditions that must be met by a
state to receive a waiver: a clear and detailed explanation of how the
alternative proposal would increase employment by 20 percent, as well
as show that there are clear, measurable goals for work placement.
However, my Republican colleagues would have you believe that the
administration is gutting the work requirements under TANF. Not so. It
should be obvious to any honest man who is not blind that this proposal
does not waive the work requirements. In fact, it is the
administration's effort to test more effective strategies for moving
families from welfare to work while giving the states the flexibility
to test which strategies they think will work best for their residents.
As President Clinton said, ``The requirement was for more work, not
less.''
We hear on the floor of this body, day in and day out, about how
onerous federal reporting requirements are to the states, and how
federal reporting requirements do not account for the unique needs of
each of our states. Yet here the administration is directly responding
to this request for flexibility and my colleagues run to the floor
waving around a dead-on-arrival resolution of disapproval. In my
experience, when the administration has heard your complaints and takes
the steps necessary to address these complaints you claim victory.
As our economy has struggled so have American families. Many of these
families have ended up on TANF through no fault of their own. These
families are not looking for a hand-out from the federal government;
they want a hand-up. The proposal put forth by HHS will help the states
provide these families with a hand-up, while still retaining the
integrity of welfare-to-work requirements under TANF.
[[Page H6185]]
I urge my colleagues to reject this baseless and nakedly political
resolution. Let's do the business of the American people in an honest,
thoughtful, and proper way. I would remind my Republican colleagues
that you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to
your own facts. The facts are that the administration's proposal would
increase work requirements and increase the ability of Americans to get
back to work. And here my Republican colleagues are irresponsibly
attempting to block that action. Shame.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 788, the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further
consideration of House Joint Resolution 118 will be postponed.
Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further consideration of the
joint resolution (H.J. Res. 118) providing for congressional
disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule
submitted by the Office of Family Assistance of the Administration for
Children and Families of the Department of Health and Human Services
relating to waiver and expenditure authority under section 1115 of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1315) with respect to the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families program, will now resume.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the
yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on
this question will be postponed.
____________________