[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 164 (Wednesday, December 19, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8158-S8160]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  TANF

  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today to speak about important 
issues facing us as we work to reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for 
Needy Families Program, the TANF Program. Poverty has risen to a crisis 
level in our country. In 2011 there were 16.1 million children in 
families with incomes below the poverty level.
  The pernicious effects of poverty have implications for children's 
health, education, and well-being. Research has demonstrated that there 
are significant associations between poverty and problems with 
children's health, cognitive development, behavior, emotional well-
being, and school achievement. These problems are exacerbated for 
families in extreme poverty, where the annual income is less than half 
of the poverty level. In 2011 there were over 7 million children in the 
United States living in extreme poverty.
  Poverty is also a risk factor for child abuse and neglect. Data 
assembled by the Center for Law and Social Policy reveals that poverty 
is the single best predictor of child maltreatment. Children living in 
families with annual incomes below $15,000 were 22 times more likely to 
be abused or neglected than those living in families with annual 
incomes of $30,000 or more.
  According to a report from the Children's Defense Fund, ``Children of 
color continue to suffer disproportionately from poverty.'' The 
Children's Defense Fund cites data showing that more than one in three 
African-American children and more than one in three Hispanic children 
were poor in 2011, compared to a 1-in-8 ratio among White non-Hispanic 
children.
  These families face huge challenges navigating the bare necessities 
of daily life. Fresh healthy food can be rare. Unsafe housing 
contributes to chronic child health issues such as asthma. 
Transportation to and from work, the grocery store, and the doctor can 
be infrequent and unreliable.
  Programs funded through TANF--the Temporary Assistance for Needy 
Families Program--provide cash assistance to families struggling in 
deep and persistent poverty. TANF is a block grant to States for their 
use in ending dependence on government benefits and, more broadly, to 
promote child well-being. TANF Programs can also provide work support 
such as transportation assistance and childcare for families working to 
get themselves out of poverty and into decent-paying jobs. In addition 
to safety net and work support programs, TANF also funds a number of 
child welfare programs that, when effective, reduce the number of 
children in foster care and help keep families together.
  When TANF was enacted, many States used the funding stream in an 
effort to move welfare recipients into work. However, over time the 
focus of TANF in many of these States has shifted from working with 
job-ready adults to a funding stream largely dedicated to funding 
purposes unconnected to job readiness.
  For many years I have expressed concern that nationwide over 50 
percent of able-bodied adults receiving cash assistance are reported to 
engage in zero hours of work-related activity. Additionally, I have 
raised concerns that most States are not able to meet the Federal work-
participation rate. This work-participation rate requires that a State 
engage half of its cash assistance caseload in specified work-related 
activities for a certain number of hours each week.
  If you ask the average middle-class American how many able-bodied 
adults receiving welfare should be engaged in work or work-related 
activities, my guess is the answer would be all of them. It should be 
shocking to the American people that most States are not able to engage 
half of their welfare caseloads in such activities.
  Furthermore, I have raised concerns that there is a considerable 
amount of TANF spending on child welfare programs that goes unaccounted 
for and is not coordinated with possibly duplicative spending 
administered by State child welfare agencies.
  Authority for TANF expired at the end of 2010. Unfortunately, 
although this is a matter of serious concern, the Obama administration 
has never proposed a 5-year reauthorization of the TANF Program. 
Instead, on July 12, 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services 
released a document, which they inaccurately described as an 
``Information Memorandum,'' to the States claiming on behalf of the 
Obama administration unprecedented waiver authority over TANF work 
rules.
  This action provoked a swift and strong condemnation from members of 
the legislative branch and rightly so.

[[Page S8159]]

  Many Members of Congress believe the welfare waiver document 
constitutes an excessive and unwarranted overreach on the part of the 
executive branch. The Government Accountability Office agreed with us 
and has determined that the July 12, 2012, document is, in fact, a rule 
as defined by the Administrative Procedures Act and as such should have 
been submitted to Congress for review.
  Since the welfare waiver is considered a rule, like all rules, it is 
subject to a joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional 
Review Act. The Senate Parliamentarian agrees with the GAO, and she has 
advised that for purposes of the CRA, that is, the Congressional Review 
Act, this rule should be considered to have been received by Congress 
on September 10, 2012, even though the administration failed to submit 
it as required by law.
  The CRA provides the Senate with a procedure for expedited 
consideration and a vote on a resolution of disapproval during a 
certain window of time so long as at least 30 Senators have signed a 
discharge petition to bring the resolution to the floor. I have 
introduced such a resolution, S.J. Res. 50, which provides for 
congressional disapproval of the rule submitted by the Department of 
Health and Human Services relating to the authority to waive Federal 
welfare work requirements under section 407 of the Social Security Act. 
Having introduced it within the required timeframe under the CRA and 
having obtained enough signatures on a discharge petition, it is within 
my rights as a Senator to call for a vote on my resolution prior to the 
Senate's adjournment this year.
  Now, I am not naive, nor am I overly idealistic. I am well aware that 
the vote on S.J. Res. 50 would likely fall along party lines, and this 
is disappointing. It is clear that the administration's purpose in 
granting themselves this waiver authority is to undermine a work-first 
approach to getting welfare recipients or clients off the rolls. This 
has been the desire of many critics of Clinton-era welfare reforms 
since they were enacted.
  The administration has not been forthcoming at all about what they 
want to substitute for a work-first approach. In the past, absent 
strong Federal performance standards, States have allowed activities 
such as journaling, exercise, or assisting a neighbor, just to name a 
few, to count as work for the purposes of welfare eligibility.
  Here is why I have such a problem with this shift in policy: I 
believe most people receiving welfare are unhappy with their situation 
and want to be able to work. Even with assistance, families trying to 
survive on cash-assistance welfare are living in desperately 
impoverished circumstances. The reasons some families have to go on 
welfare can be, of course, complicated. Many adults on welfare struggle 
with mental health and substance abuse issues. These barriers to work 
prevent adults on welfare from having work-readiness skills. 
Additionally, inactivity and the lack of attachment to the workforce 
can exacerbate mental health and self-medicating tendencies and create 
a downward spiral for these families, and it can be very hard to 
reverse course.
  Over the years, research has consistently revealed that a work-first 
approach to welfare, combining an intense effort to engage recipients 
in work-related activities to foster an attachment to work with a 
blended array of work supports, such as education and training, has the 
greatest degree of success in getting clients off of welfare.
  The reason I am so vehemently opposed to the administration's scheme 
to undermine the welfare work requirements is that I believe it will 
hinder, not help, the effort to get adults off welfare and into the 
workforce. Put simply, allowing activities that are not work to count 
as work will not get people off welfare.
  The administration and their apologists have not even tried to make a 
policy case for their non-work-first approach. Instead, apologists of 
the administration's welfare waiver rule generally attempt to obfuscate 
and distract from the fact that the Obama administration granted 
themselves waiver authority to bypass the legislative branch with the 
goal of weakening welfare requirements.
  Let's take a look at some of their arguments. Right out of the gates, 
supporters of the administration's policy argue that members of the 
legislative branch asserting their rights in the face of executive 
overreach were simply trying to give the Romney-Ryan campaign an issue.
  Well, in case anyone hasn't heard, the country recently held an 
election, and President Obama was reelected. There is no longer a 
Romney-Ryan campaign, so that distraction falls away.
  Apologists of the executive overreach have also tried to muddy the 
issue by suggesting that the administration is giving the States what 
they asked for. For example--and I take this a little personally--in an 
effort to create a false justification for their power grab, the Obama 
administration has repeatedly misrepresented the views of the State of 
Utah. It is true that when asked by the administration what they wanted 
in a TANF reauthorization, some States indicated the desire for more 
flexibility, but there was never any indication that the States wanted 
the administration to go around Congress to provide this flexibility.
  According to the Government Accountability Office, between 2000 and 
2009--during the Clinton, Bush, and even the Obama administration--HHS 
consistently told States that they had no waiver authority under TANF. 
So States naturally and rightly assumed that any requests for waivers 
would have to go through Congress. This is evidenced by the fact that 
in the 6 months since HHS granted itself authority to waive welfare 
work requirements, not a single State has applied for one of these 
waivers. In other words, any argument that the need for State 
flexibility is so urgent that the administration had to bypass Congress 
to give it falls by the wayside. Once again, we see a distraction 
crumble under the weight of the facts.
  Another distraction raised by supporters of the administration is 
comments from a former House Ways and Means staffer to the press 
indicating that he thought additional flexibility for States might not 
be a bad idea. Of course, this same staffer also said that unilaterally 
establishing these waivers without consulting Congress was not the way 
to go. If that is the best expert opinion supporters of the 
administration can come up with to support this shift in policy, they 
have clearly failed to make their case.
  Once we cut through all of these distractions the administration and 
its allies have tried to throw in our path, we are left again with the 
heart of the matter. The Obama administration is trying to bypass 
Congress and enact policies that are not provided for under current 
law. Whether or not one agrees with the administration's change in 
policy, that simple fact remains and we ought to stand up for the 
prerogatives of the legislative branch. That is why we have three 
separate branches of government, so that we have some checks and some 
balances in our society.
  As a Member of the Senate, I simply cannot stand by and watch the 
administration undermine the relevance of the legislative branch. I 
cannot stand by and see Members of the House of Representatives who 
have worked for years to develop expertise on welfare policy turned 
into potted plants.
  But there is more than one way to stand up for the U.S. Congress. The 
country has been through an exhaustive and highly partisan election. 
Some call it a status quo election. The country has elected a Democrat 
to the White House and sent back a divided Congress. No one side can 
claim a mandate, in my opinion, and I think in the opinion of most 
people. What the American people want is for Democrats and Republicans 
and the President to work together to get things done for the American 
people, and get things done right for the American people. One of the 
things we need to get done is a comprehensive overhaul and 
reauthorization of TANF. Welfare-work requirements need to be updated 
and strengthened, certain loopholes need to be closed, and there must 
be increased transparency and accountability relative to TANF spending 
on child welfare programs and services.
  In order to begin bringing all sides together, particularly after 
such an acrimonious political period, someone must make the first move. 
Therefore, as an act of good faith, in order to facilitate a collegial 
bipartisan working

[[Page S8160]]

relationship on TANF, I am putting my colleagues on notice that earlier 
today I sent President Obama a letter informing him that I will not 
insist on a vote on my resolution of disapproval during this session of 
Congress. In the spirit of compromise and bipartisanship, I have asked 
President Obama to respond to my action by instructing Health and Human 
Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to withdraw the welfare waiver 
rule and submit a 5-year TANF reauthorization proposal to the Congress. 
If there are aspects of the welfare waiver rule the administration 
wishes us to consider, I hope they will include them in their proposal 
so they can be debated and negotiated here in Congress.
  I have written to the President and told him I am committed to 
working with his administration as well as Chairman Camp and Chairman 
Baucus to enact comprehensive and meaningful welfare reauthorization 
early on in the 113th Congress. I made this offer to President Obama 
with good will and in good faith. However, if the President rebuffs my 
overture, the Congressional Review Act will afford me this opportunity 
for another vote on a resolution of disapproval next year. This is 
because even if the Senate meets in legislative session every day until 
January 3--including Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, New Year's Eve, New 
Year's Day, and all weekends--there will not have been 60 session days 
between the date the welfare waiver rule is deemed to have been 
submitted to the Senate and the convening of the 113th Congress. Since 
the 112th Congress will end before the full 60-session-day period has 
elapsed, the Congressional Review Act provides for another 60-day 
period to act on a disapproval resolution regarding this rule in 2013. 
I hope it doesn't come to that. Therefore, if President Obama does not 
withdraw the welfare waiver rule, submit a 5-year TANF reauthorization 
plan, and then work with Congress to enact meaningful, comprehensive 
welfare reform that strengthens work requirements and provides for 
improved accountability of TANF spending, I will be right back here in 
a few months exercising my right to demand a vote on a new resolution 
of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act.
  I sincerely hope it does not come to that. As my colleagues know, I 
have a long history of forging bipartisan compromises on welfare, among 
many other things. I was a key player during the 1996 consideration of 
welfare reform that was passed by a Republican Congress and signed by a 
Democratic President. In 2002, Senator Breaux and I worked with 
Republicans and Democrats to draft the so-called ``tripartisan'' 
agreement on welfare reauthorization. I stand willing to work again on 
a bipartisan basis on this important issue at this most critical time.
  As Members of Congress, I believe we have a moral obligation to do 
what we can to help those facing staggering challenges and deep and 
persistent poverty. We can begin to meet this moral obligation by 
strengthening and improving the TANF Programs for the working poor, the 
middle class, and children in the child welfare system.
  In America today we have women who take their children with them 
rummaging through trash cans, hoping to find discarded soda cans so 
they can sell them back to stores. In America today we have families 
who every month must make painful decisions about whether to buy food 
or medicine or whether to pay to heat their home or put gas in their 
car. Many single moms have no good choices when it comes to providing 
childcare for their children while they attempt to find work. I can 
think of no group of Americans more deserving of having the Senate's 
time and attention directed toward crafting policies designed to help 
improve their lives.
  If my colleagues look over my past 36 years, I have been there for 
these Americans. I was there in enacting TANF. I was there on a number 
of child welfare programs. I was there on the Child Care and 
Development Block Grant. I was there on the Americans With Disabilities 
Act, and countless other bills. These bills I worked on have helped to 
make a difference.
  But I am concerned that increasingly, we are becoming a welfare 
society. A lot of people aren't going to go to work, and every time, 
every quarter, we find more and more people who won't even look for a 
job anymore. That is not the way to run a great country. That is not 
the way to help people to be self-sufficient, it is not the way to help 
people to be self-reliant, and it is not the way to keep a country 
great.
  This is an important issue. I believe everybody in the Senate ought 
to stand up for the rights of the Congress. And I believe the President 
can show great good will here if he would do what I have suggested, 
which I think my Democratic colleagues would appreciate as well, and 
that is send up the 5-year reauthorization of TANF and of course 
withdraw that particular approach toward waivers that literally should 
not ever be granted without congressional consent. I think the 
President would come a long way by doing that and it would mean a lot 
to me personally. Let's hope we can get the President to consider these 
remarks this day because they have been delivered in good faith, hoping 
we will find solutions to these problems and, above all, hoping we can 
help our people.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in 
morning business for up to 15 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________