[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 36 (Wednesday, March 13, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H1365-H1371]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 890, PRESERVING THE WELFARE WORK
REQUIREMENT AND TANF EXTENSION ACT OF 2013
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 107 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 107
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
890) to prohibit waivers relating to compliance with the work
requirements for the program of block grants to States for
temporary assistance for needy families, and for other
purposes. All points of order against consideration of the
bill are waived. An amendment in the nature of a substitute
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 113-3 shall
be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any
amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion
except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
[[Page H1366]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Worcester (Mr. McGovern),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, Mr. Speaker, all time yielded is for
the purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and
reported a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 890, the Preserving
Work Requirements for Welfare Programs Act of 2013.
{time} 1220
The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided between the
chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means. In
addition, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
It was not the intention of the Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker, to have
a closed rule. However, the committee received only four amendments,
one of which was withdrawn. The remaining three amendments were all
subject to points of order for germaneness and other violations of the
rules of the House. Unfortunately, we are left with little choice but
to propose a closed rule.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 890 would prohibit the Secretary of Health and
Human Services from issuing waivers relating to compliance with the
work requirements for welfare recipients, which were created under the
historic 1996 welfare reform law. These work requirements have led to
more work, more earning, less welfare dependence, and less poverty
among low-income Americans.
Additionally, H.R. 890 incorporates the text of H.R. 987. H.R. 987
extends the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families programs, also
known as TANF, which is due to expire on March 27, through the end of
2013.
Mr. Speaker, the Welfare and Medicaid Reform Act of 1996 made
historic changes in the way our country treats its most impoverished
citizens. Generally, the reforms offered States new flexibility in
designing welfare programs. However, in exchange for that flexibility,
strong new Federal work requirements were put in place. These
requirements specified the minimum number of hours per week an
individual must engage in either work or work-related activities and
penalties for failure to comply.
What were the results of the 1996 reforms? Well, let me just go over
a few. America saw the greatest reduction in poverty among children
since the 1960s. The employment rate for single mothers in 2010 is
higher than it was in 1996, even though the unemployment rate itself
has almost doubled during that period of time. Poverty among single
mothers has fallen by 30 percent. The list of successes associated with
the law, which I must stress was bipartisan and worked upon by both
parties both in this Chamber and obviously by President Clinton, goes
on and on.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, the Welfare Reform Act specifically
prohibited waivers of the new TANF work requirements. Under both
Republican and Democratic administrations, it's been assumed that these
requirements could not be waived. However, the current administration,
through a so-called ``informational memorandum''--I'm frankly not quite
sure what that is--has decided it does have the authority to waive
these work requirements.
Mr. Speaker, the bipartisan compromise that was drafted in 1996 has
done a good job in reducing poverty in this country and improving the
lives and the prospects of those mired in very difficult circumstances.
We should not allow the administration to undo, by an informational
memorandum, what the Congress and Presidents in the past have been able
to accomplish by statute.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill and a good rule. I urge the support
of the rule and the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Cole) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would tell my colleagues
that this is not a good rule. It is a closed rule, and there's no need
for it.
This prevents Members of the House of both parties from coming to the
floor with ideas or ways to amend this legislation. Because of the
rule, they're prevented from doing so. I think that is an unfortunate
fact. We should have deliberation on this House floor. Given the fact
that we're not doing much of anything, we certainly have the time to
deliberate, and I would hope that in the future that we would see more
flexibility on the rules and less closed rules. So I urge my colleagues
to vote against the rule because of that.
Mr. Speaker, once again the Republican majority in the House is
proving that they never let facts get in the way of a good press
release.
Today's bill takes a sensible, bipartisan piece of legislation and
tacks on a partisan political ploy that was used in the last Congress
to try to embarrass President Obama.
Instead of bringing a simple, clean extension of the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families program, the Republican majority is
continuing a political attack from the last election. And like many of
the other political attacks lobbed against President Obama in that
campaign, this attack is simply untrue and destined for failure.
Over the last 2 years, members of the majority have charged that
actions taken by the Department of Health and Human Services to improve
the efficiency and effectiveness of the TANF program are an attempt to
``let people sit at home and collect welfare checks.''
Such charges have been declared false by numerous fact check
organizations, including Factcheck.org, PolitiFact, and The Fact
Checker at The Washington Post.
Furthermore, Ron Haskins, the former Republican staff director of the
Ways and Means Human Resources Subcommittee and one of the chief
architects of the 1996 welfare reform law, said the reforms similar to
the ones being made by HHS are justified. And he added:
I do not think it ends welfare reform or strongly
undermines welfare reform. Each State has to say what they
will do and how that reform will either increase employment
or lead to better employment.
That's Ron Haskins, the former Republican staff director of the Ways
and Means Human Resources Subcommittee.
Mr. Speaker, the merits of the changes implemented by HHS strengthen
Federal efforts to move Americans from welfare to work. In allowing
States the flexibility from rigid TANF requirements, the administration
requires that any changes provide a more efficient or effective means
to promote employment. In explaining the policy changes, HHS Secretary
Sebelius stated:
Governors must commit that their proposals will move at
least 20 percent more people from welfare to work compared to
the State's past performance.
Under such requirements, it is impossible to assert that these
changes will weaken the Federal efforts to move citizens from welfare
to work. In fact, in looking at the actual rules even briefly, it is
clear that these changes strengthen our Federal efforts by allowing for
more effective and more efficient programs by giving them room to
operate at the State level.
Mr. Speaker, it may be surprising to some watching today's
proceedings that the majority disapproves of the administration's
programmatic changes. The underlying principle of the changes is the
belief that States should have flexibility to implement proven and
effective methods for moving Americans from welfare to work.
Yet today, a Republican majority that often boasts of its commitment
to States' rights now stands in fierce opposition to that very
principle. They find themselves demanding that even when more effective
methods for putting Americans to work are available, Federal standards
dictated from Washington must rule the day.
[[Page H1367]]
And the real irony in their argument against the administration's
action is that the request for flexibility came from a Governor, a
Republican Governor. And it was not just a Republican Governor from a
blue State like New Jersey or a purple State like Virginia. No, Mr.
Speaker, the Governor of Utah--one of the reddest States in the
Nation--is the one that has requested this waiver.
I've seen some interesting legislative jujitsu on this House floor.
One day they're adhering to the Hastert rule, and the next day the
Boehner rule applies. This Republican majority legislates by lurching
from one issue to another issue trying to find something that works.
So I can't say that I'm surprised that they're declaring themselves
against increasing work requirements for TANF recipients as requested
by a Republican Governor. The only thing I can chalk it up to is
politics. You'd think that at some point the Republican majority would
rather legislate instead of fighting a political battle that was
decided 4 months ago, a political battle that they lost badly. Sadly,
that day is not today.
If this majority were truly serious about work and employment, about
actually reducing the number of people on TANF, then we would be voting
on a bill to repeal the sequester and we would be voting on a bill to
save the 750,000 jobs that will be lost this year because of these
arbitrary, mindless, senseless, and thoughtless cuts.
The reauthorization of TANF in and of itself is not controversial. We
can move that bill on suspension. What appears to be controversial to
this Republican leadership is putting people back to work. What appears
to be controversial to this Republican leadership is saving our economy
from the devastating sequester cuts. What appears to be controversial
to this Republican leadership is responsible governing.
In contrast, Mr. Speaker, House Democrats have a plan that House
Republicans block time after time after time to avoid sequester.
Congressman Van Hollen has a balanced sequester replacement, one that
will get rid of the arbitrary cuts and replace them with a balanced mix
of cuts and revenues, revenues that come from closing tax loopholes
that even Republicans like Mitt Romney thought we should eliminate.
Congressman Van Hollen has come to the Rules Committee four times
this year alone in the hope that this Republican leadership, the ones
who promised an open House and an open legislative process, would make
his amendment in order. And four times now, the Republican leadership
in this House has refused to make that amendment in order.
{time} 1230
Why, Mr. Speaker? Why? Why not allow the Van Hollen sequester
replacement bill to come to the floor for a vote? Didn't Speaker
Boehner promise a more open House? Didn't he say that the House should
work its will?
Mr. Speaker, this is not a way to run a democracy. This is not an
open and fair process.
That's because this Republican leadership is not about openness.
They're not about legislating responsibly. They're about desperate
attempts to score cheap political points. That's what they're doing
with the sequester. And that's what they're doing with this TANF
reauthorization--something that should be totally noncontroversial,
something that should be approved with an overwhelming bipartisan vote.
Mr. Speaker, we should defeat this closed rule, an unnecessarily
closed rule, and defeat this bill. It is time we put partisan politics
aside, at least until the next election season begins, and start
working for the American people.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It was once famously observed that the inhabitants of the United
Kingdom and the United States were two people divided by the same
language. Evidently, that applies to the people of Massachusetts and
the people of Oklahoma.
I want to thank my good friend, who kindly sent me a note. I had
mentioned if you're from Oklahoma, we would say he's from Worcester,
but he said it's ``Worcest-ah.'' So I want to get that right, and I
want to thank my friend for correcting me. That's probably the only
place my friend and I will agree, and I'll agree that it was
appropriate to correct me.
Let me just make a couple of simple responses to what my friend had
to say. I don't want to re-debate sequester. He and I had an
opportunity to do that in the context of the continuing resolution last
week. But the idea that that was somehow partisan, when over 50 of my
friends' colleagues voted for it on final passage, strikes me as odd.
It was, actually, quite bipartisan, and we began a process in that that
is going to result in saving the American people $1.2 trillion.
We think we made initial steps in improving the bill. It appears to
us as if that same process is working now on the other side of the
rotunda amongst our friends in the Senate, and so we're working our way
towards a responsible piece of legislation, operating through regular
order and trying to find common ground.
We're not happy with the sequester. We tried to fix it a couple of
times, as my friend recalls. Neither the Senate nor the President ever
took us up on that offer, so we worked hard. Now we found another
route. Perhaps we can keep working and find some common ground in some
other areas.
As to this bill itself, let's just go back to the specifics. All
we're doing is making sure that the work requirement stays in place.
I'll make a rather bold prediction and say after the rule vote is over,
probably a lot of Democrats will vote for that legislation.
They'll vote for it for two reasons:
First, it reauthorizes TANF, which is a good thing. We agree on that.
It's a good piece of legislation. And certainly we should provide the
neediest of our people certainty through the end of the fiscal year, as
opposed to the end of March. So I think that's an effort by both sides
to do the right thing.
But second, if there's a misunderstanding here and we misinterpreted
the administration, fair enough. I don't think we did, but regardless,
let's just make absolutely sure and pass this legislation. If we both
agree on it, it shouldn't be a point of a great deal of contention.
And with that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First of all, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma,
for his improved pronunciation. I appreciate that. And I also
appreciate the spirit of bipartisanship that he has displayed on a
number of issues, most recently on the Violence Against Women Act.
I kind of wish that that same spirit was brought to this bill here
today, this TANF bill, because it would pass overwhelmingly.
Just so that there's no confusion about what HHS is trying to do, I
would like to insert into the Record a letter that Kathleen Sebelius,
the Secretary of Health and Human Services, sent to the Honorable Dave
Camp, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, which explains
how the administration views this flexibility that they might at some
point utilize. But basically it is not to weaken the work requirement;
it is to support States that have better ideas to improve the results
to get more people to work.
The other thing, Mr. Speaker, I would say is that, again, it's ironic
that my friends on the other side have kind of chosen to put a little
bit of politics into this debate given the fact that a Republican
Governor from a red State, Utah, suggests to the administration that he
might have a better idea on how his State might get better results in
putting more people to work, getting people off of public assistance
and into the workforce.
I think that's a good thing. I think what all of us believe is
whatever it takes to get more people into the workforce is a good
thing.
I would also say to my friend--he mentioned that the Republicans have
had proposals to deal with the sequester. Not in this session they
haven't. Not a single time in this current Congress have my Republican
friends brought an alternative to the floor to avoid sequester--these
arbitrary, mindless, senseless cuts that go across the board.
[[Page H1368]]
If you had a line item in the budget that said ``fraud, waste, and
abuse,'' under the sequester that would be treated the same way as a
line item for medical research or for education or for transportation
and infrastructure. This is not a way to deal with our budgetary
challenges.
The reason why I bring up sequester today is because I wish there
were a greater sense of urgency in this House of Representatives to
deal with it. We're all talking about welfare-to-work right now. But by
allowing the sequester to continue to go into place, CBO tells us that
we're going to risk 750,000 jobs; 750,000 of our fellow citizens will
be out of work because of the inaction of this Congress.
I find that unacceptable. We ought to be preserving jobs, we ought to
be expanding jobs, we ought to be doing everything we can to get people
back to work because that's the surest way to reduce our deficit. The
more people working, the more revenues, the more we can pay down our
deficit.
We should be talking about trying to get our budgetary House in order
without diminishing the quality of life and the standard of living for
people in this country.
The Secretary of Health
and Human Services,
Washington, DC, July 18, 2012.
Hon. Dave Camp,
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Camp: Thank you for your interest in the
guidance we have released to states concerning the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.
The 1996 welfare reform legislation established work
requirements which have been critical to moving people off
welfare and into jobs. The proposal we have outlined
strengthens the law's purpose to move people off of welfare
and into jobs by utilizing state-based innovation. Our goal
is to accelerate job placement by moving more Americans from
welfare to work, and no policy which undercuts that goal or
waters down work requirements will be considered or approved
by the Department.
For years, Republican and Democratic Governors have
requested more flexibility in implementing welfare reform so
they can meet their states' specific needs. In 2005, 29
Republican Governors requested ``[i]ncreased waiver
authority, allowable work activities, availability of partial
work credit'' so they might more ``effectively serve low-
income'' Americans. Certain elements of the proposal endorsed
by the 2005 Republican Governors were very far-reaching and
would not be approved under the Department's proposed
waivers. More recently, Utah and Nevada requested waiver
opportunities. While it appears some of the policies
enumerated in the letters would not be eligible for waivers
under our policy, we look forward to receiving and being able
to consider a formal application from these and other states.
The Department is providing a very limited waiver opportunity
for states that develop a plan to measurably increase the
number of beneficiaries who find and hold down a job.
Specifically, Governors must commit that their proposals will
move at least 20% more people from welfare to work compared
to the state's past performance. States must also demonstrate
clear progress toward that goal no later than one year after
their programs take effect. If they fail, their waiver will
be rescinded. And if a Governor proposes a plan that
undercuts the work requirements established in welfare
reform, that plan will be rejected.
We will follow our initial guidance to states with further
information detailing metrics and accountability measures.
The policy we have outlined is designed to accelerate job
placement rates for those on welfare, not address other
aspects of their lives. No plan that undercuts the goal of
moving people from welfare to work will be considered or
approved. For example, the Department will not approve a
waiver that changes the definition of work requirements to
include any of the activities outlined in a 2005 GAO report
on TANF such as personal care activities, massage, and
journaling. We will continue to hold states accountable for
moving people from welfare to work.
Strengthening Welfare Reform Through State-based Innovation
For states, welfare can too often be a maze of red tape and
nonsensical rules. For example, states can get more credit
for assigning people to do job search than for placing them
into paying, private-sector jobs. The rules not only place an
administrative burden on states, but make searching for a job
and securing employment more difficult for families. The
proposal we have outlined gives states flexibility to cut red
tape and get people back to work.
As noted earlier, when Congress considered legislation
reauthorizing the TANF program in 2005, Governors from across
the country also expressed their support for more flexibility
for states in the TANF program. In a letter to Congress, the
following Governors specifically endorsed Senate legislation,
which would have allowed many states to receive waivers far
broader than we are allowing now--including, for example,
waivers of the time limits in the 1996 welfare reform law.
Governors signing this letter included:
Bob Riley, Alabama; Frank H. Murkowski, Alaska; Mike
Huckabee, Arkansas; Arnold Schwarzenegger, California; Bill
Owens, Colorado; M. Jodi Rell, Connecticut; Jeb Bush,
Florida; Sonny Perdue, Georgia; Linda Lingle, Hawaii; Dirk
Kempthorne, Idaho; Mitch Daniels, Indiana; Ernie Fletcher,
Kentucky; Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr., Maryland; Mitt Romney,
Massachusetts.
Tim Pawlenty, Minnesota; Haley Barbour, Mississippi; Matt
Blunt, Missouri; Dave Heineman, Nebraska; George E. Pataki,
New York; Kenny C. Guinn, Nevada; John Hoeven, North Dakota;
Bob Taft, Ohio; Donald L. Carcieri, Rhode Island; Mark
Sanford, South Carolina; M. Michael Rounds, South Dakota;
Rick Perry, Texas; Jon Huntsman, Jr., Utah; James Douglas,
Vermont.
As also noted previously, we do not go as far as these
Governors in supporting state flexibility. Within limits,
however, we agree with their letter that states should have
``the flexibility to manage their TANF programs and
effectively serve low-income populations.'' If a Governor
commits to a plan to strengthen work requirements that moves
more people from welfare to work, we welcome the opportunity
to review that proposal. On the other hand, if a Governor is
satisfied with the status quo, the state will not be required
to submit a waiver request and can continue to operate under
the current welfare system.
We do not have to choose between providing temporary
assistance to families who fall on hard times and putting
people back to work. We can do both by strengthening work
requirements so more people move from welfare to work and
giving states flexibility to tailor their welfare reforms to
their specific needs. But while we continue to explore new
ways to strengthen work requirements, we will not accept any
changes that undercut employment-focused welfare reforms that
were signed into law fifteen years ago.
As we have relayed to your staff, we would welcome the
opportunity to brief them on the legal and programmatic
issues related to this policy and to discuss the feedback we
have received from states about the challenges that the
current requirements present to creating jobs. Attached is a
more detailed description of HHS' waiver authority under
current law. I will also provide this response to Senator
Hatch.
Sincerely,
Kathleen Sebelius.
Enclosure.
ATTACHMENT--Legal Basis for Utilizing Waiver Authority in TANF
The exercise of waiver authority contemplated in the July
12 Information Memorandum is clearly authorized by section
1115(a)(1) of the Social Security Act. Section 1115(a)(1)
allows the Secretary to ``waive compliance with any of the
requirements of section . . . 402 [of the Act] . . . to the
extent and for the period [s]he finds necessary to enable [a]
State . . . to carry out'' an approved experimental, pilot,
or demonstration project that will assist in promoting the
objectives of the TANF program. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1315(a)(1). As
the Information Memorandum explains, section 402 sets forth
state plan requirements for the TANF program, including the
requirement that a plan ``[e]nsure that parents and
caretakers receiving assistance under the program engage in
work activities in accordance with section 407.'' Id.
Sec. 602(a)(1)(A)(iii). By authorizing the Secretary to
``waive compliance with any of the requirements of section .
. . 402,'' therefore, section 1115 permits the Secretary to
waive the requirements of section 407 when she determines
that a waiver would promote the objectives of the TANF
program and satisfy the other prerequisites for a waiver.
Your letter maintains that the Secretary's section 1115
waiver authority does not extend to the requirements
described in the Information Memorandum because those
requirements are set forth in section 407 rather than section
402. But, as explained above, the plain text of section 402
incorporates the requirements of section 407 by reference.
Moreover, the Department has long interpreted its authority
to waive state plan requirements under section 1115 to extend
to requirements set forth in other statutory provisions that
are referenced in the provisions governing state plans. This
interpretation has been consistently applied throughout the
history of section 1115, including in the context of the
Medicaid, child support, and former Aid to Families with
Dependent Children (AFDC) programs. For example, in
Wisconsin's well-known ``Work Not Welfare'' demonstration
implemented in 1995, the state received a waiver of rules
related to the distribution of child support. While section
1115 references the child support state plan provisions in
section 454, the child support rules waived in the Wisconsin
waiver are in section 457, but included by reference in the
state plan in section 454(11). (Additional examples can be
provided upon request.) If Congress had intended to restrict
the Secretary's waiver authority when it replaced the AFDC
program with the TANF program in 1996, it could have deleted
section 1115's reference to section 402 or otherwise
indicated its intent to depart from past practice. Congress
did not do so and the Department is adhering to its
longstanding interpretation that section 1115 waiver
authority extends to requirements incorporated by reference
into the state plan sections of programs, including Medicaid,
child support, and TANF.
[[Page H1369]]
Your letter also claims that section 415(a)(2)(B) of the
Act precludes the Secretary from waiving section 407's
requirements. But section 415(a)(2)(B) has no application
here because it is a transitional provision applicable only
to waivers under the former AFDC program, which was replaced
by the TANF program in 1996. Indeed, the plain language of
section 415(a)(2)(B) makes clear that it is limited to
waivers that related to ``a State program funded under this
part (as in effect on September 30, 1996)''--that is, under
the former AFDC program. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 615(a)(2)(B)
(emphasis added). That provision thus does nothing to
restrict the Secretary's waiver authority with respect to the
current TANF program.
Mr. McGOVERN. So having said that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield
3 minutes at this time to the gentleman from Puerto Rico, my good
friend, Mr. Pierluisi.
Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Speaker, although I strongly support the TANF
program, which provides payments to low-income families with children,
I rise in opposition to the rule and to the underlying bill. Yesterday,
I filed the budget-neutral amendment to H.R. 890. However, the Rules
Committee reported a closed rule, thereby foreclosing debate, and a
vote, on my amendment.
My amendment sought to eliminate disparities that the territories
face under TANF. Under current law, the territories are not eligible
for TANF supplemental grants, contingency funds, and mandatory child
care funds.
Moreover, Federal law imposes an annual cap on the overall funding
that each of the territories can receive under a variety of public
assistance programs, including TANF. I have introduced legislation to
repeal this funding cap, which has not been increased since 1996, and
to make the territories eligible for TANF grants they do not presently
receive. The amendment I filed yesterday was rooted in this legislation
but modified to comply with PAYGO rules.
Those who seek evidence of how Puerto Rico is hurt by its territory
status need look no further than the unequal treatment my constituents
receive under TANF and other safety-net programs. These programs are
designed to help our Nation's most vulnerable residents, none of whom--
I must emphasize--earn enough to pay Federal income taxes.
This treatment would be unprincipled under any circumstances, but it
is particularly unfair when one considers that, last November, voters
in Puerto Rico rejected the current status and expressed a desire for
statehood, a status that would entitle them to equal treatment under
all Federal laws. If Congress elects to undertake a comprehensive
reauthorization of the TANF program, I hope my colleagues will work
with me to eliminate the disparities that Puerto Rico faces under
current law, especially in light of the fact that my constituents have
rejected the political status that allows for such unequal treatment.
{time} 1240
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I just want to quickly respond to my friend's point on sequester
again. A little bit like Lucy and the football, we've tried this twice,
and the idea that we should now have to tee it up a third time before
the President rouses himself--or the Senate--to action, strikes me as a
little bit extreme. Again, we've tried to do it. We're now moving
through another process. It seems to be working. Regular order seems to
actually be working around here, and I'm hopeful we'll get to, before
the end of the month, a resolution that will be considerably better
than the CR, that will frankly have folded a lot of the work of the
Appropriations Committee into what is effectively the fiscal year 2013
budget.
To my friend from Puerto Rico, it is my understanding--and I'm not a
parliamentarian--that the amendment was not germane or was ruled out of
order to the bill. Again, I'm not and don't pretend to be an expert on
that, but I think he makes an excellent point, and it is certainly a
matter worthy of consideration at some appropriate time.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, we don't have a great deal of disagreement
here. Let's just make sure that the work requirement is there. There is
considerable debate as to who asked for waivers, whether they were
asked for, and whether it was reform. I've seen a lot of back-and-forth
on this, and I don't pretend to know; but I think it's the clear intent
of this Chamber, and always has been since the legislation was passed,
that the work requirements remain intact. So just reiterating that
point I think makes it crystal clear to everyone and perhaps eliminates
the confusion.
Again, I think the reauthorization of the underlying legislation is
something that both parties want to accomplish and want to provide
certainty for people that are in very difficult circumstances that
they're not going to be at risk financially if for some reason, which I
don't anticipate, we actually don't get our work done by March 27 and
avoid some sort of catastrophic government shutdown. Again, something
that I know the President wants to do and something that my friends on
the other side of the aisle want to do and something I think our
colleagues in the United States Senate want to do.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
just to address a couple of points of my colleague from Oklahoma, whom
I have a great deal of respect for.
First of all, if we had an open rule, Mr. Pierluisi could have had a
chance to offer his amendment, and we could get a judgment from the
Parliamentarian then. Secondly, also the Rules Committee could have
waived the germaneness rule to allow Mr. Pierluisi to have his
amendment made in order. So the Rules Committee could have done that,
and chose instead to report a closed rule here so that nobody can offer
anything. It is completely closed, a closed process.
Secondly, with regard to sequestration again, I point out that the
President of the United States did offer a grand bargain. My Republican
friends said no to that. He put a lot of different things on the table
trying to come up with a grand bargain to deal with our deficit but
also not undercut our economy. It was a balance of cuts and revenue,
but my Republican friends said no to that.
And I would repeat again, in this Congress, the House Republicans
have done nothing, have proposed zero to be able to avoid the
sequester. There have been no alternatives brought before the Rules
Committee, nothing brought to the floor.
Mr. Van Hollen has, on four different occasions, tried to avoid
sequester with a very balanced approach, and it would save 750,000
jobs. If there's anything that's urgent in this Chamber, it should be
to preserve and protect the 750,000 jobs that will be lost because of
these sequester cuts.
I would finally say that the United States Senate, far from a perfect
branch of government in my opinion, but nonetheless, the Senate
Majority Leader had an alternative to sequester that got 51 votes.
That's a majority. But, unfortunately, under the Senate rules and with
Republican insistence that they needed 60 votes, it didn't make it. But
51 Senators voted for an alternative.
So there are alternatives out there; and the notion that we should
kind of sit back, lay back, and maybe something will emerge
miraculously to deal with this issue I don't think is the proper role
of the House of Representatives. We ought to be deliberating and
debating and finding ways to protect those 750,000 jobs.
We talk about welfare to work here. And again, the irony is we're
trying to prevent the administration from being able to have the
flexibility to be able to work with States who want to get better
results, to get more people off of welfare to work. But when you talk
about getting people to work, we ought to also be talking about
preserving the 750,000 jobs that will be lost because of our inaction
on sequester.
Mr. Speaker, at this point I'd like to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), the ranking member of the Ways and
Means Subcommittee on Human Resources.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, as we continue very important efforts to
strengthen the middle class in America, I think it's important to
recognize that there are millions of Americans who would like to be
part of it, who are struggling at the bottom rungs of the economic
ladder hoping to work their way into the middle class. I think
[[Page H1370]]
that's where our focus should be, because in recent decades, we've seen
growing economic inequality in this country where a few have so much
and many have so very little.
One of the goals of the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, or
TANF, initiative back in 1996 was to help those who wanted to climb the
economic ladder. In hopes of accomplishing that, and valuing personally
the importance of work, I voted for welfare reform. And if you evaluate
it based on how many poor people it's denied assistance to, it's a
great success. If, on the other hand, you evaluate it based on how many
poor people it has helped to secure good, livable wages in long-term
jobs, its success, at best, is very spotty.
Today's debate ought to be about how do we strengthen the
effectiveness of TANF and related programs to assist more people in
working their way into the middle class. But instead of focusing on
lifting people up, like the previous temporary extension of TANF, this
Republican effort is really about putting them down. It's about
suggesting that the stereotype of the welfare Cadillac, of the aimless
and the shiftless who don't want to work is real. Instead of a vision
about an effective, long-term reauthorization of welfare to work, this
bill represents the third time that Republicans have insisted on just a
temporary, short-term extension of the same old programs.
The last time that we did this, Republicans included a firm
prohibition and strong rhetoric about denying anyone using their
electronic benefits at strip clubs or casinos. Who could object to
that? But it's hardly central to how we advance these individuals who
want to work.
This time it's the leftover Presidential campaign ploy arguing that
the administration wanted to encourage more welfare loafing and
idleness by weakening work requirements. Neither this bill nor its
predecessors were truly about helping more people to secure jobs.
They're about reinforcing the prejudice that many poor people are
takers, not makers; that they're just eager to take somebody else's tax
money and loaf.
Well, I believe that today's attempt to restrict State authority to
strengthen welfare-to-work initiatives also totally contradicts what is
happening at this very moment with a blockheaded Republican budget that
would block-grant almost unbridled authority to the States to weaken
health care. Because of the way that the TANF program is currently
structured, whether this rule and this bill are approved is largely
irrelevant to 99 percent of the working-age poor people in America
today who are not currently participating in any of the TANF work
activities.
I think we should do better by these folks. They want to become part
of the middle class, but they find themselves in no job or a dead-end
job. Instead of focusing on denying assistance to as many people as
possible, we ought to be engaging in constructive, bipartisan
discussion about what are the best ways to make the program effective
to lift people up. Instead of focusing on waivers and simply waving
good-bye to the many people in America who are economically
disadvantaged and want a better opportunity, who want some hope to get
out of poverty, let's try to do more to assist those people in more
productive, long-term programs.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1250
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire of the gentleman from
Oklahoma whether he has any additional speakers.
Mr. COLE. I'm prepared to close whenever my friend is.
Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman, and I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this closed
rule. Again, I regret very much that something that really should be
truly bipartisan and totally bipartisan and totally noncontroversial
has now become politicized so that there's division.
Again, I wish that we had followed the same path we did with the
Violence Against Women Act, when a more controversial and divisive
attempt on that bill was put aside for something that was more of a
consensus and had broad bipartisan support. We could do the same thing
here, and I wish we would.
There is no need for this bill to become politicized; and my guess is
that when it comes back to the House, the controversial provisions that
we are complaining about right now will probably be gone.
Mr. Speaker, we just had a long discussion about work requirements;
but, ironically, the bill that we're going to deal with tomorrow cuts
this program called the SNAP Employment and Training Funding. This is a
program that helps low-income individuals get training for proper
employment, training for jobs that could help those individuals lift
themselves out of poverty and off public assistance.
It is my understanding that my friends are going to bring a bill that
guts that particular program. I find that puzzling because the whole
point of that program is to give people the training they need so they
are qualified for some of the jobs that are open out there, and yet
we're going to eliminate that.
My friends have routinely gone after the SNAP, or food stamp program,
again, helping low-income families get by during difficult times while
they find employment. Sadly, there are a lot of people who are working
who earn so little that they still qualify for SNAP. We ought to have a
greater discussion on poverty and how to deal with some of these big
issues like hunger and food insecurity, and I hope at some point we can
have that discussion.
But, today, what I wish we were doing, in addition to passing a
noncontroversial TANF bill, I wish we were on the floor debating an
alternative to the sequester--750,000 jobs are about to be lost,
750,000 jobs. If we are truly interested in work, we ought to protect
those jobs.
Mr. Van Hollen of Maryland had an alternative that four times he's
brought to the Rules Committee. Four times the leadership here has
said, no, you can't bring it to the floor, you can't debate it, you
can't deliberate on it.
And my friends on the other side of the aisle in this Congress have
offered zero. They're totally content to let the sequester go into
play--750,000 jobs at stake.
I think that's what we should be doing here, Mr. Speaker.
As I yield back the balance of my time, I would urge my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle to suspend politics for just a little while
so we can get a few major things done. We can do the politics next year
when it's campaign time, but now's the time to achieve results.
We can come together on a lot of these issues. I hope that that
happens; but if this is any indication of how we're going to proceed,
it makes me less hopeful.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to take a moment and respond to some of my friend's concerns
and points. First, simply on sequester, with all due respect, I'm glad
there's an interest now. There wasn't an interest last May when this
House passed legislation. The Senate never picked it up; the President
never offered a counter. There wasn't an interest last December. There
seems to only be an interest here in the final, waning days.
Now, we actually think we're proceeding in the continuing resolution,
perhaps in the upcoming budget debates, and perhaps later on in ways
where we can come back and work in a bipartisan fashion. But our
efforts to do that were twice rebuffed, and now we're beaten up for not
doing it a third time. I think two chances is about as many as you get.
And, again, we'll try to find another way to work with our friends on
this thing.
As for the job loss, I couldn't agree more with my friend. This is a
tremendously bad thing for the economy. This is not the right way to do
things. We would have preferred to have done it differently.
Now, you can always arrive at some interesting figures on job loss.
According to the CBO, the Affordable Care Act will cost 800,000 jobs. I
doubt my friends would work with us to repeal that and save those
800,000 jobs. They've got other objectives there.
Our objective in the entire sequester effort is simply to begin to
lower the
[[Page H1371]]
long-term debt for this country, a debt that is going to undermine the
economy and destroy many, many, many tens of thousands of jobs in the
coming years unless we deal with it. We're making that effort today in
the Ryan budget, in the Budget Committee. That will be on the floor
next week.
I know my friends will have an alternative for that. I welcome that.
I'm glad they're doing that. They did not do that when they were in the
majority.
The Senate finally, for the first time in 4 years, looks like it's
going to put out a budget. It's not a budget that I would like, but
they're going to put one out; and I think that's a very good thing.
So, again, I see some little gleams and glistenings of progress
around here. And I do want to thank my friend because we have worked
together in the last 70 or 80 days on some significant things. I worked
with my friend on the fiscal cliff. I worked with my friend on
Hurricane Sandy relief, worked with my friend on violence against
women; and I very much appreciate his kind words about that.
So I actually see opportunities in front of us, as well as obvious
differences and debates that we're surely going to have.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I believe that the underlying bill provides
additional certainty for those currently on the TANF program and
ensures that their benefits will not lapse at the end of the month,
something I know that my friends are concerned about, just as we are,
and want to ensure that that doesn't happen.
In addition, it maintains the bipartisan work requirements that this
administration professes to support, but has clearly created some doubt
about. So let's give them the opportunity, through this legislation,
just to make sure that there's no misunderstanding, that both parties
and the administration want to maintain the work requirements.
In closing, I would urge my colleagues to support the rule and the
underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________