[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 36 (Wednesday, March 13, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H1373-H1384]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PRESERVING THE WELFARE WORK REQUIREMENT AND TANF EXTENSION ACT OF 2013
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 107, I call up
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, and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 107, an
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules
Committee Print 113-3 shall be considered as adopted and the bill, as
amended, shall be considered as read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 890
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Preserving the Welfare Work
Requirement and TANF Extension Act of 2013''.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON TANF WAIVERS RELATING TO COMPLIANCE
WITH THE TANF WORK REQUIREMENTS.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services may not do
the following:
(1) Finalize, implement, enforce, or otherwise take any
action to give effect to the Information Memorandum dated
July 12, 2012 (Transmittal No. TANF-ACF-IM-2012-03), or to
any administrative action relating to the same subject matter
set forth in the Information Memorandum or that reflects the
same or similar policies as those set forth in the
Information Memorandum.
(2) Authorize, approve, renew, modify, or extend any
experimental, pilot, or demonstration project under section
1115 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1315) that waives
compliance with a requirement of section 407 of such Act (42
U.S.C. 607) through a waiver of section 402 of such Act (42
U.S.C. 602) or that provides authority for an expenditure
which would not otherwise be an allowable use of funds under
a State program funded under part A of title IV of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) with respect to compliance with the
work requirements in section 407 of such Act to be regarded
as an allowable use of funds under that program for any
period.
(b) Rescission of Waivers.--Any waiver relating to the
subject matter set forth in the Information Memorandum or
described in subsection (a)(2) that is granted before the
date of the enactment of this Act is hereby rescinded and
shall be null and void.
SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF THE TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY
FAMILIES PROGRAM AND RELATED PROGRAMS THROUGH
DECEMBER 31, 2013.
Activities authorized by part A of title IV and section
1108(b) of the Social Security Act (other than under section
403(b) of such Act) shall continue through December 31, 2013,
in the manner authorized for fiscal year 2012, and out of any
money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise
appropriated, there are hereby appropriated such sums as may
be necessary for such purpose. Grants and payments may be
made pursuant to this authority on a quarterly basis through
the first quarter of fiscal year 2014 at the level provided
for such activities for the corresponding quarter of fiscal
year 2012.
SEC. 4. BUDGETARY EFFECTS.
The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of
complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall
be determined by reference to the latest statement titled
``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' for this Act,
submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the
Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, provided that such
statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) and
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp).
General Leave
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
to include extraneous material on H.R. 890.
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.R. 890, Preserving the
Welfare Work Requirement and TANF Extension Act of 2013.
In July of last year, the Obama administration's Department of Health
and Human Services issued an information memorandum saying they would
accept and approve applications from States seeking to waive the
requirement that 50 percent of their welfare caseload be engaged in or
preparing for work.
This work requirement was a critical part of the 1996 welfare reforms
that created the current Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or
TANF, cash welfare program. Those reforms also led to more work, more
earnings, less welfare dependence, and less poverty among families
headed by low-income single mothers.
Yet, without any thought of consulting Congress, as is required by
law, the administration saw fit to unilaterally waive the work
requirements and risk the progress that has been made in the last 16
years. And that's why we are considering this legislation here on the
floor today.
Simply put, this bill would block waivers, so HHS can't allow States
to bypass the work requirements and financial penalties Congress put in
place in 1996 for failing to engage welfare recipients in work.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will argue that
Republicans are making a big deal out of nothing and that we're
responding to a problem
[[Page H1374]]
that doesn't exist since no States have applied for waivers--yet. But
the American people have made their views clear. A survey last year
revealed 83 percent support a work requirement as a condition for
receiving welfare.
Clearly, the best way out of poverty is a job, and it's critical that
our laws both foster job creation as well as ensure welfare is always a
pathway to work. That's what this legislation is about: ensuring that
work and other productive activities remain a central part of the TANF
cash welfare program, as the 1996 reforms intended.
Setting aside the success of the work requirement in moving low-
income individuals from welfare to work and the overwhelming support
the policy enjoys among the American people, current law prohibits the
administration from waiving the welfare work requirement. Waivers of
certain State report requirements are permitted under the TANF program,
but the work requirement may not be waived.
A summary of the 1996 reforms prepared by Ways and Means Committee
staff immediately following the law's enactment could not be clearer on
this point. It plainly states:
Waivers granted after the date of enactment may not
override provisions of the TANF law that concern mandatory
work requirements.
As a Member of Congress who helped write the welfare reform law and
served as a conferee on the bill, the statement in this report actually
captures the correct intent of Congress.
Historical precedent is not on the Obama administration's side,
either. No prior administration, Republican or Democrat, has ever
attempted to waive the work requirements in the 16 years between the
law's enactment and the July 2012 information memorandum.
Following the July 2012 action, the Government Accountability Office
looked into this and ``did not find any evidence that HHS stated it has
authority to issue waivers related to TANF work requirements.'' In
short, no administration attempted to waive the work requirements
because they knew it was illegal to do so.
Finally, if we need more evidence that, despite their promises to the
contrary, the administration's policy would weaken the work
requirement, we need look no further than the nonpartisan Congressional
Budget Office. This legislation saves $61 million over 10 years because
CBO recognizes the administration's waivers will allow some States that
may otherwise pay penalties for failing to meet the work requirement to
avoid such penalties through a waiver.
In addition to preventing the administration from waiving the work
requirement, the legislation before us extends the TANF program's
authorization at current funding levels through the remainder of this
calendar year.
The TANF program provides helpful assistance to individuals most in
need of a safety net as they look and prepare for work. I urge my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting this
legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Committee on Education
and the Workforce,
Washington, DC, March 8, 2013.
Hon. Dave Camp,
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to confirm our mutual
understanding with respect to the consideration of H.R. 890,
the Preserving Work Requirements for Welfare Programs Act of
2013. Thank you for consulting with the Committee on
Education and the Workforce with regard to H.R. 890 on those
matters within the committee's jurisdiction.
In the interest of expediting the House's consideration of
H.R. 890, the Committee on Education and the Workforce will
forgo further consideration on this bill. However, I do so
with the understanding that this procedural route will not be
construed to prejudice the committee's jurisdictional
interest and prerogatives on this bill or any other similar
legislation and will not be considered as precedent for
consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to my
committee in the future.
I respectfully request your support for the appointment of
outside conferees from the Committee on Education and the
Workforce should this bill or a similar bill be considered in
a conference with the Senate. I also request that you include
our exchange of letters on this matter in the Congressional
Record during consideration of this bill on the House floor.
Thank you for your attention to these matters.
Sincerely,
John Kline,
Chairman.
____
Committee on Ways and Means,
Washington, DC, March 12, 2013.
Hon. John Kline,
Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Kline, Thank you for your letter regarding
H.R. 890, the ``Preserving Work Requirements for Welfare
Programs Act of 2013,'' which is expected to be considered on
the floor this week.
I appreciate your willingness to forgo action on H.R. 890.
I agree that your decision should not prejudice the Committee
on Education and the Workforce with respect to the
appointment of conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives
on this or similar legislation.
I will include a copy of your letter and this response in
the Congressional Record during consideration of H.R. 890 on
the House Floor.
Sincerely,
Dave Camp,
Chairman.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself such time as I shall consume.
Bringing up this bill today is doubly unfortunate. Number one, this
is a time when we should be coming together--or at least trying to.
This is a time when we should not try some partisan efforts.
Unfortunately, that's what this is all about. This bill is essentially
a pure fabrication of what is true.
{time} 1550
Last summer the administration came forth with a proposal: states
would be allowed to apply for waivers and have some flexibility in
terms of the application of the work requirements--not the end of them
or changing them, but the implementation of them--provided any project
would be required to increase employment by at least 20 percent. So
this claim that what is being done here is an effort to put at risk the
work requirements is fallacious.
What happened? After HHS spoke, the Romney campaign decided they
might have a campaign issue. So they essentially put together a
campaign ad with the fallacious claim that what the Obama
administration was trying to do was to weaken welfare reform. The
instantaneous reaction of fact checkers was four Pinocchios, pants on
fire, complete untruth.
And this is what Ron Haskins had to say, the Republican person on the
staff most involved with the chairman and myself:
The idea that the administration is going to try to
overturn welfare reform is ridiculous. States have to apply
individually for waivers, and they have to explain in detail
why the approach would lead to either more employment or
better jobs for people who are trying to stay off welfare.
Indeed, earlier in 2005, 29 Republican Governors wrote asking if they
could obtain a waiver in terms of the implementation of the work
requirements, and on three occasions the Republicans brought
legislation to the floor which would have brought about this kind of a
waiver.
Here's what was said by President Clinton, who worked on welfare
reform and signed it in 1996:
When some Republican Governors asked if they could have
waivers to try new ways to put people on welfare back to
work, the Obama administration listened.
And I insert at this point that there was a request from the
Republican Governor of Utah.
I continue with the quote:
Because we all know it is hard for even people with good
work histories to get jobs today. So moving folks from
welfare to work is a real challenge, and 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. Now, did I make myself clear? The
requirement was for more work, not less.
So this was tried last year. There was an effort by the Republicans.
They came forth with a bill. The campaign was full blast. And what they
wanted to do was to reaffirm or to support a political ad by their
candidate for President. That's what that was all about.
We had a vote along partisan lines. And as we said, it went nowhere
in the Senate. By the way, I don't think it helped their Presidential
candidate as it was so blatantly false, so patently political.
The election is over. The people have spoken. The President has been
reelected. Why bring up this political horse? It's worse than lame;
it's mistaken.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H1375]]
Mr. CAMP. I would just say, Mr. Speaker, for 5 seconds that in the
Statement of Administration Policy we got yesterday, they say that no
States formally applied for State waivers.
I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Human
Resources Subcommittee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert).
Mr. REICHERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill before us today because
Congress must ensure that work continues to be the centerpiece of the
TANF welfare program, and I regret that we are here today debating the
Obama administration's efforts to undermine work requirements.
I think that my Democrat colleagues would agree that our time would
be better spent discussing bipartisan improvements to TANF and other
programs designed to help low-income parents find and go to work. I
look forward to having those discussions and conversations as the
chairman of the Ways and Means Human Resources Subcommittee.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, bipartisan discussions were actually happening
before the Obama administration announced they would waive work
requirements for welfare recipients last summer. That announcement
completely undermined bipartisan negotiations in our committee about
ways to strengthen this program. Incredibly, administration officials
knew about those negotiations and even had a draft of bipartisan
legislation in hand before they announced their misguided waiver
policy.
Usually, if an administration wants to change the law, they must
submit a legislative proposal for Congress to consider, but that's not
what the Obama administration did with its proposal to waive the TANF
work requirements.
Even though the administration had said repeatedly in their annual
budget they would work with Congress to reform welfare, they didn't
propose any changes to the program. Instead, they simply claimed they
could waive the current work requirements at the heart of welfare
reform without even notifying Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I'm surprised that the administration would proceed with
its waiver policy, especially knowing that real bipartisan progress was
being made.
The truth is, Mr. Speaker, the President's waiver policy increases
spending by $61 million, according to CBO. There are currently 240
combinations of work, education, and training requirements falling
under the 12 definitions included in this law. The administration does
not have the authority to waive work requirements; that authority is
not granted under the law. Therefore--this is very important--the
misuse of authority is subject to congressional review and disapproval.
That's why we are here today. This is Congress' responsibility, and we
were working together with the White House, which is also our
responsibility.
Today I'm standing here asking my colleagues across the aisle and on
my side of the aisle to support this bill and reject the
administration's waiver proposal. That way we can get back to working
together to close loopholes, strengthen work requirements and ensure
that more welfare recipients go back to work and move up the economic
ladder.
Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 2 minutes to another gentleman who has worked
on welfare reform over the years, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Neal).
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Levin.
Well, we're at it again. There is no greater misuse of time than re-
fighting the last election. The last election is just that: the last
election. It's over.
Governor Romney's pollster said at the time, ``We're not going to let
our campaign be dictated by fact checkers,'' after it was pointed out
that there were so many mistakes and miscalculations in their proposal.
They might not have cared about the facts, but today I do. I chaired
the Democratic position with Lynn Woolsey and Vic Fazio at the behest
of Dick Gephardt at the time. One of the goals of welfare reform was to
move unemployed Americans from welfare to work, and it did work. The
legislation has been very successful in meeting that goal.
{time} 1600
Welfare reform put people back on the work rolls. Welfare rolls have
dropped by half, and poverty amongst children has dropped as well. The
administration's TANF waiver initiative continues on this success of
promoting welfare to work. It is ludicrous for our Republican friends
to try to get in the way of people working by their stopping this
waiver initiative--an initiative, by the way, that the Republican
Governors asked for. Bill Weld was a very successful Governor of
Massachusetts on the issue of welfare reform. He wanted the waiver. He
asked for the waiver, as did George Pataki of New York. They asked for
the waivers, Republican Governors.
The President is not dropping welfare's work requirements. He is
allowing the States to experiment. You would think our Republican
friends would be entirely in favor of letting Governors experiment on
getting people back to work fairly quickly. Secretary Sebelius has
stated that the Department's goal is to accelerate job placement,
requiring States to commit to a plan that will move at least 20 percent
more people from welfare to work compared to the last marker of the
State's performance. Let me repeat: a 20 percent increase in getting
people on welfare to work from the last marker.
I must be missing something here. I sat through months and months and
months of deliberation. We reached a compromise. Some of us were
disappointed in parts of it, but the Clinton administration signed on.
It worked. Those are the facts, not opinions.
Mr. CAMP. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member
of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.
Griffin).
Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 890, to prevent the
administration from gutting critical TANF work requirements which have
been central to TANF's success over the past two decades.
President Clinton shared the belief that welfare reform should be
about moving people from welfare to work, and the 1996 bipartisan
welfare reform law he signed promoted work as central to these reforms.
The TANF program's statutory work requirements have reduced poverty and
welfare dependence for the program's recipients. Since the enactment of
the 1996 welfare reform law with its work requirements, the number of
individuals receiving welfare has dropped by 57 percent, and employment
and earnings among single mothers has increased significantly.
In my home State of Arkansas, TANF success stories are based on the
core work requirements. We've got the story of Suzette. When she
started participating in Arkansas' Work Pays program, she was a single
parent without child care or transportation. With TANF assistance and
support from her caseworker, within 6 months, she was promoted to shift
manager at McDonald's and then on to a career at Tyson Foods. Now
Suzette is providing child care and transportation herself, and her
self-sufficiency was made possible through this program's key work
requirements. This success story is exactly why Arkansas has not
requested a waiver from the work requirements. In fact, no State has
requested a waiver.
The administration's unprecedented action of pushing the waiver idea
is a fundamental unwinding of years of progress made toward work as the
cornerstone of moving people from poverty to self-sufficiency. We must
uphold TANF's statutory work requirements and protect Congress'
constitutional authority to legislate. I encourage my colleagues to
support H.R. 890.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Doggett), who is the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Human
Resources with jurisdiction over TANF.
Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I believe in the value of work. That's one of the
reasons that I voted for the 1996 welfare reform law, because I wanted
to see more people move from welfare to work. Our laws need to
encourage job opportunities, but in the effort that we have before us
[[Page H1376]]
today, it seems to me that this legislation as proposed is less
malevolent and more irrelevant to those poor people.
Because of the way the TANF program is currently structured, only
about 1 percent of working-aged adults across America who are poor are
participating in TANF work activities at any particular time. So, this
afternoon, for 99 percent of the poor Americans who are not
participating in TANF work activities, this bill is not all that
significant. These are people who are struggling to get up the economic
ladder at about the first rung. What happens and whether there are
waivers or there are not waivers, I think they basically just feel that
we've waved good-bye to their plight and are not responding to it in a
constructive way.
It also is important to remember that we have a higher proportion of
our population living near the bottom of the economic ladder today than
when welfare reform was first enacted. In 2011, about 46 million
American neighbors lived in poverty. About 350,000 of those lived in
the San Antonio area. Amidst this poverty, amidst this growing
inequality in resources in our country, we have the lowest level of
poor children receiving direct cash assistance from TANF in almost 50
years. In my home State of Texas, one in every 20 poor children
receives TANF assistance directly, and when children get assistance,
they don't get very much.
As we look at the whole question of extending the TANF law, what
we've had are only short-term extensions, not long-term reform. And
each of these has provided some convenient political opportunities to
reenforce the old welfare Cadillac stereotypes that just blame the poor
for being poor. A previous extension we had out here focused on whether
we would prohibit poor people from withdrawing any of their TANF
benefits at a strip club or at a casino. It's not an unreasonable
restriction, but it's hardly going to the core issue of how to get more
Americans out of poverty and into the workplace, and I don't think
today's bill helps in that regard either.
I believe that poverty should be viewed as a major national problem
that needs a resolution by our working together and not viewed as a
weapon to just score political points out of the last Presidential
campaign.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. DOGGETT. I think the real poverty at stake today is the poverty
of cooperation, that of seeking a bipartisan response to poverty, a
poverty of balance that contributes to the many children and their
parents who are out there and who are seeing so little progress.
If you evaluate the TANF program and how it has operated over the
last decade and a half, based upon the number of poor people who have
been denied assistance, it has been a tremendous success; but if you
evaluate it based on how many poor people have moved out of welfare and
into the workforce--into a job with a living wage that they're still
in--I think the progress has been very spotty, at best.
The responsibility for those failures is shared broadly here in
Washington and in the States, many of which just used the TANF
resources to replace other things they were doing in the social service
area. I believe that today's attempt to restrict State authority to
strengthen welfare to work initiatives is totally contradictory with
what's going on right now in the Budget Committee on block granting
health assistance.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. DOGGETT. So, Mr. Speaker, rather than arguing over whether the
States have all the flexibility they need, our goal ought to be: For
the taxpayer and for poor Americans, how can we get more people into
the workforce? And today's bill contributes little to that process.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I would just say that waiving the work
requirement isn't going to get more people into work.
With that, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways
and Means Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed).
Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to rise in
support of this proposed legislation before us today.
I have been sitting here, listening to the arguments of my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle, and I've heard conflicting messages.
I've heard that this is an irrelevant piece of legislation, that it's
not necessary because no one is requesting a waiver, that HHS and the
administration have not engaged in a policy that allows waivers to
occur; yet in the same breath, in the same argument, my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle say, But many Republican Governors are
asking for waivers from States in going forward.
The point is: this needs to be clarified. This needs to be firmly
stated in our record and in the laws of the land that TANF requires a
work requirement for our welfare program.
I am a firm believer in the work requirements as they empower our
unemployed, our underemployed--the folks who need it the most--to have
the skill sets and the resources to put them back to work for
generations to come so as to take care of their children and the people
who are below them in regards to their needs.
{time} 1610
What I would say is any effort to send a conflicting message that
somehow waivers are an acceptable policy should be fought on both sides
of the aisle and rejected. That's why this legislation is necessary,
and it is also necessary to get the reauthorization in place so that we
can set the stage for a comprehensive, vigorous debate on welfare
reform at the end of this 9-month reauthorization that this legislation
does.
So I encourage my colleagues, this is not about a Presidential
election; this is about firm, solid policy when it comes to our welfare
rolls in America. This is about giving people the tools to get back to
work, and that work under the welfare program makes sense and is good,
sound policy. I urge my colleagues to join with us and support this
reauthorization.
Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Thompson), another member of our committee, and a most active one.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Levin. I rise in
opposition to this bill today.
The underlying premise of this bill has been roundly and routinely
denounced by fact checkers. This bill is at best a solution looking for
a problem. In 1997, I carried legislation in California to implement
the Federal Government's welfare reform. It was the California welfare
reform measure. We took our work seriously, and we took the work
requirements in the Federal legislation seriously in California, and we
worked across the aisle to adopt practical welfare reform. My bill was
signed by the Republican Governor at the time, Governor Pete Wilson,
and it's still being followed by the Democratic Governor of California
today, Governor Jerry Brown.
Welfare reform in California has contributed to substantial increases
in the employment of very low-income earners and markedly helped
families in California move from welfare to work. Fifteen years later,
the program caseload in California is roughly 60 percent of what it was
in 1998, even in the face of this Great Recession that we're coming
through.
Waivers can be an important tool to allow States the flexibility to
run Federal programs in the most efficient and effective way, a tool
used to move people from welfare to work, and it shouldn't fall the
victim of politics. Every State is different--we hear that on this
floor all the time. States should have the flexibility to do what they
need to do in order to effectively and efficiently move people from
welfare to work, and that's what this provision does.
And the idea that we're standing here today debating this, whether or
not it should be expunged from the Federal tool chest, is purely
politics, and it should not happen. I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Young), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means
Committee.
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, we spend a lot of time in this
body talking about the need to be bipartisan. People rightly feel, I
think, that
[[Page H1377]]
things get too polarized around here. I think back to the mid-nineties
when Republicans controlled the House. We had a Democrat President, and
people back then thought things were a bit too polarized as well. Yet
in the midst of that atmosphere, Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich came up
with landmark legislation to reform our welfare programs, and they did
so in a bipartisan fashion.
One of the keys to the success of those reforms were the work
requirement provisions that led to more jobs, bigger paychecks, and
fewer people in poverty, children in particular. As President Clinton
said at the time:
First and foremost, welfare reform should be about moving
people from welfare to work.
As further proof that this is not a partisan issue, Republican or
Democrat, I look to my own State of Indiana. Before the 1996 welfare
reform law was passed, then-Governor Bayh, a Democrat, created similar
work requirements for Hoosiers who received certain government
benefits. Not only did Indiana's reforms ensure that those who needed
assistance were able to receive it, but it also helped ensure that they
were quickly back to taking care of themselves.
As Mr. Bayh later said:
The bottom line was trying to make someone self-sufficient.
We were trying to achieve two values--one was the notion of
community, and also responsibility.
Indiana's welfare-to-work initiative was a very successful program
that remains a hallmark of his governorship.
With bipartisan consensus on this issue, and for all the talk in
Washington about the need to be bipartisan, work across the aisle, it
amazes me that HHS would unilaterally try and waive these work
provisions. The welfare reform of the 1990s lifted millions out of
poverty and put them on a path to self-sufficiency. It was a signature
bill for bipartisanship in this town. Let's not undue these positive
results by allowing HHS to gut key provisions of this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. I urge all of my colleagues to vote in support
of this bill.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Danny K. Davis), another distinguished member of our committee.
Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, rarely have I been a fan
of the concept that one size fits all. Therefore, I find it necessary
to not be in favor of this legislation. However, I am strongly in favor
of TANF. TANF is a greatly needed program. It provides temporary
assistance to needy families, and we need to try to make those programs
as effective as we possibly can. TANF is designed to help people who
may have become parents too soon. Their jobs may have gone out of
business. They may have dropped out of school, don't have much in the
way of formal education and training, and may even have a prison
record.
In order to provide the most effective help, their State may need the
flexibility to design and implement the best program they possibly can.
They may even have clients who have three or four children and no
husband or no wife. They may need babysitting help and cannot find it.
They may need a waiver. I agree with the administration's position; and
if a State determines that they can do a better job with the waiver,
and Health and Human Services agrees, then they ought to be able to get
one.
I've been told, and I believe, that if you give a man or woman a
fish, they can eat for a day; but you teach them how to fish
effectively, and they can eat for a lifetime. I disapprove of this
restriction on this bill.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Southerland), a cosponsor of the underlying
bill.
Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Chairman for yielding me
time this afternoon.
I am proudly standing here as an original cosponsor of this bill,
H.R. 890. I think today gives us an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to speak
with clarity and say once and for all, regardless of the
interpretations and regardless of the arguments on this floor, that we
require an individual, before they benefit and they take, that they
must work. I think it is a very safe thing for us to do. It mirrors the
culture of this country down through the years.
You know, I support these requirements because working is the best
way to lift people out of poverty and give them the opportunity for
earned success. I remember in my youth, my father, he clearly made us
work. He made us understand the value of hard work. It wasn't a
punishment; it wasn't cruel. He knew that through hard work that our
character would be molded, and we would understand that through work
and through the sweat of our brow that we would find the destiny for
our own lives.
I think today what this body should do, and will do, is clarify that
the work requirements of TANF is a good thing. These work requirements
are bipartisan. We've all heard on the floor today the bipartisan
effort between Republicans and Democrats alike during 1996. What we're
saying is they were good then, and they are good today. Most
importantly, I am pleased with what occurred back in the mid-nineties.
When you're talking about almost 73 percent of those who were on
welfare moved to work, that's a positive thing for the lives of the
American people.
{time} 1620
The administration's unprecedented actions are clearly circumventing
this law and the will of the people, with over 83 percent of Americans
today believing that these work requirements are a positive thing.
It's common sense, it's a self-evident truth: if you want a positive
future, you must help create that, and part of that requirement is that
you must work.
I urge my colleagues today to join me in supporting H.R. 890 because
it returns us to the real work of helping people who need it most.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) has
15 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has 15
minutes remaining.
Mr. LEVIN. I now with great pleasure yield 2 minutes to the
gentlelady from California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman for
yielding and for his tremendous leadership.
I rise in opposition to this TANF reauthorization bill that would
deny States the opportunity to help put more unemployed people to work.
With 26 million working-age adults in America living below the
poverty line, and millions struggling to stay afloat, I'm appalled that
the House Republican priority is to bring to the floor a bill that
further restricts the TANF program's ability to improve job outcomes
and get people to work.
Funding for the TANF program has not kept pace with need. As a
result, four out of five children living in poverty today are not being
reached. Instead of targeting the President's reforms, which would
actually increase flexibility for States, mind you, Congress should be
focused on creating jobs and ladders of opportunity.
Now, I was on the conference committee that Congressman Thompson
mentioned. I was in the California legislature, and I was on the
conference committee that negotiated California's TANF program. And let
me tell you, I voted against it. I voted against my own conference
committee's report because, as a former welfare recipient myself, I
didn't want to see more welfare recipients being penalized by a work
requirement with no real effort and initiative and resources to help
primarily women move from welfare to work.
This administration's reforms would correct for this, finally. It
would create that flexibility that was needed then.
That's why yesterday myself, Congressmen Raul Grijalva, Judy Chu, and
Emanuel Cleaver, we submitted an amendment to restore the TANF
Emergency Contingency Fund to further support our Nation's jobless
workers and put people back to work.
It's not surprising that our amendment was ruled not in order by the
Republican-controlled Rules Committee, but it does underscore the
reality that Republicans are far more interested in scoring political
points than they are in putting people back to work.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
[[Page H1378]]
Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
Ms. LEE of California. American families need a national strategy to
end poverty, and this should be part of that. As chair of the
Democratic whip's Task Force on Poverty and Opportunity, I'm working
with all of our colleagues to advance that goal. Unfortunately, this
reauthorization, though, takes us in the exact opposite direction.
We need to extend the TANF program, but this is not the way to do it.
We need flexibility.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Renacci), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. RENACCI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
Preserving the Work Requirements for Welfare Programs Act of 2013. This
extension of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program not
only provides families the resources they need to lift themselves out
of poverty, but also maintains a valuable and bipartisan provision of
the 1996 welfare reform law.
When first created, TANF was designated to get individuals back to
work. Congress took further action in 2006 to strengthen work
requirements after some States began counting activities like personal
journaling, bed rest, and even weight loss as work activities.
Getting individuals back to work must remain TANF's purpose. However,
HHS' unprecedented attempt to allow States to waive this work
requirement has undermined this goal. These requirements were included
in TANF for good reason.
If you're unemployed, maintaining your skill set is incredibly
important to the company who wants to hire you. The longer you're out
of work and the more your skills deteriorate, the less employable you
are.
I can speak with some authority about this because I've owned and
operated multiple businesses employing thousands of people. All things
being equal, I would hire the individual who was most prepared to step
into the position immediately.
So this is not about punishing those who are out of work. This is
about giving those who are down on their luck the best chance to get
back on their feet and start providing for their families again. If you
speak to those that are out of work, that is what most will tell you
they want: a chance to earn more money, help their family, and improve
their situation in life.
I believe my colleagues on both sides of the aisle generally want to
help those who are out of work. Instead of heated rhetoric, we should
be focused on our common goal: providing much-needed assistance for the
unemployed, while also helping them find the work they so desperately
desire.
I ask my colleagues to come together and extend this important safety
net, along with simple reforms that will ensure the program's
effectiveness.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to
the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Levin).
I want to associate myself with all of the members from the
distinguished Ways and Means Committee who have tried to explain to the
majority authors of this bill that the waivers are narrowly offered and
do not allow States to alter their work requirements.
These waivers would only be granted to those States who prove that
they can quantitatively increase the number of their welfare
beneficiaries who find and keep jobs. This waiver is in keeping with
the Republican mantra of States' rights and allowing them to be
flexible.
So we have heard a lot of hyperbole and exaggeration about what this
does. And I think that really is in keeping with what we have heard
about welfare reform since 1976, when Ronald Reagan trotted out the
Welfare Queen, the woman who had 80 names, 30 addresses, and an annual
income of $150,000 when you count Medicaid and food stamps, and who
drove around in a Cadillac.
So it's difficult to get people to listen when, as social and
political scientists have said, these stereotypes have been driven for
decades by gender and racial stereotypes. And I think that's what we're
dealing with here today, Mr. Levin.
We are not going to hear the level of levity that we need because I
think that the low-wage workforce benefits tremendously by women, and
particularly women of color, working for nothing. So the prospect of
them getting customized labor training, in lieu of wiping down a table
in a diner, is a little bit more than they can stand.
You know, if, in fact, we're going to have true welfare reform where
we're going to lift people out of poverty, then this bill is not the
direction we should be taking.
Mr. CAMP. At this time I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. Roe.
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 890 and preserving one
of the most significant and successful Federal reform initiatives in
the last 20 years.
Seventeen years ago, a Republican-led Congress worked with President
Clinton to fix a broken welfare system. The bipartisan law that
resulted established the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block
grant program. This law also required individuals to work, prepare for
work, or look for work as a condition of receiving public assistance.
In the years following passage, the number of individuals receiving
welfare dropped by a whopping 57 percent. The poverty level among
single mothers fell by 30 percent, and I saw this in my practice as an
OB-GYN physician. No question that it worked.
{time} 1630
And this is while their income and earnings increased significantly.
Poverty levels among young African Americans dropped to its lowest
level in 2001. Last July, the Department of Health and Human Services
issued an unprecedented guidance indicating that it would allow States
to waive welfare work requirements. The law and the historical record
are clear: the administration does not have this power.
But if there's any confusion, H.R. 890 will dispel it. This
commonsense bill would prohibit the Secretary of HHS from moving ahead
with this illegal waiver plan. More than 80 percent of Americans
support the work requirements included in welfare reform, and this
legislation ensures the hard work of the 104th Congress and President
Clinton isn't undone by this administration.
Mr. Speaker, we should celebrate work in this country. We should help
those who are down on their luck find a job--something all the House
will do later this week when it considers the SKILLS Act. And for those
Americans who need help, we should offer it--but not as a permanent
entitlement.
I commend Chairmen Camp, Kline, and Scalise, along with Mr.
Southerland, for their leadership on this issue, and I urge my
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill.
Mr. LEVIN. 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.)
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding.
It is, and I think should be, the law in this country if you're able-
bodied, you can't get welfare unless you work. That became the law in
1996.
Last year, two Republican Governors approached the administration and
said, Before we send people to work full time, what we'd like to do is
get them some training. So instead of simply getting a job, a person
gets a career so they make some more money and don't wind up back on
the welfare rolls because they're in a string of entry-level jobs. And
the administration said to those two Republican Governors, Well, we'll
let you do that, but only if you can prove that the result of this
experiment will be more people are working, not fewer. The only way you
can get this waiver is if you can prove that there will be more people
moving from welfare to work than under the present system. This makes
perfect sense to me.
It's said around here all the time that Washington should not dictate
the rules, that one size does not fit all, and
[[Page H1379]]
that some of the best ideas come from our State capitals and local
officials. If you believe those things, as I do, then you should vote
against this bill. Because what this bill says is there will be no
waivers, under any circumstances, for any Governor, whether it makes
sense in their State or not. Keep this in mind.
Under the administration's policy, you can't get a waiver unless you
can prove that more people move from welfare to work than under the
present system. This is common sense. It's federalism. It lets the
States do what they think is best under the right circumstances. And we
should vote ``no.''
Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
Mr. WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Speaker, welfare work requirements have helped Michiganders and
millions of Americans reduce their dependency on government assistance
and get back on their feet again, and that's a good thing. And that,
for many people, is the American Dream.
In the 1990s, while serving in the Michigan Legislature, I had the
privilege of cosponsoring legislation that did this very thing in
promoting workfare and edufare that ultimately became, arguably, the
pattern for the 1996 Federal reform. It changed lives. We had welfare
recipients who were completely reliant on government now given hope.
I'll never forget the single-parent mother who was on welfare for most
of her adult life and said in a public service announcement that she
asked to be involved with, after going on edufare and then workfare, I
was angry when I was first approached with this requirement. Now I can
only say it changed my life. It not only changed my life in developing
self-sufficiency, but it changed my family's life. They know that they
can indeed make it on their own.
Those were illustrations that we experienced; and I saw how it worked
in Michigan and then later in our country as a whole after the 1996
reforms. Unfortunately, last July, the Obama administration offered
guidance that would undermine this requirement. Without consulting
Congress, and despite bipartisan support for work requirements, the
Department of Health and Human Services began moving forward this
agenda. Congress should repeal the HHS's waiver plan and prevent the
administration from waiving the work requirements. It's the right thing
to do. It's time to move past this waiver debate so we can move forward
with building a stronger, sounder TANF program that promotes self-
sufficiency and positive action.
Please join me in supporting H.R. 890.
Mr. LEVIN. It is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the floor leaders for their hard work, but I
have another explanation for where we are today.
My colleague before me indicated that flexibility is important. It
means that we, your Representatives, are listening to you. But I'm
listening to more voices than just those who are here on this floor.
I'm listening to the voices of those who want to get out of poverty,
and I'm delighted to be part of a newly established caucus that focuses
on eliminating poverty.
I was here for the first reform bill, and I do believe there's
something important about work; but let us understand that when we talk
about poverty, we're talking about children, we're talking about
parents who are raising children and who may need to be home. We've
always made the argument that mothers working at home is work.
I'm disappointed in this legislation primarily because it takes the
flexibility away from Governors to determine how best to get people
back to work. But why don't we bring a bill to the floor to raise the
minimum wage from $7 to $9? Why do we not listen to people who say, I
barely can make it, such as one of my constituents who said, Not only
am I at minimum wage, but they require me to pay for my parking. Can I
please get a lift?
Or maybe we're not aware of title 3 in the housing act that has
people in public housing being able to work, which was an amendment
that I offered to that particular title to allow those to work on
projects that the housing authority has. My housing authority just told
me that people are lining up to work. They have people working.
So this is not about making people work. It's about ignoring and
picking on, again, President Obama's administration because they decide
to listen to Republican and Democratic Governors to work on behalf of
the American people. Let's get it right. Let's talk about getting
people out of poverty. Let's raise the minimum wage. Let's talk about
the flexibility so that people can work. Because they want to work. I
haven't heard anybody that doesn't want to work. But realize if you are
getting TANF, you're getting it because of your children, because of
some situation that puts you in a place that you hope to get out of.
I don't think it is the right thing to do to strangle the hands of
the administration doing what the American people would like them to
do. Let's vote against this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to simply express my
disappointment in H.R. 890, The Preserving Work Requirements for
Welfare Programs Act of 2013, which it actually does not do.
I had an amendment prepared which would simply make the effective
date for this bill of December 2035. This is not a whimsical attempt to
delay implementation; but merely an expression of my frustration that
Members on the other side have come to disagree with policies which
their Caucus, past and present, helped to create and foster.
In 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services announced that
it would consider requests from the states to operate demonstration
projects within the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
program to help recipients prepare for, find and maintain employment.
The effort was partially a response to requests from governors
throughout the United States--including many Republican governors--
asking for just such flexibility to operate TANF. The Secretary of HHS
has stated that any governor wanting such a waiver must commit that
their proposal will move at least 20 percent more people from welfare
to work.
Rather than embrace the Administration's efforts to provide states
flexibility, however, Republicans in Congress have waged a disingenuous
campaign against the waiver proposal, drawing rebukes from fact-
checkers.
On Feb. 28, House Republicans introduced H.R. 890 to prohibit the
Administration from granting such flexibility to states. The bill was
unanimously opposed by my Democratic colleagues during a Committee
markup held on March 6, 2013.
This year's action comes after Republicans took nearly identical
action last fall. After passing it out of the Ways and Means Committee
against unanimous opposition from Committee Democrats, House
Republicans passed a resolution disapproving of the Administration's
flexibility plan on Sept. 20, 2012.
Let's look at some facts:
Same Waiver Authority Used by President Clinton--On July 12, 2012,
HHS issued guidance that it was exercising the agency's authority under
Section 1115 of the Social Security Act to entertain requests from
States to conduct demonstration projects under the Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families (TANF) program. A legal analysis from the
Congressional Research Service (CRS) found that HHS' current waiver
initiative is ``consistent'' with the prior practice under the Clinton
Administration, which permitted dozens of welfare waivers prior to the
enactment of the 1996 welfare law.
Projects Must Focus on Increasing Work--The HHS notice clearly and
repeatedly states that all demonstration projects must be ``focused on
improving employment outcomes.'' Such outcomes must be demonstrated by
a rigorous evaluation, and states must meet targets for accelerating
job placements for welfare recipients.
Cutting Red Tape and Increasing Performance--Governor Herbert of
Utah, a Republican, informed HHS that his state would like to be
evaluated on the basis of the state's success in placing welfare
recipients into employment, rather than on their participation in
certain activities, and that this approach ``would require some
flexibility at the state level and the granting of a waiver.''
Providing States with Flexibility, While Holding them Accountable--
HHS Secretary Sebelius has stated, ``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 percent more people from welfare to work compared to the
state's past performance.''
No Effect on Funding Levels or Time Limits--Nothing in the waiver
authority applies to the current five-year federal time limit on TANF
assistance. Additionally, demonstration projects will in no way affect
the fixed block
[[Page H1380]]
grant amounts now provided to states under the TANF program.
Republicans Were For Welfare Waivers Before They Were Against Them--
In 2002, 2003, and 2005 Republicans passed legislation on the House
floor that included a provision allowing the waiver of TANF work
requirements. While these waiver proposals were broader and affected
many more programs than the policy now proposed by HHS, the
Congressional Research Service confirms that all of these bills ``would
have had the effect of allowing TANF work participation standards to be
waived'' Chairman Camp, along with Speaker Boehner and Representative
Ryan, voted for all three of these bills.
Claims that Waivers Remove Work Requirements Are Clearly False--
President Clinton, who signed the 1996 welfare reform law, said ``When
some Republican governors asked if they could have waivers to try new
ways to put people on welfare back to work, the Obama administration
listened because we all know it's hard for even people with good work
histories to get jobs today. So moving folks from welfare to work is a
real challenge. And 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. Now, did I make myself clear? The requirement
was for more work, not less.''
Ron Haskins, the lead Republican Congressional staffer in charge of
drafting the 1996 welfare reform law, has said ``there is merit to what
the Administration is proposing,'' and ``I don't see how you can get to
the conclusion that the waiver provision undermines welfare reform.''
Politifact declared that Governor Romney's claim that the waiver
proposal would eliminate work requirements for welfare recipients was
``pants on fire'' false. The fact checker said the contrary was true,
stating: ``by grating waivers to states, the Obama administration is
seeking to make welfare-to-work efforts more successful, not end
them.''
FactCheck.org says Romney's claims on the issue ``distorts the
facts'' and is ``simply not true.'' It reiterates that work
requirements are not being dropped under the waiver proposal, and that
``benefits still won't be paid beyond an allotted time.''
Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).
Mr. STUTZMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I appreciate
his hard work on this.
Mr. Speaker, Hoosiers understand that welfare checks are not a
substitute for paychecks. Last year, President Obama's administration
really undermined commonsense and time-tested reforms by trying to
weaken work requirements that were created in the 1996 bipartisan
welfare reform law. These work requirements helped lift Americans out
of poverty and into the workforce. In just 5 years, welfare dependency
was nearly cut in half, more single mothers found jobs, and child
poverty fell drastically. Unfortunately, President Obama's decision to
reverse course will drive up government spending without doing anything
to lower unemployment.
Growing up on a farm in northern Indiana, I learned at a very young
age that a good neighbor is someone who will roll up their sleeves to
help someone pick themselves back up, that neighbors look out for
neighbors, friends look out for friends, and family looks out for
family. And that's exactly the commonsense approach that Chairman
Camp's bill takes.
This legislation extends assistance to fight poverty by restoring the
work requirements that made welfare reform a success in the 1990s. I
appreciate and applaud Chairman Camp for introducing this legislation
to help American families without creating a permanent subsidy.
Americans want to work, but we need to make sure that they have the
skills and they're capable and willing to perform the jobs that are
provided to them in their communities.
{time} 1640
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) has 7
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has 6\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to a
distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman
from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).
Ms. JENKINS. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and for his
leadership on this very important issue.
Mr. Speaker, today, the House will act to protect our Nation's
welfare-to-work programs, which have been enormously successful in
moving millions of Americans out of poverty, off government dependency,
and into jobs since 1996. Following the implementation of welfare-to-
work requirements, the number of individuals receiving welfare dropped
by 57 percent, poverty among single mothers fell by 30 percent, and
child poverty decreased dramatically.
Welfare reform laws specifically forbid any administration from
changing the work requirements without congressional approval. The
current administration has ignored this and attempted to waive the work
requirement, which would destroy critical aspects of welfare reform and
years of progress.
With the passage of H.R. 890, the House will block the
administration's controversial waiver plan, and in the days ahead I
hope the administration will work with Congress, instead of around it,
to strengthen the TANF program and help low-income families achieve
financial independence.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
It's so ironical it's worse than that. The Republicans are in their
budget saying, ``let's block grant Medicaid and all nutrition programs
and send back those programs entirely to the States in the name of
flexibility.'' And now they come forth arguing that the proposal of
this administration to provide flexibility to the States, if requested,
and if it increases work participation 20 percent, they throw up their
hands and say, ``no.'' It's worse than contradictory.
CRS has made clear the following:
The Secretary's interpretation of her current authority
under section 1115 with regard to waivable TANF provisions
under section 402 appears consistent with the Secretary's
practice under the same provision as it existed under the
AFDC program.
TANF is going to be extended. We don't need to do it with this
provision that harks back to the campaign. The 20 percent requirement,
the Secretary made clear, it isn't waiving the work requirement; it's
letting the States implement it. It was requested by the Governor of
Utah, a Republican.
Bill Clinton has been mentioned so often. And I just urge everybody
to listen to what he said. It strengthens the work requirements:
The requirement was for more work, not less.
So to come forth here and say that it weakens it is fallacious, to
put it mildly.
Do you know what this is in a few words? This is an effort in 2013 to
validate a fallacious political ad of the year 2012. And that's worse
than unhappy when this place is searching for some ability to work
together.
The election is over. Let's get on with the work ahead of us.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just say--as other speakers have mentioned--the 1996 welfare
reform law has been tremendously successful. It has lowered welfare
roles, it has lifted people out of poverty, it has reduced poverty for
single mothers, and reduced poverty for children. And before that,
before we had the 1996 welfare reform law, whether times were good or
bad, welfare rolls only increased.
Clearly, the welfare reform law has been successful. Frankly, we need
to protect the law from this administration, because what this
administration wants to do is undermine the work requirement in
welfare.
And what are we talking about here? The work requirement is really
that only half of the welfare caseload has to be in work. That means
for the other half, States have ultimate flexibility to determine how
to move those people into job readiness and to work. For the half of
the people that need to be in some form of work requirement there are
12 definitions of what is work in the law. Let me just list those off:
Subsidized private employment, subsidized government employment, job
search, community service. You can be in community service and that
qualifies for work.
Work experience, on-the-job training. If you're getting training
related to your job, that counts as work.
Vocational education. So you can be training in a vocational
discipline and still have that qualify for work.
[[Page H1381]]
Caring for the child of a TANF recipient in community service. So you
can care for somebody else's child and that counts as work. And we're
only talking about half of the welfare caseload.
Job skills training, education related to employment, completion of
secondary school. That all counts as work.
Let's look at the Statement of Administration Policy. They say that
no States have formally applied for waivers. No States are asking for
this because they already have tremendous flexibility.
But let me just say, if you're going to change the law--and what this
administration is trying to do is change the law--you don't just send a
letter, or what they're calling an information memorandum. What is
that?
Frankly, when the Government Accountability Office looked at this,
they said they can't do business this way. This is a rule. And to
follow a rule they need to follow the Congressional Review Act, they
need to follow the law. And the law says they need to notify Congress,
which they did not do. This is something they did on their own.
So on many levels we need to turn this around. They've entered into a
gray murky area that we really don't know what they're doing, whether
it's legal or not, whether States will have authority to do this or
not. Given that the law was explicit that there is no waiver of this
work requirement, given that this work requirement was a condition for
States getting a cash payment, a block sum amount in welfare, and given
the flexibility that was written into the law, it's very important that
we make this clear.
Frankly, I think my friends on the other side should be joining
Republicans in protecting the constitutional authority of the Congress
to make the laws, not the bureaucrats at the Department of Health and
Human Services. So I would ask my friends, vote for this bill, support
the work requirement, support the ability of the Congress to make the
laws under the Constitution of the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I am voting against H.R. 890 because it,
just like nearly identical legislation brought before the Ways and
Means Committee last year, is based on partisan charges that have been
widely discredited by independent fact checker. It would also block new
and innovative ways to move more people from welfare to work. At a time
when Congress confronts so many pressing issues, not the least of which
is preventing the misguided cuts in the sequester from hurting our
economy, H.R. 890 is a step in the wrong direction.
H.R. 890 prevents the administration from pursuing flexible,
innovative ways to return people to work. As Health and Human Services
Secretary Sebelius informed our committee, ``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.''
The Congressional Research Service (CRS), in reviewing the
administration's authority to permit demonstration projects, found that
the current waiver initiative is ``consistent'' with prior practice.
The CRS review found that dozens of waivers for demonstration projects
have been approved in the past when their subject matter has been
referenced in Section 402 of the Social Security Act (just as the
administration currently proposes). CRS also found nothing in the law
bars Secretary Sebelius from providing waivers related to employment
activities in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.
H.R. 890 seems more focused on politics than on policy. On that
basis, and because it would impede progress in helping more welfare
recipients move into work, I oppose this legislation.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to
H.R. 890--Preserving Work Requirements for Welfare Programs Act of
2013.
This bill prohibits the Secretary of HHS from using longstanding
authority to issue waivers that allow states to conduct demonstration
projects under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
program. It also reauthorizes the TANF program through December 31,
2013.
In Texas over 68,000 families receive TANF benefits. TANF is a block
grant program to help move recipients into work and turn welfare into a
program of temporary assistance.
In order to receive the maximum TANF benefit, families must be in
compliance with work requirements and no one may remain on TANF for
more than 60 months. Federal TANF law requires states to penalize
families that fail to meet these requirements.
In response to a request from a bipartisan group of governors for
more flexibility, the Obama Administration said the federal government
would consider waiving existing work participation requirements for
states that were experimenting with ``new, more effective ways'' of
helping welfare applicants find work, ``particularly helping parents
successfully prepare for, find, and retain employment.''
The Administration hasn't gotten rid of the work requirement or laid
out a new theory of what it ought to include. It has given states the
ability to seek executive branch approval for new methods.
This legislation is not needed, for no state has requested a waiver.
This is the second time this bill has been introduced, as a solution to
a problem that doesn't exist.
The House should focus on extending TANF benefits to needy families
in the country.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 890. I
urge members of both parties to oppose this legislation, which in only
a few pages demonstrates all that is wrong with Washington--politicians
putting partisan concerns ahead of constructive policy. Governors from
several states have overcome partisan differences to support the
waivers H.R. 890 wishes to eliminate. Let us follow their lead and
defeat this legislation together.
H.R. 890 is a simplistic bill. It prohibits the Secretary of Health
and Human Services from giving effect to the July 2012 guidance that
granted states waivers regarding the design of Temporary Assistance to
Needy Families (TANF) programs. It also prohibits further
experimentation, banning pilot programs or demonstration programs that
could potentially revolutionize TANF, making it more effective and less
costly. Though these changes seem small, they can mean a world of
difference for families in need of the training and educational
opportunities that new approaches to TANF could provide.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation is one of the most remarkable pieces of
work that I have ever seen considered on this floor. Not because it is
such a bad piece of policy. Not because of how abominably it
misrepresents the current state of federal and state practices. Not
even because we are still litigating a claim which was dreamed up by a
failed presidential campaign last summer, and which was roundly
rejected by the American people.
No, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is remarkable because my friends
across the aisle are demanding that we wrest control from the states in
favor of a more inflexible and inefficient approach. The claims of
federalism invoked by my Republican colleagues in so many of
legislative battles I have witnessed over the years are nowhere to be
heard.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 890 is wrong--and it is wrong for all the wrong
reasons.
Despite H.R. 890's claims, the waivers granted to TANF program
operators in July 2012 do not weaken TANF's work requirements--they
strengthen them. These waivers provide states with the opportunity to
determine what works best for them. These waivers allow states to
experiment with alternative employment and training programs that
reflect the varied problems confronting TANF recipients who wish to
join the work force. Successful programs can then be replicated in
other states and limited resources can be stretched further to ensure
more effort is expended finding jobs instead of complying with red
tape.
Despite what H.R. 890 presumes, these waivers won't lead to TANF
recipients laying on hammocks, but rather are the key to unlocking the
potential of men and women who want their own piece of the American
dream. The waivers will allow program officials to provide the training
and education necessary for many beneficiaries to join the ever more
competitive labor market. Further, they will allow states to tailor
their programs to the specific demands of their local economies, and
ensure that TANF continues to improve in its mission to see recipients
become self-sufficient. This--Mr. Speaker--is what good government
looks like. This--Mr. Speaker--is why Republican and Democratic
governors across the nation support these waivers.
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my friends across the aisle to put aside
partisan concerns for just this moment and vote their conscience on
this matter. I want them to ask whether they can in good conscience
continue to oppose these commonsense reforms simply because it plays
well with the fringes of their party. I want them to consider what it
will sound like next time I hear from them that the federal government
is too large and should cede more authority to the states. I want them
to consider what people will hear when they claim to favor state
solutions to national problems. Quite simply I want them to consider
their professed principles instead of partisan politics--for if they
do, they cannot support H.R. 890.
[[Page H1382]]
I urge everyone, Democrat and Republican, to vote ``no'' on H.R. 890.
We've litigated this long enough--lets finally put it to rest.
Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I must express my
profound surprise by the Republican effort to undermine state
flexibility to strengthen work outcomes for people who receive TANF. In
contrast to prior Republican support for such TANF waivers, in contrast
to longstanding Republican advocacy for greater state flexibility, and
in contrast to the reality that the TANF waivers would actually
accelerate job placements and dramatically improve work outcomes, the
current Republican rhetoric jettisons past support for state
flexibility to improve TANF outcomes and disingenuously charges the
Administration with gutting welfare reform. It is in states' best
interests to improve the work outcomes of their citizens, which is why
Republican and Democratic governors have asked for the type of
flexibility provided by the Administration's waiver.
Under current rules, a state can meet its work requirement even if no
recipient finds a job. In contrast, approved demonstration waivers
explicitly would focus on improving employment outcomes. Under current
rules, states spend very little of their TANF funds on work activities
and substantial resources monitoring participation in activities. In
contrast, approved demonstration waivers would help states make more
effective and efficient use of limited resources. Under current rules,
people are discouraged from getting a high school diploma or GED, even
though they're more likely to find good jobs with such education. In
contrast, approved demonstration waivers would allow states to focus on
building a better skilled workforce.
Under current rules, people working in subsidized jobs don't count
toward the state's work rate. In contrast, Illinois boasted one of the
most successful subsidized employment programs in the nation while
using TANF Emergency Funds. The program directly placed almost 30,000
unemployed and underemployed adults in jobs that paid approximately $10
per hour, putting almost $9 million dollars into the pockets of hard
working Illinoisans and into the economy. Almost 5000 employers in
Illinois benefited.
Why Republicans would oppose innovative programs to help the
unemployed get solid jobs is simply puzzling. Rather than advancing
political theatre, the Republicans should be working with Democrats to
replace the across-the-board spending cuts, strengthen the middle
class, create jobs, expand our economy, and responsibly bring down the
deficit. It is these proactive steps at governing that my constituents
seek.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in
opposition to H.R. 890, the Preserving Work Requirements for Welfare
Act of 2013. This legislation would overturn the Administration's
proposal to allow states greater flexibility to help more Americans
move from welfare to good jobs. Several states have requested this
flexibility, including some states with Republican governors and
legislatures. This is a politically disingenuous bill which only
prevents Congress from devoting our time to finding actual solutions to
lowering our unemployment rate.
As a condition of receiving federal TANF funding, states are required
to document the number of hours that welfare recipients spend in paid
jobs, voluntary work, or other activities directly related to finding
employment. Many states have argued that the current law's requirements
are onerous and counterproductive to helping welfare recipients find
work to lift their families out of poverty.
In response to state feedback, the Administration proposed a program
to allow states to use alternate, outcome-based measures for job
placement, rather than relying solely on numerical work participation
standards. This waiver would give states the flexibility needed to
improve the effectiveness of TANF programs by focusing on the outcomes
that matter to our families. The Administration's waiver program has
strict requirements to hold states accountable for making measurable
progress in job placement.
I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 890, which would hinder states'
autonomy and flexibility in finding solutions that work for their
residents. Instead of wasting time on partisan proposals, we must work
across the aisle to find real solutions for working families in my
Dallas district and across the country.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 107, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
{time} 1650
Motion to Recommit
Mr. ENYART. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. ENYART. I am opposed to the bill in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Enyart moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 890, to the
Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the
same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
SEC. __. PROTECTING UNEMPLOYED PARENTS, INCLUDING VETERANS,
WOMEN, VICTIMS OF NATURAL DISASTERS, AND
GRANDPARENTS WHO ARE RAISING THE CHILDREN OF
MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
Nothing in this Act shall prohibit or limit a State which
is receiving funds under section 403 (a)(1) of the Social
Security Act from providing assistance, job opportunities, or
educational training authorized in this Act, for--
(1) unemployed parents, including veterans, women who are
victims of domestic violence, and victims of natural
disasters; or
(2) grandparents caring for children who have a parent who
is, or who had a parent who died while being, a member of the
United States Armed Forces.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. ENYART. Mr. Speaker, I haven't been in Washington very long. Like
so many in southern Illinois and across our Nation, I answered the call
to serve. I grew up in a household where I was taught the importance of
fairness, duty, and honor. Whether it was walking the beans on my
grandparents' farm or working with my father on the line at
Caterpillar, I understood the importance of hard work, fair pay, and
taking responsibility for myself and our family.
When I was 19, I enlisted and arrived for duty at Scott Air Force
Base, a vital component of our national security and major employer in
the district I now represent. For 35 years, I served in the military.
For the past 5 years, I served as the Adjutant General of the Illinois
National Guard, where I led our response to natural disasters and
oversaw the largest deployment of Guard troops since World War II.
Serving alongside those 13,000 soldiers and airmen and hundreds of
civilian employees proved to me that the resiliency of Illinoisans,
whether recovering from floods, ice storms, or earthquakes, or coming
together as a community to support our service men and women overseas,
is unparalleled.
Today, I offer the final amendment to the bill. It will not delay nor
kill the bill nor send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will
proceed immediately to final passage, as amended.
From my experience as an enlisted man to that of commander of the
Illinois National Guard, I'm concerned about how this bill interferes
with States' rights and might unfairly affect unemployed veterans and
their families, victims of domestic violence, and victims of natural
disasters, as well as grandparents caring for children whose parents
are deployed.
In January, families in Sparta, a town I represent in southern
Illinois, had the joy and blessing to welcome home over 150 soldiers
with the Guard's 661st Engineer Company and 662nd Engineer Fire
Fighting Detachment from Afghanistan. I was the commander who signed
their deployment orders and sent them into harm's way. I was honored to
see their safe return. For many of these men and women, their return
means making a young family whole again. They could not have borne
their responsibilities in Afghanistan without support from
grandparents, spouses, and a community like Sparta.
That's why I'm so alarmed by this bill in its current form. Why would
Congress seek to make it more difficult for a single parent or
grandparent to care for children while their mother or father is
deployed overseas? Is that the message we want to send our troops, that
their service is a burden to those back home?
For our veterans in Sparta and across the Nation facing new,
sometimes heartbreaking challenges in their transition to civilian
life, know that the promises we made to them are on the line. For us in
southern Illinois, I'll be blunt. We need jobs.
Southern Illinois hasn't seen an economic recovery yet. Out of 102
counties
[[Page H1383]]
in Illinois, six in my district in southern Illinois are among those
struggling most, with more than 20 percent of families trying to make
ends meet on incomes less than $23,000 a year.
The fact is that our heroes, our veterans returning home, don't
necessarily have jobs waiting for them. That's why this bill in its
current form is so out of touch with the realities that our veterans
face. Instead, Congress is telling our veterans and our military
families: your service isn't good enough. You haven't done enough for
our Nation. Once again, Congress has gotten it wrong.
Another example, in Illinois we don't qualify assistance for victims
of domestic violence. That's why I have to ask, given the critical need
for us to responsibly reduce the deficit and actually work on improving
our economy, why would Congress focus on questioning the expertise and
recommendations made by my State or any other?
Where I come from and where I'm proud to represent, we all share the
southern Illinois values of hard work, integrity, and fairness.
Veterans and military families, victims of domestic abuse, communities
overcoming natural disaster, like Harrisburg, Illinois, these are the
good people who shouldn't be pawns of politics in Congress, and we owe
them the assurance that this bill will not reduce critical assistance.
I urge my colleagues to stand by our veterans and military families.
I urge them to consider honoring our home State's authority. I ask they
pass this commonsense amendment to invest in the resiliency of our
communities.
I yield back the balance of my time
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. CAMP. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, this is one of the most
unnecessary and meaningless motions to recommit I've seen in my time in
Congress. The definition of who's eligible for TANF is left to the
States. So the idea that somehow this motion to recommit singles out
unemployed parents, TANF applies to unemployed parents. TANF applies to
people that are veterans. TANF applies to people who are grandparents.
It's about getting the unemployed jobs.
So I have to say, I'm puzzled by this. It seems totally political and
completely unnecessary. None of these groups mentioned in this motion
to recommit are excluded from receiving TANF benefits.
What this is about is not weakening the work requirement. I
understand why the administration may want to weaken the work
requirement since their record on job creation is so atrocious. But the
fact is that States have tremendous flexibility here. Half of the
caseload doesn't have to meet the work requirement. They can be
engaging in whatever activity or no activity the State determines. The
other half has 12 different categories, including vocational training
and other job readiness activities, that will qualify as work.
This is a straight extension of current law. This is an extension of
current law that has proven extremely successful. Let's not weaken the
requirement. Let's extend the welfare program, the TANF program, at
current levels, and let's get people back to work.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. ENYART. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 199,
nays 230, not voting 2, as follows:
[Roll No. 67]
YEAS--199
Andrews
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NAYS--230
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--2
Costa
Lynch
[[Page H1384]]
{time} 1735
Messrs. NUNES, JOYCE, Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS, Messrs. CRENSHAW,
CARTER, COTTON, Ms. GRANGER, Messrs. SCALISE and BURGESS changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mr. WELCH, Ms. SHEA-PORTER, Mrs. BEATTY, Mrs.
DAVIS of California and Mr. COOPER changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 246,
noes 181, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 68]
AYES--246
Aderholt
Alexander
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garcia
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Maffei
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Scalise
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--181
Amash
Andrews
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Bridenstine
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Markey
Massie
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meeks
Meng
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--4
Cartwright
Costa
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1742
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 68, I was detained off
the floor. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
____________________