[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 19, 2013)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E330]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PRESERVING THE WELFARE WORK REQUIREMENT AND TANF EXTENSION ACT OF 2013

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. DAVID G. REICHERT

                             of washington

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, March 13, 2013

  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, in addition to Chairman Camp's arguments 
against the Motion to Recommit, the following are additional reasons 
for opposing this motion.
  1. Totally unnecessary and obviously political. The States already 
have complete flexibility to decide which needy families with children 
to cover. So States can and should place a priority on the groups the 
MTR specified--the unemployed, veterans, victims of violence, 
grandparents, as well as anyone caring for children with financial 
need. Democrats argued in the general debate on H.R. 890 that States 
should be trusted when it comes to the work requirements and that 
States should have virtually unlimited flexibility in implementing 
them. Why do they think in their MTR that States cannot be trusted when 
it comes to the even more elemental issue of whom to cover with TANF 
assistance? The answer is the MTR is an obviously political statement 
in search of a problem.
  2. Potentially harmful. Current law includes a broad provision 
allowing States to screen for and identify victims of domestic violence 
and then create special programs and services designed to address their 
needs, such as waiving time limits, child support cooperation and 
related requirements as appropriate. Many States have done so. The MTR, 
coming afterward, suggests that ``Nothing in this Act shall prohibit or 
limit'' States from ``providing assistance, job opportunities, or 
educational training'' for ``women who are victims of domestic 
violence.'' Why is this necessary? Are the current law protections 
applied by States, which would be extended for nine months under H.R. 
890, not sufficient? Are States implementing them poorly or not at all? 
The MTR does not say. But given that the current protections afforded 
by States may be broader than the short list of protections in the MTR, 
is the MTR supposed to be limiting on States in terms of how and what 
they provide in terms of special help for such individuals? Again, the 
MTR does not say, creating confusion and potentially narrowing 
protections for a sensitive group.
  3. Restoring the individual entitlement to welfare benefits--
regardless of income? The MTR suggests a fundamental change in the 
nature of the TANF program. States must now spend TANF funds on 
``needy'' families with children, with States defining financial need. 
However, the MTR suggests that ``Nothing in this Act'' (which if added 
to the underlying bill would mean effectively the TANF program) ``shall 
prohibit or limit'' States from providing ``assistance'' to 
``unemployed parents'' or ``grandparents'' caring for the children of 
individuals in, or who died while serving in, the Armed Forces. It does 
not State that such adults and families must be ``needy.'' While many 
of these families will no doubt be ``needy'' by States'' definition, 
not all will be. Yet the MTR says that all must receive ``assistance'' 
(which generally means a welfare check) from the TANF program. Is it 
really the intention of the authors of the MTR to require the payment 
of welfare checks to families that are not ``needy''? This smacks of a 
return to the pre-TANF era when there was an individual entitlement to 
welfare benefits in Federal law, which was a key impediment to States' 
engaging low-income families in work and productive activities needed 
to help them support themselves. Even worse, especially given the 
capped nature of TANF funds, requiring States to provide welfare checks 
to households in which one parent may be unemployed, for example, while 
the other works full-time in a high-paying job, would certainly 
diminish funds available to assist truly needy families with children.
  4. Points to other key flaws in the Administration's waiver proposal. 
When Ways and Means staff reviewed HHS internal documents about their 
waiver plan on February 8, 2013, one of the key findings was that HHS 
staff has long believed the Secretary has the authority not only to 
waive work requirements for welfare recipients, but also other key 
program features like time limits and even the requirement that States 
must limit TANF benefits to families that include children. Yet the 
MTR, whose supporters argued in support of the Administration's waiver 
authority, lists supposed protections for parents and grandparents 
caring for children. Which begs the question--do supporters of the 
Administration's waiver authority and MTR want to allow States to pay 
welfare checks to single adults without children, as the Administration 
believes it has the authority to do? Or do they think that TANF 
assistance should continue to be payable only to families with 
children, as current law provides and the MTR seems to suggest?

                          ____________________