[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 13, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1817-S1819]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                        Welfare-to-Work Programs

  Mr. President, our Nation's primary welfare-to-work program is 
broken. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program, also 
called TANF, was created with bipartisan support in 1996. It was 
recently reauthorized temporarily, but I believe we need to take bold 
action to reform it for today's generation.
  TANF recognizes that funding and maintaining a job is the most 
effective way for healthy, working-age parents to go from government 
dependency to self-sufficiency. It is not about handouts. It is about 
giving a hand to those who need help the most.
  Now, the more liberal voices of the times argue that TANF Programs 
wouldn't work. In fact, it was our former colleague, Senator Daniel 
Patrick Moynihan, who predicted that TANF would result in ``children 
sleeping on grates, picked up in the morning frozen.''
  The critics were wrong. They were very wrong. TANF was a huge 
success. After TANF became law, welfare caseloads plummeted, child 
poverty declined, and unemployment among low-income, never married 
parents went up.
  Yet more than 20 years after the historic 1996 reforms, Congress has 
neglected to act on the loopholes that are undercutting its fundamental 
work requirements.
  Today, very few States are meeting the work participation rate 
required by the law. In fact, my home State of Montana is one of many 
that is falling short. You see, the law calls for 50 percent of welfare 
enrollees to be engaged in work. In Montana, they are only reaching 
about one-third.
  Many States are also using TANF dollars for purposes unrelated to 
work, and we need to hold those States accountable. That means more 
transparency and accountability metrics.
  As we have seen in President Trump's recent budget proposal, the 
President agrees that stronger work requirements must be a priority of 
this Congress. We can take the next bold step forward in reforming the 
TANF system to close these loopholes and get the American people back 
to work.
  We are fortunate our economy continues to grow, and there are more 
opportunities being created. Just last Congress, we passed tax relief 
for the American people so working-class families got to keep more of 
what they earned and small business owners could afford to invest and 
grow in their business, creating more jobs. Main Street in America is 
thriving again.
  As employers are rapidly looking to hire, we need to close the gap 
and ensure those jobs are filled by Americans who need them most. A 
strong, revitalized TANF Program is urgently needed to close this jobs 
gap and empower more Americans to find work.
  We have a problem in this economy now. In fact, there are too many 
jobs available and not enough people to fill the jobs. That is a 
wonderful challenge to face. We have seen that now for 10 consecutive 
months. That is a great problem to face now in our country, but it is 
still a problem we need to solve. That is why we will be joining the 
U.S. House Ways and Means Committee this week to introduce the JOBS Act 
to demand positive work outcomes, rather than simply meeting 
ineffective participation rules.
  It engages with every work-eligible individual to develop a plan that 
can lead to a sustainable career. It holds States accountable for their 
work outcomes and bolsters transparency of every State's performance.
  The JOBS Act doesn't just demand work. It enables work. It 
substantially increases funding for vital childcare services so parents 
can ensure their child is cared for when they are trying to provide for 
their families.
  It provides struggling beneficiaries with additional time to get the 
mental health or substance abuse treatment they need before they can 
hold a job.
  It adds apprenticeships as a permissible work activity, alongside job 
training, getting more education, and building job readiness skills. It 
targets funds to truly needy families by capping participation to 
families with incomes below 200 percent of the Federal poverty level.
  The JOBS Act recognizes there is dignity in work. A job, to most 
Americans, is more than just a job. It is an opportunity for mobility. 
It is a step up toward realizing the American dream. It is a track 
toward earning higher wages and better benefits. It can be a 
springboard to a meaningful career, and more importantly, it is hope 
for those who know hard times all too well. The dignity work brings can 
provide this hope.
  The JOBS Act equips and empowers low-income families toward a better 
future. I urge my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, to join me in 
taking bold action by supporting this important legislation to make our 
largest welfare-to-work program actually work again.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the 
nomination of Neomi Rao to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the DC 
Circuit.
  The DC Circuit is considered by many to be the most powerful 
appellate court in the country. This is true in large part because the 
DC Circuit hears challenges to many actions taken by the Federal 
Government, including challenges to the adoption or repeal of Federal 
regulations.
  I believe it is particularly relevant that Ms. Rao has a record of 
working to dismantle key regulations that ensure the air we breathe is 
safe, that address climate change, and that protect American workers 
and consumers.
  Ms. Rao has a troubling and aggressive record as the head of the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. She has led efforts to 
weaken fuel economy, or CAFE standards, which I authored with Senator 
Olympia Snowe and which has been the law since 2007. Before the 
administration proposed freezing these standards, we were set to 
achieve a fuel economy standard of 54 miles per gallon--MPG--by 2025.

[[Page S1818]]

  Ms. Rao has also led efforts to repeal the Clean Power Plan. This 
repeal has been estimated to result in up to 1,400 premature deaths 
annually by 2030, due to an increase in particulate matter from 
emissions that are linked to heart and lung disease. Further, the 
repeal of the Clean Power Plan is expected to cause up to 48,000 new 
cases of serious asthma and 15,000 new cases of upper respiratory 
problems every year.
  Ms. Rao was also instrumental in reversing the Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission's actions to address pay discrimination. 
Specifically, Ms. Rao eliminated reporting requirements proposed by the 
EEOC that were designed to identify wage discrimination on the basis of 
gender or race. Just last week, a Federal judge ruled that Ms. Rao's 
action was ``arbitrary and capricious,'' which is significant because 
the arbitrary and capricious standard is high and hard to prove. The 
judge concluded that Ms. Rao's rationale for her decision was 
``unsupported by any analysis.''
  Ms. Rao also approved the recently finalized title X ``gag rule'' on 
family planning. Under this rule, any organization that merely refers 
patients to an abortion provider is ineligible for title X funding. 
This will result in many women going without lifesaving cancer 
screenings, and it will reduce access to contraception.
  I asked Ms. Rao about her work dismantling these key regulations. In 
response to me, she downplayed her responsibility, saying that her role 
was simply to ``coordinate regulatory policy.''
  But when answering the questions of Republican Senators, Ms. Rao 
expressed pride in her work. Asked specifically about her ``primary 
contribution to pushing forward with deregulation,'' Ms. Rao responded: 
``There are a lot of regulations on the books that don't have the 
effects that were intended . . . . And, you know, we're looking to pull 
back the things that are no longer working.''
  However, to take just one example, the CAFE standards have been 
working; they have already saved $65 billion in fuel costs for American 
families and prevented the emission of 250 million metric tons of 
carbon dioxide. Unfortunately, her words don't match the actual actions 
under her leadership.
  Moreover, I asked Ms. Rao if she would commit to recusing herself 
from any case involving regulations that she worked on while serving in 
her current position. She refused to make such a commitment.
  This is of great concern as other nominees have understood the 
appearance of bias and unequivocally made such commitments.
  For example, President Trump's first nominee to the DC Circuit, Greg 
Katsas, said, ``Under the governing statute, I would have to recuse 
myself from any case in which, while in the Executive Branch, I had 
participated as a counsel or advisor or expressed an opinion on the 
merits.''
  In addition to her record of dismantling key regulations that protect 
the environment, consumers, and worker health and safety, Ms. Rao has 
taken a number of extremely controversial positions in articles she has 
written. At Ms. Rao's hearing before the Judiciary Committee, I noted 
that, while the writings that received the most attention are from when 
she was in college, several are relevant to the work she has led in the 
Trump administration and to cases she could hear if confirmed.
  For instance, in addressing the issue of date rape, Ms. Rao wrote 
that if a woman ``drinks to the point where she can no longer choose, 
well, getting to that point was part of her choice.''
  While she has since written a letter expressing that she ``lacked the 
perspective of how [her articles] might be perceived by others,'' her 
record demonstrates that these views seem to persist to today. 
Specifically, Ms. Rao has been personally involved in repealing 
protections for survivors of campus sexual violence. Ms. Rao has 
acknowledged that her office approved controversial new rules on campus 
sexual assault under title IX. Those rules would discourage survivors 
from reporting their assaults, in part because survivors would be 
subjected to cross-examination by their attacker's chosen 
representative. It is safe to assume this change in the guidance will 
be challenged in the DC Circuit.
  In her writings, Ms. Rao also questioned the validity of climate 
change, criticizing certain student groups for promoting ``a dangerous 
orthodoxy that includes the unquestioning acceptance of controversial 
theories like the greenhouse effect,'' which she argued ``have come 
under serious scientific attack.''
  Again, at the hearing, she tried to mitigate these writings saying, 
it was her ``understanding . . . that human activity does contribute to 
climate change.''
  However, during her tenure in the Trump administration, she has led 
the effort to overturn the very regulations that combat human 
contributions to climate change. For example, and as I noted 
previously, she has overseen the administration's efforts to rescind 
the Clean Power Plan and weaken fuel economy standards.
  I am also concerned about Ms. Rao's professional experience. She is 
not admitted to practice before the DC Circuit, the court to which she 
has been nominated. She has never served as a judge, and she has never 
even tried a case.
  In response to a question on the Judiciary Committee's questionnaire 
about the 10 most significant litigated matters that she personally 
handled, Ms. Rao listed only three, and two of these were arbitration 
cases that she worked on while serving as an attorney in the United 
Kingdom.
  Ms. Rao's lack of litigation experience therefore raises an important 
question as to her qualifications for this seat and suggests that she 
was nominated not because of her appellate credentials, but because of 
her anti-regulatory record.
  I also have questions about commitments Ms. Rao appears to have made 
on reproductive rights. I don't believe we should have litmus tests for 
judicial nominees, and I know many on the other side agree with me on 
that. Just in 2017, Senator McConnell said, ``I don't think there 
should be a litmus test on judges no matter who the president is.''
  Yet, on a recent radio program, Senator Hawley said that, before he 
could vote for Ms. Rao, he wanted to ``make sure that Neomi Rao is pro-
life. It's as simple as that.''
  Subsequently, Ms. Rao met with Senator Hawley in private and 
presumably assured him that she would be anti-choice. According to 
Senator Hawley, Ms. Rao went further and ``emphasized that substantive 
due process finds no textual support in the Constitution.''
  Rejecting the entire concept of substantive due process means that 
Ms. Rao not only believes Roe v. Wade was incorrectly decided, but also 
other landmark cases, like Griswold v. Connecticut, which held that 
States cannot restrict the use of contraception.
  I am also concerned about her written responses to our questions for 
the record. She gave several responses that were misleading at best.
  Ms. Rao wrote that the center she founded at George Mason University 
``did not receive any money from the Koch Foundation.'' She added that 
the center ``did not receive money from an anonymous donor.''
  However, according to public records, in 2016, George Mason 
University received $10 million from the Koch Foundation and $20 
million from an anonymous donor. The grant agreements executing these 
donations clearly state that support for Ms. Rao's center was one of 
the conditions of these multimillion dollar gifts and ``Ms. Rao's 
center benefited from those contributions.''
  Additionally, Senator Whitehouse asked Ms. Rao if she had any contact 
with the Federalist Society when considering potential faculty. Ms. Rao 
responded ``no,'' but clarified the Federalist Society occasionally 
made recommendations through its faculty division.
  What Ms. Rao failed to mention is that she, herself, was a member of 
the faculty division of the Federalist Society for her entire time in 
academia. Given this role, I don't understand why she would claim that 
she had no contact with the Federalist Society when considering faculty 
candidates.
  In closing, my concerns about Ms. Rao, from her writings to her work 
dismantling regulations to her lack of candor with the committee, are 
simply too great for me to support her nomination to the DC Circuit. I 
will vote

[[Page S1819]]

against her confirmation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the 
nomination of Neomi Rao to serve as a judge on the United States Court 
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Ms. Rao is the latest 
in a string of ultra-conservative judicial nominees who will 
rubberstamp Donald Trump's far-right agenda. Her record portends a 
threat to the rights of women and minorities, to consumer protection 
statutes and regulations, and to the security of our financial 
institutions.
  Moreover, Ms. Rao utterly lacks the experience to serve on the court 
that many view as second in importance only to the U.S. Supreme Court. 
She practiced for only 3 years as an associate at a large law firm. 
None of her practice was in Federal courts or State courts, before 
administrative agencies, or involved criminal proceedings.
  These are disqualifying reasons on their own, but I rise to speak 
about Ms. Rao's record on the environment, and the contempt she has 
demonstrated for fair, reasonable, and commonsense regulations that 
protect the health of our communities and the safety of our air and 
drinking water.
  Ms. Rao currently serves in the Office of Management and Budget as 
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
OIRA. She is commonly known as the Trump administration's ``regulatory 
czar.'' This role has her in charge of implementing the Trump 
administration's anti-environment, climate-change-denying, and 
polluter-friendly agenda.
  Ms. Rao has called climate change a ``dangerous orthodoxy,'' led the 
Trump administration's efforts to gut fundamental environmental 
protections, and has misused the regulatory review process for partisan 
political purposes.
  The attacks on the environment that Ms. Rao has launched from OIRA 
include rolling back national auto fuel efficiency standards, 
challenging California's Clean Air Act waiver that allowed it to set 
higher fuel efficiency standards, removing safety rules for fertilizer 
plants, and rolling back safety rules put in place for oil rigs after 
the Deepwater Horizon oil spill disaster in 2010.
  During review of a proposed rollback of the Methane and Waste 
Prevention Rule, Ms. Rao's office repeatedly pressured the 
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, to adopt fossil fuel industry 
requests to significantly reduce natural gas leak inspections. This 
would have doubled the amount of methane released into the atmosphere 
and, according to the EPA's own determination, conflicted with its 
legal obligation to reduce emissions.
  Ms. Rao's office censored language about the impact of climate change 
on child health when reviewing a proposed rollback of the Refrigerant 
Management Program, a program that limited the release of greenhouse 
gases thousands of times more powerful that carbon dioxide.
  Ms. Rao's office approved a proposed EPA rule to roll back public 
health protections that reduce pollution from wood-burning stoves, 
despite the EPA's own admission that the new rule would cost nine times 
as much in harm to public health as it would benefit the industry.
  Ms. Rao has overseen the Trump administration's repeal of regulations 
to address climate change, including a repeal of President Obama's 
historic Clean Power Plan that would have significantly reduced 
greenhouse gas emissions. By comparison, Ms. Rao has approved a 
proposal to replace the Clean Power Plan with a rule that would lead to 
increases in carbon dioxide emissions, asthma attacks, and even death 
from black carbon, mercury, and other dangerous air emissions from 
power plants.
  It is bad enough that, with Donald Trump, we have a climate-change 
denier in the White House, and with Andrew Wheeler, we have a coal 
industry lobbyist running the EPA. We don't need a judge on the DC 
Circuit whose record demonstrates that she is a sympathetic ally to 
their anti-environment agenda. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the 
nomination of Neomi Rao to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  Under the previous order, all postcloture time has expired.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Rao 
nomination?
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 46, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 44 Ex.]

                                YEAS--53

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     McConnell
     McSally
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--46

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Jones
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Murray
       
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the 
President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________