[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 699-707]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      WELFARE INTEGRITY NOW FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES ACT OF 2011

  Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 3567) to amend title IV of the Social Security Act to 
require States to implement policies to prevent assistance under the 
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program from being used 
in strip clubs, casinos, and liquor stores, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 3567

       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 ``Welfare Integrity Now for 
     Children and Families Act of 2011'' or the ``WIN for Children 
     and Families Act''.

     SEC. 2. SPENDING POLICIES FOR ASSISTANCE UNDER STATE TANF 
                   PROGRAMS.

       (a) State Requirement.--Section 408(a) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 608(a)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new paragraph:
       ``(12) State requirement to prevent unauthorized spending 
     of benefits.--
       ``(A) In general.--A State to which a grant is made under 
     section 403 shall maintain policies and practices as 
     necessary to prevent assistance provided under the State 
     program funded under this part from being used in any 
     electronic benefit transfer transaction in--
       ``(i) any liquor store;
       ``(ii) any casino, gambling casino, or gaming 
     establishment; or
       ``(iii) any retail establishment which provides adult-
     oriented entertainment in which performers disrobe or perform 
     in an unclothed state for entertainment.
       ``(B) Definitions.--For purposes of subparagraph (A)--
       ``(i) Liquor store.--The term `liquor store' means any 
     retail establishment which sells exclusively or primarily 
     intoxicating liquor. Such term does not include a grocery 
     store which sells both intoxicating liquor and groceries 
     including staple foods (within the meaning of section 3(r) of 
     the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2012(r))).
       ``(ii) Casino, gambling casino, or gaming establishment.--
     The terms `casino', `gambling casino', and `gaming 
     establishment' do not include a grocery store which sells 
     groceries including such staple foods and which also offers, 
     or is located within the same building or complex as, casino, 
     gambling, or gaming activities.
       ``(iii) Electronic benefit transfer transaction.--The term 
     `electronic benefit transfer transaction' means the use of a 
     credit or debit card service, automated teller machine, 
     point-of-sale terminal, or access to an online system for the 
     withdrawal of funds or the processing of a payment for 
     merchandise or a service.''.
       (b) Penalty.--Section 409(a) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 609(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(16) Penalty for failure to enforce spending policies.--
       ``(A) In general.--If, within 2 years after the date of the 
     enactment of the WIN for Children and Families Act, any State 
     has not reported to the Secretary on such State's 
     implementation of the policies and practices required by 
     section 408(a)(12), or the Secretary determines, based on the 
     information provided in State reports, that any State has not 
     implemented and maintained such policies and practices, the 
     Secretary shall reduce, by an amount equal to 5 percent of 
     the State family assistance grant, the grant payable to such 
     State under section 403(a)(1) for--
       ``(i) the fiscal year immediately succeeding the year in 
     which such 2-year period ends; and
       ``(ii) each succeeding fiscal year in which the State does 
     not demonstrate that such State has implemented and 
     maintained such policies and practices.
       ``(B) Reduction of applicable penalty.--The Secretary may 
     reduce the amount of the reduction required under 
     subparagraph (A) based on the degree of noncompliance of the 
     State.
       ``(C) State not responsible for individual violations.--
     Fraudulent activity by any individual in an attempt to 
     circumvent the policies and practices required by section 
     408(a)(12) shall not trigger a State penalty under 
     subparagraph (A).''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 409(c)(4) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 609(c)(4)) is amended by striking 
     ``or (13)'' and inserting ``(13), or (16)''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Boustany) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.

                              {time}  1340


                             General Leave

  Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
to include extraneous material on the subject of the bill under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise today, Madam Speaker, in support of H.R. 3567, a bill to 
ensure taxpayer dollars in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 
program are used as intended, and that is to provide support for low-
income families and children and to help them move from welfare to 
work.
  The TANF program was created in 1996, replacing the prior welfare 
program with one focused on work, providing short-term help, child 
care, and

[[Page 700]]

other work supports to get people back on their feet and earning a 
paycheck. In the years following, TANF was lauded as one of the most 
effective reforms in our social welfare system in American history. 
Employment rates of those on welfare surged, caseloads plummeted, child 
poverty rates fell, and taxpayers were confident they were actually 
helping poor families, knowing that they were providing them with a 
hand up and not a handout.
  Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, an issue has arisen in TANF that is 
eroding public confidence in the program. This is the issue of TANF 
funds, money meant to help poor children and their families, being 
accessed and used in liquor stores, strip clubs, and casinos. What 
started less than 2 years ago as research by one reporter in Los 
Angeles has grown into dozens of investigations across the country, 
with each new investigation adding to the story of how millions of 
dollars in TANF funds have been accessed in these locations.
  Let me just mention some of what has been uncovered:
  An Arizona investigation found welfare funds were accessed in liquor 
stores over 100 times in just 3 months;
  A California reporter uncovered that welfare recipients cashed out 
over $4.8 million in TANF funds in casinos over a 3-year period;
  A Colorado news organization found cash was being withdrawn in strip 
clubs, casinos, and liquor stores, despite a State law on the books 
prohibiting such transactions;
  An investigative report in Georgia revealed $150,000 in TANF money 
was withdrawn in liquor stores, bars, and nightclubs;
  KING 5 News in Seattle found 13,000 TANF recipients who had 
collectively withdrawn approximately $2 million from casinos in 2010.
  Madam Speaker, this is unacceptable. This is unacceptable to the 
American people.
  When the L.A. Times revealed their shocking statistics on the 
millions in welfare that had been accessed in casinos, liquor stores, 
and strip clubs, the Governor of California took action to block these 
transactions immediately. Washington and New Mexico have prohibited 
access to welfare benefits in casinos. Texas prohibits the use of 
welfare benefit cards in liquor stores and casinos as well.
  The legislation before us today would ensure that taxpayer dollars in 
the TANF program are being used as intended, and that is to assist poor 
families with their basic needs and to support them in their efforts to 
become self-sufficient. Under this bill, States would be required to 
block welfare benefit card transactions in casinos, liquor stores, and 
strip clubs and would be penalized if they do not implement such 
policies within 2 years of this bill becoming law.
  This bill will also help restore the public's trust in the integrity 
of the program while ensuring families across the country continue to 
receive the assistance they need to move from government dependence to 
independence.
  The bill we're considering today simply consists of one of the TANF 
provisions in H.R. 3659, the Welfare Integrity and Data Improvement Act 
that was unanimously passed in the House in December. A provision 
closing what has been called the ``strip club loophole'' was also 
included in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act that also 
passed the House in December and is now in conference with the Senate.
  With the exception of several technical changes suggested by the 
Department of Health and Human Services, it is also identical to 
bipartisan legislation introduced in the Senate last year by Senator 
Hatch and cosponsored by Senator Baucus, the ranking member and 
chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, respectively. I thank them 
for their hard work on this bill as well.
  Passing this bill today will send three clear messages:
  First, the House is serious about this bipartisan, bicameral reform 
becoming law, ensuring welfare funds are spent on families and children 
as intended;
  Second, conferees on the yearlong payroll tax, UI and TANF extenders 
bill, should include this bipartisan provision in their conference 
agreement;
  Third, if those conference discussions break down, the Senate will be 
able to join us in quickly passing this important bipartisan reform and 
getting it to the President's desk.
  I urge all my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DOGGETT. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I'm against fraud. I think everyone here is against 
it. I'm for what's in this bill. That's why I voted for it back in 
December, and I'll vote for it next month, too, if that will make for 
more cooperation here in the House. I think, in a way, this is this 
election year's ``welfare Cadillac.'' And I was against welfare 
Cadillacs, if there ever were any of those, too.
  This year, we have the ``strip club loophole'' that has been defined 
as a political term to suggest that we have a lot of problems with poor 
people abusing their benefits. And to the extent that any poor person 
abuses even a dollar of these benefits and keeps those benefits out of 
the mouths of hungry children, providing the clothes those kids need to 
go to school, I'm against that, and I plan to vote against it today.
  I favor comprehensive legislation against fraud in public assistance. 
It concerns me when a pharmaceutical company ends up having to settle 
for $158 million in my home State of Texas because they allegedly lied 
about drug safety and bribed officials. It concerns me when a 
pharmaceutical company in the State of Texas has an $84 million 
Medicaid fraud case brought against it. I think we need to be concerned 
about fraud in all of its aspects.
  I'd feel better about this bill, however--because I think repassing 
it will accomplish practically nothing, I'd feel much better about this 
legislative effort if there were just an ounce of the concern that is 
voiced about the very few people who abuse these benefits, if the same 
level of concern were expressed about the many who are there who are 
counting on the safety net, as flawed and frayed as it is, who were 
concerned about them and their families and their struggle to share in 
the American Dream and were doing something to get that approved.
  Yes, we approved this piece of legislation as part of a broader 
extension of the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program in 
December. And why hasn't that become law?
  It is separate legislation pending in the Senate. It is also part of 
the broader legislation extending the provisions on unemployment, on 
payroll tax relief. It ought to become law because we need to be 
concerned about those families that are playing by the rules as well as 
the very few who are not playing by the rules.
  Now, the gentleman has said that in some States action has already 
been taken--California, notably--to deal with the few who might be 
cashing their benefits at a casino or a liquor store or whatever. 
Texas, my home State, was cited as one of those States that has already 
taken action. I think that's great. There's not anything to keep the 
States from taking action on this already, if this is a serious 
problem.
  Now, some of them have not acted, not because of a lack of concern 
about fraud but because the mechanics of correcting these electronic 
benefit cards may actually be more expensive than the cost that is 
being experienced by the small number of people that might abuse the 
card.
  You take Arizona, for example. Governor Brewer has plenty of time to 
shake her finger in the face of the President of the United States, to 
support legislation to discriminate against Hispanic families, who have 
been in that State for longer than she and her family have been in the 
State. If she thinks this is a serious problem, why doesn't she act at 
the State level, as Texas and California and some other States have 
done, to address this problem?
  I would submit, while I don't object to this legislation in and of 
itself, that the bigger problem that we face is that the number of poor 
American families

[[Page 701]]

has surged over the last 4 years, up 27 percent. Ten million people are 
below what is officially agreed on as being the poverty line. And this 
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program provides a few of those 
families a little bit of assistance, to have a chance to turn their 
lives around until they can find longer term employment to provide for 
their families.

                              {time}  1350

  How much money are we talking about that might be abused or wasted at 
one of these facilities, which might just happen to be the maintenance 
crew at the casino that use their benefits there. Or it might just 
happen to be the only store convenient in a poor neighborhood is one 
that's mostly selling alcoholic beverages, that they choose to do that. 
How much might they be abusing?
  Let me tell you in my home State of Texas the median benefit for a 
single parent with two children is $244 for an entire month to take 
care of those two children, 16 percent of the poverty level.
  I want to be concerned, yes, about a dollar that is wasted. These are 
hard-earned tax dollars that go into these programs. We need to be 
concerned about every cent of abuse. But we also need to be concerned 
about the many who stand to benefit, who stand to have hope taken away 
if they don't see these benefits extended.
  My concern about that is not merely academic because of what happened 
last year, the bipartisan agreement that had extended through many 
years called the supplemental program, which was really a survival 
program for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families in poorer States 
like Texas. The Republicans chose to discontinue that program even 
though it had enjoyed bipartisan support and had received support 
letters from a number of Republican officials in our area. They chose 
to not continue that, and that has severely weakened the safety net in 
our State. That's not being continued.
  Whether they intend to abandon the entire Temporary Assistance for 
Needy Families program or cut it back substantially, it's hard to tell, 
given the fact that they're going only with the very modest provisions 
of this bill and not pushing to provide assistance to all of those who 
need that help.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield such time as 
he may consume to the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Human Resources on the House Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman 
Geoff Davis from the great State of Kentucky, the author of the TANF 
reauthorization, who cares deeply about the integrity of this program.
  Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I would like to take a moment 
before speaking on this measure to respond to the gentleman's remark, 
my friend, the distinguished gentleman from Texas and ranking member on 
the subcommittee.
  We've worked very hard over the last year on the issue of data 
standardization, correcting flaws in the system, got the first data 
standardization language in the history of the country, an act that 
would begin to address issues like this. I beg to respectfully disagree 
with the position that the ranking member took on this, talking about 
the idea of convenience with the casino or adult establishments.
  As somebody who grew up in interesting circumstances and has done a 
lot of volunteer work over the last 30 years with folks with 
challenges, the first question that I would ask if somebody is in need 
of assistance is, what in the world are they doing using a card to get 
cash inside of a casino. I'm not impugning anybody's integrity, but as 
somebody who can look across the river from where I live where there 
are several casinos, there are more than enough establishments, and I 
think the deeper question that we have to address is how our funds are 
going to be used when we help those who are in need. There are 
legitimate needs that these people have, and we've got to make sure 
that this program is tight, that it has the integrity to function so 
that every dollar is going to meeting those basic needs. I think it's a 
very small thing to bring this type of integrity to the program.
  I rise in support of H.R. 3567, the Welfare Integrity Now for 
Children and Families Act of 2011, introduced by my close friend from 
Louisiana, Congressman Charles Boustany.
  Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, is a program that 
provides support for low-income families and children that helps them 
to move from welfare to work. It was a successful reform since it 
replaced the New Deal-era welfare programs in 1996, and TANF has been 
successful at cutting welfare dependence by 57 percent.
  Are there opportunities to improve the program, to strengthen the 
program? Absolutely. There are a variety of issues and core processes 
that need to be addressed to bring more private sector practices into 
the management and administration of the program, like the data 
standardization that I talked about earlier, to allow us to understand 
how funds are being used and how better to serve those who are being 
helped by providing information to those on the front line.
  Even more importantly, though, by promoting work among single 
parents, who are the most common welfare recipients, it helps 
significantly reduce child poverty in female-headed families over time. 
Even at today's elevated unemployment rates, TANF continues to promote 
more work and earnings and less poverty.
  Despite this overall progress, TANF can and should be strengthened. 
Recently, concern has been raised about TANF benefits being withdrawn 
and used at strip clubs, liquor stores, and casinos. This is 
inappropriate as a use of taxpayer dollars and an outright abuse of 
taxpayer trust. Indeed, as my colleague from Louisiana highlighted, 
many local news investigations and exposes have verified this 
unfortunate abuse of a well-intended program.
  One of the most shocking reports to me was from King 5 News in 
Seattle, Washington. They discovered through an investigation that 
13,000 TANF recipients withdrew approximately $2 million at casinos 
just in 2010.
  I think it's very reasonable from an oversight position to ask the 
question, why are they in the casino in the first place? The use of 
these dollars can't possibly be meeting basic grocery needs and things 
like that in an establishment like that or any other type of adult 
establishment.
  Luckily, some States like Washington, New Mexico, and Texas have 
begun to take action on a local basis, but I believe this is one issue 
that we need to address at the Federal level, at the core, first by 
stopping this problem as a symptom and then dealing with the deeper 
systemic and process issues that we can establish through data 
standardization and simple controls so these cards will not even work 
in such an establishment.
  H.R. 3567 would close the so-called ``strip club'' loophole within 2 
years of enactment. The States would be required to block welfare 
benefit card transactions in casinos, liquor stores, and strip clubs. 
In plain language, welfare benefits could no longer be accessed at any 
of these facilities.
  The same provision was included in H.R. 3630, the Middle Class Tax 
Relief and Job Creation Act, as well as H.R. 3659, a standalone TANF 
extension bill introduced by Congressman Erik Paulsen, both of which 
passed the House in December. This bipartisan, bicameral program 
integrity provision will safeguard taxpayer funds from abuse and ensure 
that TANF benefits will continue to provide a helping hand to families 
that are in need.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3567.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, I commend the gentleman for his service 
as our subcommittee chair and on the data issue that will be important 
in reducing any kind of abuse of public assistance.
  I now yield 2 minutes to my colleague from the Budget Committee and 
someone who's very knowledgeable about this, Ms. Moore from Wisconsin.
  Ms. MOORE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strident opposition to the 
underlying bill. I think that it's fairly cynical in these tough 
economic times when half of all Americans are either

[[Page 702]]

in poverty or at the precipice of poverty the Republicans want to 
impose even more barriers on families trying to access much-needed 
benefits.
  I really don't think that this bill adds to self-sufficiency of 
families but rather is just more mean-spirited berating of low-income 
people who are eligible for these benefits, much like the mythical 
welfare queen or even the food stamp President.
  This bill that includes the provision that blocks EBT cards from 
being used at liquor stores, strip clubs, and casinos, the proponents 
of this argue that there is no reason to use EBT cards in places like 
this. But I say it is an issue of universal access. I mean, if you want 
to stop to buy gas for your automobile and you live in Nevada and you 
work at one of the clubs or hotels, or you're living in a food desert 
in Chicago where the closest ATM is a liquor store, what stops people 
from going to Whole Foods and using the ATM card there and then going 
to a casino? It is just another effort to berate those people who are 
in the lower class.
  My colleague has already mentioned the additional burden that this 
imposes on States and financial institutions who will have to 
reconfigure thousands of ATMs.
  My friends on the right side love to use the term ``class warfare.'' 
And they love to say that we're just trying to pick on the 1 percent of 
this country.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. DOGGETT. I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.
  Ms. MOORE. But I say who's really working for the least of these?
  Instead of hindering the American people, we need to be helping them, 
to provide greater access. Instead of passing these unproductive, 
symbolic, mean-spirited pieces of legislation, we need to create jobs 
and opportunities. I hope that the American people, Madam Speaker, can 
see the difference.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. BOUSTANY. I want to thank the gentlewoman for raising the concern 
about ensuring that TANF recipients have adequate access to their 
benefits in a variety of locations. That's a very important 
consideration.
  This bill requires States to block access to welfare benefits in 
casinos, liquor stores, and strip clubs. However, we know some grocery 
stores, convenience stores, and local markets may sell groceries but 
also sell alcohol and that some States may have gambling machines there 
as well. Because of this, the bill allows States to make accommodations 
for such stores so that they would not have to block transactions in 
places that sell groceries but that also sell alcohol. If a grocery 
store happens to have a gaming machine or if it's located in the same 
building or complex as a casino, there are provisions made in this.
  So I thank the gentlewoman for raising this issue, but I'm glad that 
we can ensure the integrity of this program. I would submit the most 
important thing we can do is to ensure the integrity of the program so 
that it is there for the children and families that need it. Yet we 
want to ensure that there is not an overt abuse of these funds in strip 
clubs, casinos, and liquor stores while allowing for reasonable 
exceptions.
  Also, I thank the gentlelady and the ranking member from Texas for 
raising the concern as to the issue of implementation cost, and I want 
to address that as well.
  Some States have expressed that we have a loophole that could 
potentially be too costly or too difficult to close. However, I want to 
point out that these difficulties have been overstated. Washington 
State said the same thing when it was told $2 million in TANF funds 
were being withdrawn in casinos in 1 year.
  Madam Speaker, I submit for the Record an article from KING 5 News in 
Seattle, Washington, that speaks directly to this issue. It talks about 
the surprising number of TANF withdrawals in casinos in the State, and 
it reports the State said the same things that we're hearing today in 
that it may be hard to close this loophole or that it would be too 
expensive to stop.
  This article goes on to read:
  ``It turns out the fix wasn't difficult or expensive. For the Iron 
Horse Casino, it took about 4 minutes on the phone. Kealy,'' the casino 
owner, ``says, in minutes and at no cost, his ATM vendor blocked EBT 
cards . . . Kealy and many other casino owners didn't wait for orders 
from the State. They already reprogrammed their ATMs . . . He's a board 
member of the Washington Restaurant Association, which he says is 
preparing to ask bars and taverns--businesses that are more alcohol 
than food oriented--to block EBT access to their cash machines. Kealy 
says that would mean another 2,000 ATMs couldn't be accessed for 
welfare cash benefits.''
  So I appreciate the concerns about the cost, but I believe closing 
this loophole simply won't be as difficult as some are making it out to 
be.

                    [From KING5.com, Sept. 23, 2010]

          More Businesses May Pull Plug on Welfare Cash Cards

                           (By Chris Ingalls)

       Many casinos in the state have taken steps to cut off the 
     flow of cash to welfare recipients. This follows a KING 5 
     Investigation that showed millions of tax dollars being 
     dispensed through casino cash machines.
       Now we've learned thousands more ATMs could be blocked at 
     other businesses where welfare dollars may not belong. Bars 
     and taverns in Washington may follow the lead of casinos, 
     which have already started reprogramming their ATMs so they 
     won't dispense cash from EBT cards that are distributed to 
     welfare recipients.
       State records show the two ATMs at the Iron Horse Casino in 
     Auburn dispensed $780 in welfare in the month of July alone.
       ``Whew! It's unbelievable,'' said Iron Horse customer Louie 
     Vaccaro. ``We have so many problems in this state. To hear 
     something like that is mind boggling.''
       ``I was surprised by that,'' says the casino's owner Chris 
     Kealy. ``I did not know those cards could be used at these 
     machines.''
       Kealy saw our stories last week that showed more than $2 
     million in welfare cash withdrawn from ATMs in and around 
     casinos in the last year. Initially the Department of Social 
     and Health Services, DSHS, said putting a stop to those 
     questionable withdrawals might be too difficult or costly.
       ``If we find that this is a small incidence that's 
     happening, it might not justify the expense that it would try 
     to prevent that activity,'' said Deputy DSHS secretary Troy 
     Hutson in a story we aired last week.
       It turns out the fix wasn't difficult or expensive. For the 
     Iron Horse Casino, it took about four minutes on the phone. 
     Kealy says in minutes, and at no cost, his ATM vendor blocked 
     EBT cards--debit-type cards which DSHS uses to distribute 
     cash benefits to 68,000 of the state's most needy residents.
       Organizations representing both tribal and non-tribal 
     gambling establishments in Washington pledged their full 
     support when DSHS's secretary made an announcement two days 
     after KING 5 Investigation aired.
       ``I want to shut down every ATM in gambling establishments 
     that has EBT access,'' said Susan N. Dreyfus.
       Kealy and many other casino owners didn't wait for orders 
     from the state. They already re-programmed their ATMs. And 
     Kealy isn't stopping with his own casino. He's a board member 
     of the Washington Restaurant Association, which he says is 
     preparing to ask bars and taverns--businesses that are more 
     alcohol than food oriented--to block EBT access to their cash 
     machines. Kealy says that would mean another 2,000 ATMs 
     couldn't be accessed for welfare cash benefits.
       ``The taxes you are paying are supposed to help fund basic 
     needs, human services,'' Kealy says. ``We're all in this 
     together. I'm supportive of that. But I'm not supportive of 
     those dollars being used in facilities like this.''
       Gambling is one of the few restrictions on the use of 
     welfare cash. It is illegal. Welfare cheats can still get 
     their money at other ATMs, but casinos hope to stack the deck 
     against them and send the message that welfare dollars aren't 
     welcome on gaming floors.

  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DOGGETT. I yield myself 30 seconds to place into the Record a 
letter from the National Conference of State Legislatures as well as a 
letter from the American Public Human Services Association and the 
National Association of State TANF Administrators.
  The gentleman may be right. He clearly lacks confidence in States' 
rights in these areas. The letter from the National Conference of State 
Legislatures points out that there is a financial burden that would be 
imposed on the States and that ``the States have existing contracts 
with vendors that may have to be changed at a significant cost to the 
States.'' Let us hope that does not happen.

[[Page 703]]

  They come out firmly in opposition to this bill. I do not share that 
opposition, but I think they raise a legitimate concern about the added 
cost as well as the lack of confidence of my Republican colleagues in 
the ability of the States to police their own programs.

                                            National Conference of


                                           State Legislatures,

                                                 January 30, 2012.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Speaker of the House,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader Pelosi: On behalf 
     of the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), we 
     write in opposition to H.R. 3567, the ``Welfare Integrity for 
     Children and Families Act of 2011,'' which is scheduled for a 
     vote on the Floor under Suspension of the Rules on Wednesday, 
     February 1. States share your concern about the inappropriate 
     use of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) 
     benefits; however, NCSL strongly believes that these 
     decisions are appropriately made at the state level.
       When Welfare Reform was enacted in 1996 (P.L. 104-193), 
     state and federal policymakers agreed to forgo the open-ended 
     entitlement of AFDC for the flexibility afforded in the fixed 
     TANF block grant. In this agreement, policy decision making 
     authority was left up to the states including state 
     legislatures. Mandating states to limit Electronic Benefit 
     Transfer (EBT) transactions preempts state authority over the 
     TANF block grant and undermines the strong state-federal 
     partnership undertaken in 1996. Additionally, NCSL is 
     concerned about the financial burden this mandate would 
     impose on states, many of whose fiscal situation is still 
     perilous. States have existing contracts with EBT vendors 
     that might need to be changed at significant cost to the 
     state if this bill becomes law.
       States are addressing the issues raised in H.R. 3567. To 
     date, California and Washington have limited the use of EBT 
     cards and addressed the complex implementation process of 
     limiting EBT card usage. Many additional states are looking 
     at similar EBT limitations and other ways to combat fraud and 
     abuse in their current sessions.
       If you have any questions regarding what states are doing 
     to address the concerns of H.R. 3567 or to discuss the bill, 
     please do not hesitate to contact Sheri Steisel 
     ([email protected]) or Emily Wengrovius 
     ([email protected]).
           Sincerely,
     The Honorable Tom Hansen,
       South Dakota Senate, Chair NCSL Human Services & Welfare 
     Committee.
     The Honorable Barbara W. Ballard,
       Kansas House of Representatives, Chair NCSL Human Services 
     & Welfare Committee.
                                  ____

         American Public Human Services Association and National 
           Association of State TANF Administrators,
                                Washington, DC, December 12, 2011.
     Hon. Max Baucus,
     Senator, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. David Camp,
     Representative,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Lloyd Doggett,
     Representative,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
     Senator, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Geoffrey Davis,
     Representative,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Sander M. Levin,
     Representative,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Baucus, Senator Hatch, Representative Camp, 
     Representative Levin, Representative Davis, and 
     Representative Doggett:  We are writing today to share our 
     comments on provisions included in the Middle Class Tax 
     Relief and Job Creation Act of 2011.
       The American Public Human Services Association (APHSA) and 
     the National Association of State TANF Administrators (NASTA) 
     represent the state health and human services commissioners 
     and the state TANF administrators, respectively. Both APHSA 
     and its TANF affiliate, NASTA, appreciate the need for a fair 
     and flexible block grant program that also ensures 
     accountability for the use of precious federal funds.
       Therefore, on behalf of the state health and human service 
     commissioners and the state TANF administrators, we would 
     like to thank you for including proposed legislation that 
     would guarantee funding security for state TANF programs for 
     the remainder of the federal fiscal year. This is greatly 
     appreciated as states continue to work with families dealing 
     with the impacts of the recession. APHSA is also encouraged 
     to see continued interest in improving the interoperability 
     of data systems by establishing uniform, nonproprietary data 
     elements. However, there is one provision of this language 
     that our members find troubling.
       Our members are concerned about the proposed mandate 
     (Section 2304) included in this bill which would require 
     states to develop and implement policies and procedures for 
     state EBT cards, blocking their use at casinos, liquor stores 
     and strip clubs. We believe that, at this moment, there is 
     not enough known about the issue of potential EBT card abuse 
     at these establishments to justify a federal mandate such as 
     the one being proposed; furthermore, if a need does indeed 
     exist for such legislation, we believe that it would be more 
     appropriate for the issue to be addressed in a more thorough 
     five-year reauthorization of the TANF program.
       Currently, the Government Accountability Office is 
     conducting an audit of ten states to determine what policies 
     and practices are already in place to track and prohibit the 
     use of EBT cards in specific circumstances or at certain 
     venues. While some states have moved forward with 
     implementation of policy that bars the use of EBT cards at 
     certain types of businesses, not every state has seen the 
     implementation of such a policy necessary, desirable, or 
     cost-effective.
       While blocking access to EBT cards at specific ATMs might 
     be possible with existing technology, it is neither easy nor 
     free of cost for the state. Most states do not have access to 
     ATM addresses, only numeric codes. Shutting down ATMs 
     requires considerable time (including on-site visits) to 
     determine which codes are connected to ATMs in questionable 
     locations, followed by constant monitoring to ensure that 
     they remain inactive. Additionally, at this point it seems 
     certain that some states will have more difficulty than 
     others implementing this mandate due to differences in 
     vendors or how their benefits system is set up. Finally, it 
     is important to note that blocking ATM and/or POS device 
     access at these locations will not prevent someone who is 
     determined to patronize these businesses from making a 
     withdrawal at a bank and spending that cash to purchase goods 
     anywhere he or she wants.
       APHSA and NASTA have cooperated fully with GAO in its work 
     and we are very much looking forward to the results of the 
     report. That being said, we hope that Congress appreciates 
     that the passage of any legislation mandating policy changes, 
     such as the one proposed in the Middle Class Tax Relief and 
     Job Creation Act, ought to happen only after GAO completes 
     the work commissioned by Congress. The results of the GAO 
     study will provide the necessary information to help 
     determine how states have addressed this issue already and 
     whether or not this is indeed an issue that requires new 
     statutory language.
       Again, the state commissioners and the state TANF 
     administrators appreciate the stability provided by this bill 
     for FY 2012 and look forward to the opportunity to discuss 
     the TANF program, as well as the larger issue of integrated 
     human services administration, in the year to come as 
     Congress prepares for a thorough reauthorization of the TANF 
     block grant. If you have any questions please contact Ron 
     Smith or Robert Ek.
       Sincerely,
                                                 Tracy L. Wareing,
                                        Executive Director, APHSA.
                                                   Paul Lefkowitz,
                                                     Chair, NASTA.

  With that, Madam Speaker, I would yield 2 minutes to a former member 
of the House Ways and Means Committee, who is very familiar with these 
issues, and I hope a soon-to-return member of the House Ways and Means 
Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I thank the chairman very much for yielding.
  As I listen to the debate and the discussion and as I listen to my 
colleague from Wisconsin talk about universal access, I am reminded of 
something that I read relative to the period of not just dissent but a 
takeover of Germany. I remember something that a rabbi said: They came 
for the Communists. I was not a Communist. They came for the 
Socialists. I was not a Socialist. Then they came for me, and nobody 
was left.
  It seems to me that, when we go after those individuals who are the 
most vulnerable people in our society and when we categorize and 
stereotype and make believe that if they get a card that they're going 
to be at the casino and that they're going to be at the strip joint, 
well, I can tell you that the people I know who get cards as TANF 
recipients are not usually found at a casino, and they're not found at 
a strip

[[Page 704]]

joint. As a matter of fact, if I thought that this legislation would 
provide one iota--one scintilla--of help for TANF recipients, I would 
be the first in line to support it. The reality is I don't believe it 
provides any help and that it does not provide any assistance, and I 
will certainly not be voting for it.
  All lawmakers agree that we should limit waste, fraud and abuse of 
taxpayer dollars. We all agree that government assistance should be 
used for basic necessities, such as shelter and food. Unfortunately, 
the Republican bill is not a good faith effort to limit waste, fraud 
and abuse; in contrast, it fans the flames of prejudice with 
stereotypes portraying our Nation's poor as abusing government support. 
Simply put, this bill is a stereotype to rally the cry of the right 
wing that the poor in our country do not deserve government help.
  Rather than proposing programs to spur the economy or get Americans 
working, this Republican leadership simply takes cheap political shots. 
There is no evidence of rampant abuse of federal assistance to fuel 
lewd and lascivious lifestyles. In the state of California that 
represents one third of the Nation's TANF caseload, over a 3 year 
period, only .04 percent of Electronic Benefit Transactions occurred at 
gaming establishments and only .001 percent at adult entertainment 
establishments. In Florida, over a two year period, only .03 percent of 
Electronic Benefit Transactions occurred at stores with liquor licenses 
and .06 percent at casinos or pari-mutuel betting locations. This is 
not widespread fraud and abuse, as the Republican bill will have you 
believe.
  This bill is a false solution in search of a non-existent problem 
that serves to portray the poor as undeserving and fraudulent. The TANF 
extension is under consideration within the Payroll Tax Extension 
Conference. So, why is this provision on the Floor of the House this 
week moving separately? Solely to denigrate the poor and impugn their 
character to make the poor appear undeserving of government assistance.
  If the Republican Leadership was serious about trying to address any 
potential fraud, they would have addressed this issue systematically in 
the context of reauthorization.
  If the Republican Leadership was truly serious about addressing 
misuse of TANF dollars, they could have required States to detail how 
they are protecting against abuse while simultaneously ensuring that 
the state's response does not deny TANF recipients access to adequate 
access points and while ensuring that TANF recipients have Electronic 
Benefit access with minimal fees and surcharges.
  If the Republican Leadership was truly serious about addressing 
possible misuse of TANF dollars effectively, they would have addressed 
the States' concerns about inability to regulate these transactions and 
the costly burden such government over-regulation would inflict. 
Indeed, the American Public Human Services Association and the National 
Association of State TANF Administrators have raised concern about 
whether there is truly a need for such legislation and about the costs 
of such policies.
  If the Republican Leadership was truly serious about the use of TANF 
cards at certain establishments, they would have considered why low-
income people may need to use ATMs located in these venues--mainly lack 
of access to a financial institution. In Illinois, an estimated 304,000 
households have access to no bank, with an additional 773,000 
households having only limited access to financial institutions. This 
is true in rural and urban areas. So, rather than trying to understand 
why a small percentage of low-income people use TANF cards in adult 
locations, the Republican Leadership declares, asserts, and decries 
these citizens are de-frauding the government.
  I--along with all my colleagues--staunchly oppose waste, fraud and 
abuse of government dollars. However, the purpose of this bill is not 
to curb abuse; simply put, H.R. 3567 seeks to discredit the poor. 
Rather than suggesting ways to help the unemployed access well-paying 
jobs, rather than advancing ways to cut taxes for the middle-class, 
rather than proposing ways to help our elderly maintain affordable 
health care, and rather than identifying ways to stop using taxpayer 
dollars to subsidize billions of dollars in profits of the oil industry 
or the private airplanes and tax shelters of the ultra-wealthy, the 
Republican Leadership again targets the poor--characterizing them as 
cheats and frauds.
  Unfortunately, I know that this smear campaign against Americans who 
are struggling will continue. I am sure we will soon see bills 
denigrating the unemployed, those needing food stamps, the homeless, 
people who have historically struggled with substance abuse, and people 
who have gone to jail and are trying to get their lives back on track.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he 
may consume to the chairman of the Human Resources Subcommittee, Mr. 
Davis.
  Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. I do feel compelled to respond since Martin 
Niemoller--the famous German Christian pastor who was quoted after 
World War II when talking about inaction--was dealing with the issue of 
the Holocaust, the scale of which was so unbelievably beyond the pale 
of a small technical fix that we're talking about here that, I believe, 
the gentleman diminished the value of whatever argument he was making 
by even quoting him.
  If I seem to recall my history correctly when I was running a 
business in 1996, during the welfare debate, Martin Niemoller was 
resurrected from the dead again, using the same quote that somehow, if 
we just touch anything that will provide integrity to our programs with 
which we want to help the poor, that, in fact, this is the march down 
the slippery slope to the complete takeover and removal of civil 
rights.
  Come on, folks. This is a technical business discussion. If we were 
running a business together--and I believe the government should be run 
that way--I think we'd be sitting around a table in the operations room 
while planning ways to legitimately cut costs to more efficiently help 
our customers and to eliminate waste.
  In using the gentleman's own argument that he brought up, this is the 
question again: If the vast majority--and I happen to agree with him--
don't go in those places in the first place, why would we not want to 
put in a simple program control for that small percentage that does to 
prevent them from wasting taxpayer dollars?
  From the casinos that we have across the river, from some of the 
economic hardship that comes from that and from my constituents who 
have families who have been damaged by this, I know, in walking inside 
any number of the casinos on the Ohio River, that I'm not seeing 
grocery stores, that I'm not seeing provisions for food. What I'm 
seeing are ATMs and access to free chips and for gambling--not to eat.
  I think this begs the deeper question: To the average man or woman on 
the street, if we ask the question ``Is it reasonable?'' absolutely.
  I want to bring us back to the central point here as to what this 
does. First is the idea that it costs too much, and I'll speak for my 
other life as a systems professional. The gentleman from Louisiana 
rightly pointed out that the fixing of the system is actually an easy 
thing to do, and we will find ready participation and cooperation from 
those who are involved because they understand the stakes in this. The 
goal of their businesses is not a further recycling of poverty. The 
goal of their businesses is to make sure, to some degree, that money is 
not used in a manner that reflects poor stewardship. I think, 
ultimately, this is a backstop to assure that money that belongs to the 
United States taxpayer that's being given to them as assistance is 
going to be used in a proper manner.
  At the end of the day, that refutes the baseline of these arguments--
again, going back to the great success that our staffs have had and 
that the gentleman from Texas and I have had over the course of the 
last year to really begin to move serious, nonpartisan process reforms 
that will help to fix deficiencies in the system which are not Democrat 
or Republican at their root but are addressing real questions of broken 
processes.
  If we were sitting there among ourselves in a business together that 
we were running or if we were sitting with our families and if we 
noticed that there were an issue, hey, we could put a stop to that and 
we could fix that. Why don't we do the same thing here? It's not an 
unreasonable request to look at that.
  Again, some of the speakers are not on our subcommittee, and I think 
we've had great success in keeping the tone of the debate focused on 
the core process problems, not on extremely energetic and emotional 
rhetoric that really doesn't address this root issue. That would be my 
request as we move forward. This is a good fix. It is a cheap

[[Page 705]]

way to save taxpayer money to legitimately help those in need.

                              {time}  1410

  Mr. DOGGETT. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker and Members, I came to the floor to address 
this issue. Despite the fact that I understand that it's kind of a good 
political issue in an election year where many people will use this to 
say I'm saving the government money and I'm keeping those folks on 
welfare who don't deserve government support anyway from using this 
money or this EBT card to have access in ways that will allow them to 
be in and take advantage of casinos and strip joints, et cetera, and 
it's a very sexy argument and it looks good and you'll get a lot of 
play off of it, so I understand that coming to the floor to protect the 
poor and the most vulnerable is not popular, but think about it, just 
think about it.
  Many of you come from districts where there are liquor stores. These 
are small businesses, and most of these liquor stores now serve more 
other products than they do liquor. They have milk; they have juice; 
they have bread; they have meats. They have the kinds of things that 
many of these poor families need and they buy at liquor stores.
  Why do they buy them at liquor stores? Because they're in these food 
deserts that you have heard the First Lady talk about, areas all over 
this country, whether it is rural or whether it is urban, where they 
don't have grocery stores. They don't have the big chains. All they 
have are these small business that are liquor stores who carry all of 
the products that a family could use to feed their family, not just 
liquor.
  And so I would ask you to take a real close look at this and at least 
exclude the liquor stores. These small businesses are very important 
all over this country. Yes, they sell liquor. Many of us don't like the 
idea that even in some of these places there are problems, but the 
folks who go there don't have to buy liquor. If there are problems at 
any of these liquor stores, local law enforcement should do its job.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. DOGGETT. I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.
  Ms. WATERS. And so when you include liquor stores, all you're doing 
is attacking some small businesses who are providing foodstuffs--not 
just liquor, but foodstuffs; not only in inner cities, but in rural 
communities--that families need. So this is punishment, this is being 
very harsh on the most vulnerable people in our society to include 
liquor stores in this group of stores that you would not like to have 
the welfare recipients use.
  Again, I could go along with strip joints; I could go along with 
casinos. But as I travel across the country, I cannot go along with 
excluding liquor stores from being able to provide food that's needed 
to these poor families that live in these food deserts where there are 
no grocery stores, no chains, no other place for them. And when they 
have transportation problems, it really does wreak havoc on them trying 
to get even to a place where they could buy food.
  So if you would understand that and work to try to make sure that 
this doesn't stay in here, I would appreciate it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has again 
expired.
  Mr. DOGGETT. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. STARK. Would the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. WATERS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. STARK. Isn't it true that in most of the liquor stores and other 
establishments of that type they charge no fees for cashing the checks 
because they want people to get the cash to gamble? In many of our 
districts in California they don't have to go to these payday loan 
places and pay exorbitant fees to get a check cashed and so that it 
really, in many ways, it is helpful in our communities.
  Ms. WATERS. It is very helpful. With the liquor stores, they help to 
stimulate the economy. They sell all of these foodstuffs. They hire a 
few people. Some families have three and four family members.
  So, yes, I would ask that you exclude liquor stores from this 
consideration.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I thought I made it clear, and I think Chairman Davis did also, 
earlier, that there are provisions to allow for exceptions as long as 
the facility serves food. We're talking about stores that purely sell 
liquor. So I think the gentlelady's concerns are addressed with the 
bill as written.
  Furthermore, I would just say that on this side of the aisle, we care 
very deeply about this program. There's broad agreement it's a valuable 
program. It's worked.
  If you care about children and you care about needy families in this 
country, then you should care about ensuring the integrity of the 
program and making sure that the dollars that taxpayers put forth for 
these needy families, these needy children, actually go to those 
families and not buying liquor and patronizing strip clubs and going to 
casinos.
  That's what this bill intends to address. That's what it does 
address. It creates the proper flexibilities for the concern that the 
gentlelady has and others on the other side of the aisle have about 
access. If food is sold, access will not be denied.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Well, I couldn't agree with the gentleman more about the 
importance of preserving, in his words, ``the integrity of this 
program.'' That means that none of the public funds are wasted or used 
in an improper way, but it also means that the program's integrity is 
preserved to deliver the assistance that is needed for the many, many 
families that are playing by the rules and need a helping hand. And 
that's the only area we have difference in this regard as far as I 
personally am concerned.
  The House has already spoken on this electronic benefits issue. I 
don't see any harm in the House speaking again this week or next week 
or next month--I don't see a great deal of gain from repassing it, but 
why not? But what I do see harm in is if the many, many people that are 
playing by the rules and need this assistance see their safety net 
shredded the way these same folks shredded the safety net last year 
when they did not renew the bipartisan TANF supplemental program that 
has been so important in poor States with large populations of poor 
people, like Texas.
  There are families there, there are State programs there that are 
harmed by the unjustified refusal to extend that program. At least with 
what's left in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, 
which we passed here as a freestanding bill in December with this 
provision in it, let's pass that entire bill. Hopefully, this message 
says little more than say that the House still feels today the same way 
that it felt 6 weeks ago.
  That's fine, but let's get this entire Temporary Assistance for Needy 
Families program approved and in place so the States and the families 
that depend upon it will have it there.
  I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. There's some confusion about what is excluded or 
included. As I understand it, a liquor store that just sells just juice 
or milk would not be considered a store that sells food.
  Is that correct? Is that your understanding?
  I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. If food products are sold at a store?
  Ms. WATERS. Milk.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. If any type of food product, including milk, is sold at 
a store, States can except those from the provisions in this bill.
  Ms. WATERS. Reclaiming my time, that is not my understanding, and I 
would hope we could work together.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Would the gentlewoman yield?

[[Page 706]]


  Ms. WATERS. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. The definition is staple foods, which include milk.
  Ms. WATERS. Milk is included in the bill.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Speaker, I would ask if the gentleman has yielded 
back all of his time?
  Mr. DOGGETT. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. I am pleased to yield the remaining time to the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis), the chairman of the subcommittee, 
a gentleman who has diligently worked in good faith with the ranking 
member to reauthorize a TANF program with integrity that ensures that 
children and needy families get the assistance that they need.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized 
for the balance of the time which is 3 minutes.

                              {time}  1420

  Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, again I remind all of my 
colleagues that when we talk about such matters, it's helpful to focus 
on tone. The one thing I'm going to respond to, when the comment was 
made ``that you people shredded,'' I would have to remind all Members 
in the Chamber and the Speaker that, in fact, that was passed in a 
Democratic House when the Speaker was Ms. Pelosi and the leader of the 
Senate was Senator Reid.
  We have worked in good faith through this process. And what I would 
remind folks about the fundamental question as we look at this, the 
real issue here--and I grew up in a dysfunctional family. I know what 
it means to see dysfunctional alcoholism with a stepfather leaving and 
spending the money in places that were inappropriate; and I think it's 
a fair question, as someone who has lived that as a little boy, to say, 
wait a minute, if Dad wants to run off with the EBT card and go to one 
of the boats over in Indiana, we as a body have a responsibility, 
Democrat and Republican, who care very deeply for this country and for 
our citizens, to say wait a minute, that's not an appropriate use.
  The businesses themselves will cooperate. There's a contextual issue 
to allow the States to deal with the specific uniqueness of providers 
of foodstuffs. But at the same time, I think that if an EBT card is 
being used in a place that may have a drink rack inside of it and pole 
dancers on the other end, that is not, under any standard of morality, 
a place where the EBT card should be used.
  I can think of no mother who would want the money spent there. I can 
think of no circumstance that would justify it. And, frankly, having my 
own stepfather come home drunk and beat up me and my mother after 
running around out in town with what money she basically earned, I 
would say in this case it's unacceptable.
  Let's come back to the real world, and I'm not going to yield my 
time. Let's come back to the real world and look at the reality of 
this. What is being asked is a procedural and a process change to give 
better stewardship to a program on which we agree about the 
fundamentals, specifically, the data standardization and control. 
There's virtually no cost to this.
  I understand we have honest differences of opinion here; but I would 
appreciate that the rhetoric be toned down and we focus on the reality 
of this. If we ask any mom or dad or recipient or taxpayer out on the 
street this fundamental question, I think overwhelmingly, when they 
heard it in the context of reality and not sometimes the things that 
happen in the Chamber here, they would look at it from a different 
perspective. That's what we're asking.
  With that, I ask all Members to support this very reasonable, very 
measured, very balanced way to fix a flaw in a program that can be made 
better as a result of that, be better stewards of our taxpayer dollars. 
And with that, I urge passage.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  This bill closes a loophole that, if left uncorrected, would continue 
to allow millions in welfare funds to be distributed in liquor stores, 
casinos, and strip clubs.
  Now that this issue has been highlighted by news organizations across 
the country, we must stop this abuse of taxpayer funds and ensure this 
money is used as it should be--to help poor children and families make 
ends meet.
  A number of States have already closed this loophole, but this bill 
will help restore the public's confidence in the program and ensure 
that States work together to end this abuse once and for all.
  I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this measure, as they 
have done previously, so that we can ensure taxpayer dollars are used 
as they should be.
  Ms. LEE of California. Madam Speaker, as the Co-Founder of the 
Congressional Out of Poverty Caucus, I rise in strong opposition to 
this shameful bill, H.R. 3567.
  This is a distasteful and misleading bill that tries to make it seem 
like every American in poverty is somehow immoral or criminal.
  Nothing could be further from the truth. The vast majority of TANF 
recipients want nothing more than a good job to support their families 
and build a bridge to reach their American Dream.
  Now, no one wants TANF dollars to be spent in casinos or in adult 
entertainment venues, but this bill does nothing to actually prevent 
that. Shutting down ATM's in those locations doesn't stop the money 
being spent there. In addition, this bill would force states to certify 
nearly every small business as a non-liquor store and how are the 
standards to be established and maintained?
  This bill would create an entire nation wide bureaucracy to address a 
problem that affects less than 4 one hundredths of one percent (.04%) 
of all TANF funds and would completely fail to save any money at all.
  Instead of passing a jobs bill, Republicans are once again just 
looking to distract from the real issues, this time by attacking 
American families in need.
  This bill is just a sad attempt to divide our nation by mimicking the 
Ronald Reagan myth about the Cadillac driving welfare queen. It was 
untrue then and it is still untrue today.
  As a single mother who once relied on food stamps and assistance to 
get by during a very difficult period in my life, I am appalled to see 
Republican politicians attack struggling American families just because 
they need a helping hand. TANF benefits keep children in homes and in 
school. TANF benefits keep American families from suffering abject 
poverty.
  What we should be doing is helping these families reignite their 
American Dreams, not making blanket accusations against every low 
income family in America.
  Mr. PAULSEN. Madam Speaker, thank you and thank you Dr. Boustany for 
introducing this legislation.
  I rise today as a co-sponsor of H.R. 3567, the Welfare Integrity Now 
for Children and Families Act because at a time when millions of 
Americans are still out of work, and our economy is struggling to 
recover, we must take every step available to safeguard taxpayer 
dollars.
  Madam Speaker, between January of 2007 and June of 2010 nearly $5 
million in state-issued benefits were withdrawn from ATMs in California 
casinos alone.
  We need to correct this problem, and H.R. 3567 does just that.
  This provision requires all states to take steps to end this abusive 
practice, safeguarding taxpayer funds from abuse by ensuring that 
welfare funds are not accessed in strip clubs, liquor stores, and 
casinos--a practice which has been highlighted in news stories across 
the country.
  This bill ensures all states take action to close this loophole. I 
note that this policy is the same as that introduced by Senators Hatch 
and Baucus, the Ranking Member and Chairman, respectively, of the 
Senate Finance Committee, so it has strong support in the other body as 
well.
  Let's continue the momentum, pass this legislation, and prove to the 
American people that we are here to get things done in 2012.
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, last week I voted against the so called 
``Welfare Integrity Now for Children and Families Act of 2011,'' H.R. 
3567.
  H.R. 3567 would require states to prevent the use of Temporary 
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program benefits in a liquor 
store, casino, or strip club.
  This bill is being disguised as one that would ensure taxpayer 
dollars are being appropriately spent. In reality, this bill is being 
brought to the floor to demean individuals who rely on TANF benefits 
and to imply that they are immoral.
  It is ludicrous to suggest that there is a national problem 
necessitating that Congress stop TANF recipients from spending their 
money at strip clubs.

[[Page 707]]

  TANF is a long-standing program, previously known as Aid for Families 
of Dependent Children, that is one of the most important parts of our 
national safety net and that keeps almost 2 million families from the 
brink of starvation.
  What is missing from this bill is any discussion that in many 
underserved neighborhoods, the closest ATM is located in one of these 
establishments. Preventing the use of TANF cards at these 
establishments could result in TANF beneficiaries not being able to 
access their benefits. Instead of debating how Congress could pass laws 
that would help with economic redevelopment in underserved communities, 
we are spending our time vilifying individuals receiving benefits and 
then sanctimoniously taking credit for preventing any misuse. This is 
part of the message of those who seek to demean the President by 
calling him the food stamp President.
  Further, this bill would cost money--not save it. In New Jersey, it 
is estimated that this bill would cost $100,000 to implement and 
Governor Christie's office wrote to express their concerns about the 
bill.
  For a bill that is supposed to be ensuring that taxpayer dollars are 
being well spent, this bill would hinder individuals from obtaining 
their legitimate benefits and cost states more money. Every Member of 
Congress should have opposed this bill which was more offensive than 
silly.
  H.R. 1173 is another attempt by the Republicans to embarrass 
individuals who are on hard economic times instead of helping them find 
a job.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3567, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________