[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14838-14840]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               PRESERVING WELFARE FOR NEEDS NOT WEED ACT

  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 4137) to prohibit assistance provided under the program of 
block grants to States for temporary assistance for needy families from 
being accessed through the use of an electronic benefit transfer card 
at any store that offers marijuana for sale.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 4137

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Preserving Welfare for Needs 
     Not Weed Act''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USE OF ELECTRONIC BENEFIT TRANSFER 
                   CARD TO ACCESS TANF ASSISTANCE AT ANY STORE 
                   THAT OFFERS MARIJUANA FOR SALE.

       (a) Prohibition.--Section 408(a)(12)(A) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 608(a)(12)(A)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (ii);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of clause (iii) and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iv) any establishment that offers marihuana (as defined 
     in section 102(16) of the Controlled Substances Act) for 
     sale.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the date that is 2 years after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Reichert) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.


                             General Leave

  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and to include extraneous material on the subject of the bill under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge support of H.R. 4137, the 
Preserving Welfare for Needs Not Weed Act.
  Federal welfare benefits are an important means for many individuals 
and families to get critical assistance for basic necessities until 
they get back on their feet.
  Shockingly, as a result of recent State laws legalizing recreational 
marijuana in Colorado and also in my home State of Washington, we are 
seeing new abuses of these benefits. In these States, a person can walk 
into one of the newly opened pot shops and use their welfare benefit 
card to pay for pot.
  These are Federal tax dollars meant for basic necessities and, 
instead, they are being used to purchase something that is illegal 
under Federal law. It is exactly this misuse of tax dollars that this 
bill is designed to stop.
  This bill, which I introduced earlier this year as chairman of the 
Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources--the subcommittee with 
jurisdiction over the program that we are talking about tonight and 
that is being abused--will block access to welfare cash in stores 
selling marijuana.
  Mr. Speaker, I know firsthand the struggles that families can go 
through during my hard times from my own childhood growing up, and from 
what I witnessed as a law enforcement professional for 33 years. From 
the time I was a cop on the street in King County Washington through my 
days as the sheriff there, I witnessed how too often a lack of a job, 
living in a crime-ridden neighborhood, and using drugs tore families 
apart.

                              {time}  2115

  In some ways, things have even gotten worse today. For instance, we 
had millions of long-term unemployed struggling to get back to work 
during the so-called Obama recovery.
  To make ends meet, many turned to benefits like TANF, which is the 
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. The TANF program provides 
millions of low-income Americans temporary assistance to help adults 
transition to work and support their children while they are doing 
that. TANF is a flexible grant to States, but it also includes rules to 
ensure that our tax dollars are being spent appropriately.
  Sadly, a disturbing number of people were spending welfare benefits 
in liquor stores, casinos, and even strip clubs. In 2012, Congress 
passed a law that required States to block welfare benefits from being 
accessed in those places, and President Obama, rightly, signed it into 
law.
  Since then, both Washington State and Colorado have legalized 
marijuana, opening up a new loophole--the ``pot shop loophole,'' as I 
call it--which the bill before us would close, along with the other 
shops that I mentioned before that are already closed to the use of 
your welfare benefit card, like liquor stores, casinos, and strip 
clubs. This bill just adds ``pot shops'' to that list.

[[Page 14839]]

  This isn't an idle concern. A report examining welfare transactions 
in Colorado revealed over $5,000 in welfare benefits were accessed in 
stores selling marijuana in the first month such stores were open. With 
other States considering legislation to legalize marijuana, it is 
important that we close this ``pot shop loophole'' now before it 
expands.
  This bill simply says that when it comes to spending welfare 
benefits--money taxpayers provide to low-income parents to help support 
their children--we are drawing a line. Taxpayer-funded welfare benefits 
must be spent on children's and families' needs and not on weed.
  I encourage all Members to support this simple commonsense fix so 
that welfare funds are used as they were intended, to support the needs 
of low-income families and children and not to support drug use.
  This legislation builds on good policy this Chamber has already 
crafted and passed in the last Congress. It has no cost, according to 
the Congressional Budget Office, and, most importantly, Mr. Speaker, it 
is the right thing to do.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As mentioned, this bill is designed to prevent individuals from using 
their TANF Electronic Benefit Transfer cards in establishments that 
sell marijuana. This restriction would add to a current law on 
prohibition of EBT transactions in casinos, liquor stores, and adult 
entertainment clubs.
  While it is important that benefits under TANF be used only to 
support the basic needs of struggling families, I think it is 
regrettable that this legislation is coming to the House floor without 
any markup, hearings, or discussion within our committee.
  Such discussions usually raise questions that are worth examining 
before legislation is considered on the floor.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of Mr. Levin as to whether 
or not he has any speakers on his side.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I have one.
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is now my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Doggett), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Human Resources.
  Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, the Needs not Weeds Act is a pretty catchy title. I 
think it could fit on a bumper sticker. In fact, perhaps it already 
has.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this proposal has only a little to do 
with weeds and nothing whatsoever to do with the needs of our neighbors 
who are trying to move out of poverty and into the middle class of 
America, the people that are down there on the bottom economic rung 
that are trying to climb up another rung or two. This Congress is 
indifferent to their needs. You might say their hopes have just gone up 
in smoke.
  On the very day that we are considering this proposal, we are being 
called upon by the same folks to approve a companion Republican 
resolution that once again cuts resources for Temporary Assistance for 
Needy Families, indeed, not one, but two cuts, a cut of $14 million 
each year from the TANF contingency fund on which about a third of the 
States have relied on for assistance in this recession to help people 
find jobs and provide other services and an additional $15 billion cut 
annually from TANF research funding.
  Those are the dollars that permit us to determine whether our tax 
dollars are being spent effectively in developing new approaches for 
job training and other services.
  You have got to wonder what these Republicans are smoking. How can 
they tout their supposed commitment to preventing waste and, at the 
same time, insist on eliminating the very dollars that are designed to 
prevent waste and help us determine whether our tax dollars are being 
spent efficiently and effectively?
  From my experience in this Congress, I understand that facts will be 
ignored by Republicans when they conflict with Republican ideology, 
but, in this case, abandoning any research concerning how our tax 
dollars are being spent makes no sense; indeed, it makes no dollars and 
cents.
  Mr. Speaker, these nearly $30 million in cuts continue the Republican 
effort to reduce the real purchasing power and dollars available for 
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. They follow a prior cut of 
over $300 million in employment assistance and cash benefits through 
the TANF program.
  This is all amidst the growing inequality in this Nation. We have the 
lowest level of poor families receiving direct cash assistance from 
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families in almost 50 years. In my own 
State of Texas, only about one in every 24 children receive TANF 
assistance directly, and, when they get it, they don't get very much.
  This is the 50th anniversary of Lyndon Johnson's war on poverty. 
Isn't it time that we renew that effort in a meaningful, reformed way, 
instead of waging war on those who are in poverty?
  Time and time again, my Republican colleagues have refused to enact a 
long-term reauthorization of the Temporary Assistance for Needy 
Families program; instead, they favor these short-term extensions like 
this 3-month extension that we are considering in the continuing 
resolution.
  Each of those short-term extensions offers them an opportunity to 
stereotype the poor, the old welfare Cadillac image. Just blame the 
poor for being poor.
  I support every reasonable effort to reduce fraud and abuse. I don't 
oppose this bill. What I oppose is dealing with the peripheral instead 
of tackling the substantive problem of helping folks climb out of 
poverty into the middle class.
  As was mentioned, on one of these short-term TANF extensions, we 
previously focused on prohibiting poor people from the evil of 
withdrawing their funds from a strip club or casino. I supported that.
  This one will prevent them from using their TANF cards at a place 
that sells marijuana. Well, perhaps in December, when we are back on 
the next extension, we can prohibit them from using their funds and 
withdrawing them at a massage parlor or a Cadillac dealer or maybe with 
the space aliens out in Area 51 in New Mexico.
  I meet with these families. I have met with them in San Antonio, 
Lockhart, San Marcos, and Austin. For the most part, they are 
hardworking families. In many cases, they have hit a bad bump in the 
road. Today's bill does nothing to address the tattered safety net that 
we have in this country which is increasingly more hole than net.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Each year, we do less and less for those who struggle 
while the gap continues to widen between those who have little or 
nothing and those who are incredibly wealthy.
  I believe that poverty should be viewed as a major national problem 
that needs resolution by us working together, not a weapon to just 
score more political points at election time.
  I think the real poverty that is at stake this week is the poverty of 
cooperation, the poverty of seeking a bipartisan answer to the 
struggles of so many American families.
  As long as this Congress ignores the hard work of developing 
solutions to help those in our communities that are most disadvantaged, 
we will have less as a Nation to celebrate.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As the gentleman from Texas has just given his speech, I want to say 
to him that I applaud what he has said. It is late. It is 9:30 at 
night. It is hard to know who is listening, but the words expressed by 
Mr. Doggett need to be heard.
  In addition to the reduction in TANF funding, including for research, 
I think we should also be reminded at this late hour that, because of 
the unwillingness of Republicans in this U.S. House to follow the 
bipartisan lead in the Senate, I think more than 3 million people

[[Page 14840]]

who lost their jobs through no fault of their own, who are looking for 
work, have essentially been out in the cold.

                              {time}  2130

  I guess some of them have applied for TANF. But when you look at the 
data that Mr. Doggett has put forth, I think we need to take a look, 
whatever is the hour of the day or night, at what has been happening in 
terms of the addressing of poverty in this country. So I am glad we 
have had this discussion.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, after listening to my colleague's 
comments, Mr. Doggett's a little earlier, there are a lot of things 
that Mr. Doggett said that I agree with, and I know he knows that.
  We have known each other for a while. He is the ranking member on the 
Human Resources Subcommittee, and we have been working together on lots 
of legislation that help address foster care and families and welfare 
and food stamps and aid to needy families.
  Those are things that he knows that I care about passionately. And I 
know that the Republican party, even though tonight you may not think 
so, cares about people passionately and wants to solve these issues to 
help our most needy find employment, find an opportunity and hope in 
this country to provide for their family. That is what both sides I 
think really want.
  As my colleague knows, we spent hours earlier today debating the 
continuing resolution for 2015. That debate will continue tomorrow.
  The reason we are not debating TANF reauthorization right now is 
because the CR includes a provision that will extend the TANF program 
at the Congressional Budget Office baseline level through December 11 
of this year. So that bill, not the one before us, provides for the 
extension of the program that the gentleman had earlier talked about.
  I would also like to point out a letter that is dated July 31, 2014, 
date stamped, to Senator Sessions from Secretary Burwell. And it says, 
in just the first paragraph, Mr. Speaker:

       Thank you for your letter to former Secretary Kathleen 
     Sebelius expressing concern that Temporary Assistance for 
     Needy Families cash assistance is being used to create an 
     increase in drug dependency. I am aware of the media reports 
     related to individuals withdrawing cash at Automated Teller 
     Machines (ATMs) located in establishments selling marijuana 
     in Colorado, which has legalized the use of marijuana. I 
     agree that any inappropriate expenditure of public funds is a 
     cause for concern and should be addressed immediately.

  This is a commonsense fix so welfare funds are used as intended to 
help needy families temporarily, to help them find jobs, get back on 
their feet, provide for their families.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4137.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________