Dave Camp

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 890, Preserving the Welfare Work Requirement and TANF Extension Act of 2013. In July of last year, the Obama administration's Department of Health and Human Services issued an information memorandum saying they would accept and approve applications from States seeking to waive the requirement that 50 percent of their welfare caseload be engaged in or preparing for work. This work requirement was a critical part of the 1996 welfare reforms that created the current Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, cash welfare program. Those reforms also led to more work, more earnings, less welfare dependence, and less poverty among families headed by low-income single mothers. Yet, without any thought of consulting Congress, as is required by law, the administration saw fit to unilaterally waive the work requirements and risk the progress that has been made in the last 16 years. And that's why we are considering this legislation here on the floor today. Simply put, this bill would block waivers, so HHS can't allow States to bypass the work requirements and financial penalties Congress put in place in 1996 for failing to engage welfare recipients in work. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will argue that Republicans are making a big deal out of nothing and that we're responding to a problem that doesn't exist since no States have applied for waivers--yet. But the American people have made their views clear. A survey last year revealed 83 percent support a work requirement as a condition for receiving welfare. Clearly, the best way out of poverty is a job, and it's critical that our laws both foster job creation as well as ensure welfare is always a pathway to work. That's what this legislation is about: ensuring that work and other productive activities remain a central part of the TANF cash welfare program, as the 1996 reforms intended. Setting aside the success of the work requirement in moving low- income individuals from welfare to work and the overwhelming support the policy enjoys among the American people, current law prohibits the administration from waiving the welfare work requirement. Waivers of certain State report requirements are permitted under the TANF program, but the work requirement may not be waived. A summary of the 1996 reforms prepared by Ways and Means Committee staff immediately following the law's enactment could not be clearer on this point. It plainly states: Waivers granted after the date of enactment may not override provisions of the TANF law that concern mandatory work requirements. As a Member of Congress who helped write the welfare reform law and served as a conferee on the bill, the statement in this report actually captures the correct intent of Congress. Historical precedent is not on the Obama administration's side, either. No prior administration, Republican or Democrat, has ever attempted to waive the work requirements in the 16 years between the law's enactment and the July 2012 information memorandum. Following the July 2012 action, the Government Accountability Office looked into this and ``did not find any evidence that HHS stated it has authority to issue waivers related to TANF work requirements.'' In short, no administration attempted to waive the work requirements because they knew it was illegal to do so. Finally, if we need more evidence that, despite their promises to the contrary, the administration's policy would weaken the work requirement, we need look no further than the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. This legislation saves $61 million over 10 years because CBO recognizes the administration's waivers will allow some States that may otherwise pay penalties for failing to meet the work requirement to avoid such penalties through a waiver. In addition to preventing the administration from waiving the work requirement, the legislation before us extends the TANF program's authorization at current funding levels through the remainder of this calendar year. The TANF program provides helpful assistance to individuals most in need of a safety net as they look and prepare for work. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time. Committee on Education and the Workforce, Washington, DC, March 8, 2013. Hon. Dave Camp, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to confirm our mutual understanding with respect to the consideration of H.R. 890, the Preserving Work Requirements for Welfare Programs Act of 2013. Thank you for consulting with the Committee on Education and the Workforce with regard to H.R. 890 on those matters within the committee's jurisdiction. In the interest of expediting the House's consideration of H.R. 890, the Committee on Education and the Workforce will forgo further consideration on this bill. However, I do so with the understanding that this procedural route will not be construed to prejudice the committee's jurisdictional interest and prerogatives on this bill or any other similar legislation and will not be considered as precedent for consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to my committee in the future. I respectfully request your support for the appointment of outside conferees from the Committee on Education and the Workforce should this bill or a similar bill be considered in a conference with the Senate. I also request that you include our exchange of letters on this matter in the Congressional Record during consideration of this bill on the House floor. Thank you for your attention to these matters. Sincerely, John Kline, Chairman.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I would just say that waiving the work requirement isn't going to get more people into work. With that, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed).

Mr. CAMP. I would just say, Mr. Speaker, for 5 seconds that in the Statement of Administration Policy we got yesterday, they say that no States formally applied for State waivers. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Human Resources Subcommittee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert).

Mr. CAMP. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Griffin).

Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Southerland), a cosponsor of the underlying bill.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Renacci), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. CAMP. At this time I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. Roe.

Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just say--as other speakers have mentioned--the 1996 welfare reform law has been tremendously successful. It has lowered welfare roles, it has lifted people out of poverty, it has reduced poverty for single mothers, and reduced poverty for children. And before that, before we had the 1996 welfare reform law, whether times were good or bad, welfare rolls only increased. Clearly, the welfare reform law has been successful. Frankly, we need to protect the law from this administration, because what this administration wants to do is undermine the work requirement in welfare. And what are we talking about here? The work requirement is really that only half of the welfare caseload has to be in work. That means for the other half, States have ultimate flexibility to determine how to move those people into job readiness and to work. For the half of the people that need to be in some form of work requirement there are 12 definitions of what is work in the law. Let me just list those off: Subsidized private employment, subsidized government employment, job search, community service. You can be in community service and that qualifies for work. Work experience, on-the-job training. If you're getting training related to your job, that counts as work. Vocational education. So you can be training in a vocational discipline and still have that qualify for work. Caring for the child of a TANF recipient in community service. So you can care for somebody else's child and that counts as work. And we're only talking about half of the welfare caseload. Job skills training, education related to employment, completion of secondary school. That all counts as work. Let's look at the Statement of Administration Policy. They say that no States have formally applied for waivers. No States are asking for this because they already have tremendous flexibility. But let me just say, if you're going to change the law--and what this administration is trying to do is change the law--you don't just send a letter, or what they're calling an information memorandum. What is that? Frankly, when the Government Accountability Office looked at this, they said they can't do business this way. This is a rule. And to follow a rule they need to follow the Congressional Review Act, they need to follow the law. And the law says they need to notify Congress, which they did not do. This is something they did on their own. So on many levels we need to turn this around. They've entered into a gray murky area that we really don't know what they're doing, whether it's legal or not, whether States will have authority to do this or not. Given that the law was explicit that there is no waiver of this work requirement, given that this work requirement was a condition for States getting a cash payment, a block sum amount in welfare, and given the flexibility that was written into the law, it's very important that we make this clear. Frankly, I think my friends on the other side should be joining Republicans in protecting the constitutional authority of the Congress to make the laws, not the bureaucrats at the Department of Health and Human Services. So I would ask my friends, vote for this bill, support the work requirement, support the ability of the Congress to make the laws under the Constitution of the United States. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. CAMP. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, this is one of the most unnecessary and meaningless motions to recommit I've seen in my time in Congress. The definition of who's eligible for TANF is left to the States. So the idea that somehow this motion to recommit singles out unemployed parents, TANF applies to unemployed parents. TANF applies to people that are veterans. TANF applies to people who are grandparents. It's about getting the unemployed jobs. So I have to say, I'm puzzled by this. It seems totally political and completely unnecessary. None of these groups mentioned in this motion to recommit are excluded from receiving TANF benefits. What this is about is not weakening the work requirement. I understand why the administration may want to weaken the work requirement since their record on job creation is so atrocious. But the fact is that States have tremendous flexibility here. Half of the caseload doesn't have to meet the work requirement. They can be engaging in whatever activity or no activity the State determines. The other half has 12 different categories, including vocational training and other job readiness activities, that will qualify as work. This is a straight extension of current law. This is an extension of current law that has proven extremely successful. Let's not weaken the requirement. Let's extend the welfare program, the TANF program, at current levels, and let's get people back to work. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Margaret Heintz, a long time member of the Governing Board of EightCAP, Inc. Margret recently retired from her position at the age of 93--leaving as a highly respected and beloved figure within the community. Her many years of involvement with EightCAP provided a vast array of community services to many in-need individuals contributing to programs like Head Start, and Michigan Works, as well as assisting as a senior companion, promoting charter school funding, and providing weatherization programs for low-income home renters. Margaret has served on the EightCAP board for over 30 years, providing thorough oversight and a vast array of experience to the agency's many causes. During her tenure, she assisted in overseeing more than $330,000,000 in State, Local, and Federal funding to state programs. These programs provided beneficial services to Ionia, Montcalm, Gratiot, and Isabella counties. Margaret recently stated that her reason for retirement was to attend more to her large family of 8 children, 28 grandchildren, and 38 great-grandchildren--further exemplifying her everlasting desire to give to others. On a personal level, Margaret has been a friend and an acquaintance of mine for over 50 years. On behalf of the Fourth District of Michigan, I congratulate Margaret Heintz upon her retirement and thank her for her service to the people of Michigan.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 39, I call up the bill (H.R. 325) to ensure the complete and timely payment of the obligations of the United States Government until May 19, 2013, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. 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 H.R. 325.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 325, the No Budget, No Pay Act of 2013. This legislation directs Members of the House and Senate to adopt a budget resolution by April 15, 2013. If either body does not adopt a budget resolution by April 15, 2013, Members of that body will have their pay withheld until they pass a budget. It's simple: no budget, no pay. The American people understand that they don't get paid if they don't do their job, and neither should Members of Congress. In addition, to ensure the complete and timely payment of the obligations of the U.S. Government, this legislation allows Treasury to issue debt between the date of enactment and May 18, 2013. However, Treasury may only issue enough debt necessary to pay bills coming due before May 18. I want to be perfectly clear on this point: this bill does not allow Treasury to run up an unlimited amount of debt between now and May 18. The debt authorized under this bill must be tied to bills coming due during that timeframe. Further, on May 19, a new debt limit is automatically established. So that's what this bill does. The larger question is, why are we even talking about the debt and debt limit? Our Nation's debt is not just some abstract number. It has a direct impact on American families. During the President's fiscal commission, the Simpson-Bowles Commission, we heard nonpartisan testimony that when the debt is this large in comparison to the economy, it costs the country the equivalent of about 1 million jobs. Think about that. If Washington got its debt and spending under control, then 1 million more Americans would be working today. And if that wasn't sobering enough, Fitch Ratings recently warned that the failure to come up with a plan for reducing our debt would likely still result in a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. A lower credit rating is sure to mean higher interest rates. That means higher credit card payments, higher car payments, higher student loans, and certainly higher mortgage payments. Despite these nonpartisan warnings, the Democrat-controlled Senate has not produced a budget in more than 1,300 days. That's 4 years without a budget. How can we begin to get our debt under control when Democrats won't even produce a budget? This bill is the first step in forcing Democrats to put forward a budget so we can start holding Washington accountable for its out-of-control spending. Every day, American families have to make decisions about their household finances. They have to adjust their spending to cover a whole host of things: groceries, student loan payments, braces for children, and a replacement for that aging refrigerator. Of course, they can't buy everything they want. Every day, they have to make tough choices. It's time for Congress--the House and the Senate--to make some tough choices. To be honest, Mr. Speaker, this isn't a tough choice where I come from. Where I grew up, if you didn't do your job, you didn't get paid. It's time for Congress to start living with the same facts of life everyone else in America has to live with. I support the No Budget, No Pay Act because it brings back a bit of accountability and common sense to Washington. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP. I yield myself 15 seconds just to say that Standard & Poor's downgraded the U.S. credit rating on August 5, after the Budget Control Act was passed. In doing so: The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee and chairman of the House Budget Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan). (Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CAMP. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just say that we've already increased the debt limit over $5 trillion in the Obama administration. That's an almost 50 percent increase in the debt limit. Let me also just say that we've had several temporary short-term increases in the debt limit before there's been a more permanent longer-term increase--in 1987, in 1990, and 1996. So it is not unprecedented, the action that we're going to be taking today. With that, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Reichert).

Mr. CAMP. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. CAMP. I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed).

Mr. CAMP. I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).