Dave Camp

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Chairman Paul F. Oreffice of The Dow Chemical Company for his distinguished life and career as he nears his 85th birthday. Mr. Oreffice is a true American success story, having immigrated to the United States from Venice when he was 12 years old to later becoming the CEO of one of the world's largest and most recognized corporations. Paul joined The Dow Chemical Company in 1953, after graduating from Purdue University and serving two years in the U.S. Army during the Korean War. He maintained a variety of international assignments early in his career before being named President and Chief Executive Officer in 1978. His adept business skills while head of the company helped him become the first person to receive both the Palladium medal and the Chemical Industry medal in the late 1980s. He was named Chairman of the Board in 1986, and served in that position until his retirement in 1992. Throughout his tenure, The Dow Chemical Company remained one of the largest and most well-respected manufacturing companies in the world. It is because of the determination and success of individuals like Paul that America remains the land of opportunity for folks wishing to achieve great things through hard work and ingenuity. On behalf of the Fourth Congressional District, I congratulate Paul for his remarkable life and career.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Petty Officer Gregory Gaylor, an Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Technician with the United States Navy. Petty Officer Gaylor is being honored by the Navy at the USO annual gala this November as the 2012 USO Sailor of the Year. He is being recognized for the steadfast determination and unwavering courage he displayed in saving the lives of his fellow soldiers and furthering the U.S. mission in Afghanistan. Perhaps the most notable aspect of Petty Officer Gaylor's service came when he expertly led a three man EOD team during combat operations in Afghanistan from December 2011 to June 2012, in which he was responsible for locating and dismantling Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), among other objectives. In April of 2012, Gaylor and his team were fired upon by four separate machine gun positions, but with little regard for his own safety he managed to clear a nearby compound of explosive hazards and help transport those wounded from the line of fire. Overall, he located and destroyed four IEDs, faced six direct fire engagements, and trained over 300 Afghan Commandos in Counter-IED tactics and basic demolition techniques, which aided in the autonomy of Afghan security forces. The courageous and selfless actions of Petty Officer Gaylor are truly commendable and indicative of the skill, professionalism and fortitude of the men and women of the United States Navy. On behalf of the Fourth Congressional District, I congratulate Petty Officer Gaylor on achieving the USO Sailor of the Year honor and thank him for his remarkable service to this great nation.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Graves).

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J.Res 188, a resolution to disapprove of the Department of Health and Human Services rule waiving the work requirements in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, cash welfare program. The requirement that 50 percent of a State's welfare caseload work, or prepare for work, was a central part of the bipartisan 1996 welfare reforms signed into law by President Clinton. Those reforms were overwhelmingly successful in reducing welfare dependency and poverty while increasing work and earnings. Unfortunately, President Obama said that he would have opposed such reforms had he been in Congress at that time. And so on July 12 of this year the Obama administration issued an ``information memorandum'' to waive the welfare work requirements in a blatant end-run around the current Congress. The administration's action is unlawful on two fronts. First, the welfare work requirements are contained in a section of the Social Security Act, section 407, that may not be waived according to that law. Second, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office determined that the administration's ``information memorandum'' qualifies as a rule and therefore should have been officially submitted to the Congress for review before being issued. It was not. Just yesterday, GAO released another report that found that HHS has never before issued any TANF waivers in the history of the program, including involving the TANF work requirements. More importantly, they found that when previous HHS Secretaries were asked about the possibility of waiving work requirements, HHS responded that ``the Department does not have authority to waive any of these provisions.'' That was the conclusion of the Clinton administration, the Bush administration, and at least, to date, the Obama administration. When it comes to welfare work requirements, I guess we can say President Obama was for them before he was against them. Unfortunately, for the President, the American people do not agree with his original and most recent position on this issue. A recent survey shows that 83 percent support a work requirement as a condition for receiving welfare. And for good reason. The work requirement and other 1996 reforms are responsible for increasing employment of single mothers by 15 percent from 1996 to 2000, and decreasing welfare caseloads by 57 percent over the last decade-and-a-half. But inexplicably, these results don't sit well with the Obama administration. They refuse to acknowledge their mistake and rescind their memorandum. That's why we've brought this resolution to the floor today. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to preserve the successful welfare work requirements and join me in passing this resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 788, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 118) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Office of Family Assistance of the Administration for Children and Families of the Department of Health and Human Services relating to waiver and expenditure authority under section 1115 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1315) with respect to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, 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.J. Res. 118.

Mr. CAMP. I yield myself 30 seconds only because the gentleman referred to me. I will just say that the issue that he refers to was actually to extend the work requirements to other programs, which actually would have increased the work requirements. Let me just say, I'm glad my friend brought up the fact checkers, because The Washington Post fact checker calls the Democrats' claims of increasing work ``a stretch,'' stating that it is not clear that ``the net result is that more people on welfare will end up working,'' and actually gave the ``eloquent speech'' by President Clinton my friend referenced two Pinocchios for saying that it would increase work by 20 percent. At this time I would yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen), a 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 a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. When the bipartisan welfare reform bill was passed in 1996 and ultimately signed by President Clinton, the work requirement was a key part of that welfare bill. And the work requirement is this: that at least 50 percent of the caseload has to be engaged in work. And the principle was that, if you're able-bodied, you ought to be working if you're going to be receiving Federal benefits. Now, the statute named 12 different things that qualify as work. Most of us think of work as going actually to employment, but there are 12 things. And a couple of them, let me just say, such as job search and job readiness actually, under current law, qualify for work. Vocational training and education qualifies for work as long as it doesn't exceed 1 year. Also put into the statute was a clear statement that the work requirement could not be waived, because changing the paradigm on welfare was absolutely critical. And as I said in my opening statement, it has been important to reducing welfare caseloads, to bringing people to independence, to reducing child poverty. Those were all critical goals that have been met. Let me read what Dr. Haskins, the Staff Director of the Ways and Means Committee--and I was on the Ways and Means Committee; I helped write the welfare bill; I was on the conference committee--said at that time, in terms of waivers. ``Waivers''--and this is the committee report. Waivers granted after the date of enactment may not override provisions of the TANF law that concern mandatory work requirements. That's because this was such an important part of the change that we were trying to bring to welfare. And it's been very successful, some might say the most successful social change that has occurred. So every administration since then, whether it was the Clinton administration or the Bush administration or even at the beginning of the Obama administration, recognized that work requirements could not be waived. There is plain language in the statute in section 407 that says the work requirement cannot be waived. Then here comes the Obama administration, through an information memorandum, that now both the GAO and the Congressional Research Service say is really a rule; and I would like to place in the Record both the letter of September 4 and the September 12 Congressional Research Service memorandum, both which say that the administration action was a rule. The full CRS report I am inserting in the Record is available online at http://waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/evaluating_whether_the _tanf_information_memorandum_is_a_rule_under_the_cra_redacted_ 5.pdf Now comes the administration saying, Well, we don't have to go to Congress to change the law. Even though Congress voted on this in a bipartisan way and this was a critical piece of major legislation, we're just going to send in an information memorandum and have unelected bureaucrats change the law of the land. People who sort of referee things around here, like the GAO and CRS, said, No. Hold it. Stop. This is not an information memorandum. This is a rule. If an administration wants to promulgate a rule, there are certain criteria that they have to follow. The reason is that unelected people are making law. So, in order to do that, they have to inform the Congress, and they have to do certain things, none of which the administration did. Let me read a piece of this information memorandum: Projects that test systematically extending the period in which vocational education training or job search-readiness programs count toward participation rates, either generally or for particular subgroups, such as an extended training period. Under the law I just said, vocational training can only last a year. This information memorandum reads you can be in training for longer than a year. Number one, that is weakening the work requirement. Number two, they did not follow the law by notifying the Congress. They need to go back, and they need to issue a rule. Frankly, if this is that important to them, come engage the Congress. There has been no consultation. There has not been one staff person from HHS who has come up and had an opportunity to brief any of us on this. I am willing to work with the administration. I'd like to hear their ideas. I'd like to have that opportunity to do so. I think it is regrettable that we've gotten to this point, but we've gotten to this point because there has been a mistake. They made a mistake, and they need to withdraw that. I urge that we support the resolution. This is too important to have unelected bureaucrats make the law of the land. I yield back the balance of my time. Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC, September 4, 2012. Hon. Orrin Hatch, Ranking Member, Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate. Hon. Dave Camp, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives. By letter of July 31, 2012, you asked whether an Information Memorandum issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on July 12, 2012 concerning the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program constitutes a rule for the purposes of the Congressional Review Act (CRA). The CRA is intended to keep Congress informed of the rulemaking activities of federal agencies and provides that before a rule can take effect, the agency must submit the rule to each House of Congress and the Comptroller Genera1. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the July 12, 2012 Information Memorandum is a rule under the CRA. Therefore, it must be submitted to Congress and the Comptroller General before taking effect.

Mr. CAMP. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP. I have no further speakers. I believe I have the right to close. I'm prepared to close when the gentleman is through with his speakers.

Mr. CAMP. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. CAMP. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I can understand why my friends on the other side are talking about everything but the bill before us. And that's because this administration's record on the deficit is so dismal. We're going on our fourth year of trillion-dollar deficits. The deficit under their watch is now $16 trillion. You know, what we really need to do is grow this economy and create jobs, and we know that their tax increases that they love so much would cost us 700,000 jobs. Look at this: 43 months of unemployment of 8 percent. That's why they want to talk about everything but this. They've said the question is how to reduce the deficit. The fact of the matter is this bill does reduce the deficit, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, by $135 million. Now, they might not think that's much, but to most Americans, every million dollars counts. So, I think it's important that we move forward on this, that we grow our economy, that we grow our economy to create jobs. And we know that taxes on small businesses that they propose cost us jobs. So let's pass this bill. It's a step forward. It allows those Americans--we all hear it as we go around the country--people say, ``I'd like to give more. How do I do it?'' This makes it easier, it makes it straightforward, and actually is scored as reducing the deficit. Let's vote to make a step for reducing the deficit. We have bigger issues we need to deal with. We're going to deal with those. That's why this committee, Ways and Means, has been focused on tax reform this year, more than 20 hearings. I hope we can move forward on fundamental tax reform. Let's vote for this bill. Let's give those Americans who want to be more generous, who want to check a box and contribute more specifically to deficit reduction, a very transparent, straightforward, and easy way to do that. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I advise my colleague that I am prepared to close.

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 the subject of the bill under consideration.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6410, a bill to provide a simple way for individuals to voluntarily donate funds to pay down the national debt. Under current law, you can contribute to debt reduction, but like all things with the IRS, it isn't easy. If you dig deep into the 189 pages of instructions that accompany the 1040, you'll find, on page 88, the following: Do not add your gift to reduce debt held by the public to any tax you may owe. To contribute to deficit reduction, one must send a separate check or money order to the Bureau of Public Debt, or they can go online at the Web site and use a credit card. Warren Buffett, who says he wants to pay more in taxes to pay down our debt, can't actually do so when filing his taxes. H.R. 6410, however, gives Mr. Buffett and generous Americans like him a simple, easy way to help pay down our debt. This legislation adds to appropriate tax forms a box with the captions, and I am quoting: By checking here, I signify that in addition to my tax liability (if any), I would like to donate the included payment to be used exclusively for the purpose of paying down the national debt. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that H.R. 6410 reduces the public debt by $135 million over 10 years. It makes it easy for those who want to donate money to the Treasury for debt reduction to voluntarily do so without raising taxes on entrepreneurs and job creators. If Warren Buffett wants to give, then H.R. 6410 allows him to give to his heart's content, and the payments will go directly to an account at the Treasury dedicated exclusively to debt reduction. Mr. Speaker, it's not enough to speak in political platitudes about what we can do to reduce our debt. Now you can put your money where your mouth is. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in passing this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP. I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6410) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for taxpayers making donations with their returns of income tax to the Federal Government to pay down the public debt.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt).

Mr. CAMP. Absolutely, there will be a full and robust discussion because, as I said, there will be amendments in committee, and there will be an opportunity for Members to weigh in. And, obviously, this will be a national debate. So this is about getting us on that path and moving forward. Because as we know, the alternative is, do we have taxes go up and cost us 700,000 jobs, or do we try to get us on a path of reform that will create the million jobs that we need to get this country moving again? So absolutely.

Mr. CAMP. I do, Mr. Woodall. I envision with this framework an open debate, as I've said on the floor, one that will entertain a variety of proposals and one that will include amendments so that we can move forward as a Congress on enacting comprehensive and bipartisan reform.

Mr. CAMP. At this time, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).