75–947 

112TH CONGRESS REPT. 112–677 " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session Part 2 

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 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2012.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. KLINE, from the Committee on Education and the Workforce, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY VIEWS 

[To accompany H.J. Res. 118] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Education and the Workforce, to whom was 

referred 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, having considered the same, report favorably thereon 

without amendment and recommend that the joint resolution do 

pass. 

PURPOSE

House Joint Resolution 118, as ordered reported by the Committee on Education and the Workforce and the Committee on 

Ways and Means on September 13, 2012, expresses congressional 

disapproval of the July 2012 U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS) rule proposing to allow states to waive 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

work requirements under the Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families (TANF) program. The resolution, authorized under the 

Congressional Review Act (CRA), states that Congress disapproves 

of the rule and that the rule ‘‘shall have no force or effect.’’ 

COMMITTEE ACTION

The Committee on Education and the Workforce strongly supports maintaining and strengthening the 1996 welfare reform law, 

which has been successful in moving millions of low-income families off of government dependence and into work. The congressional 

resolution of disapproval is necessary to rein in the Obama administration’s abuse of power and protect reforms that have effectively 

served millions of needy families. 

110th Congress 

The committee did not consider changes to the work requirements authorized under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program. 

111th Congress 

The committee did not consider changes to the work requirements authorized under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program. 

112th Congress 

On September 11, 2012, Reps. John Kline (R–MN), Dave Camp 

(R–MI), and Jim Jordan (R–OH) introduced House Joint Resolution 

118, to provide 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. 

On September 13, 2012, the Committee on Education and the 

Workforce considered H.J. Res. 118 in legislative session and reported the resolution favorably by a vote of 22 to 16. 

SUMMARY

House Joint Resolution 118, a joint resolution under the Congressional Review Act disapproving of the July 12, 2012 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Information Memorandum (Transmittal No. TANF–ACF–IM–2012–03), 

• expresses Congress’s disapproval of the Obama administration’s regulatory effort to weaken welfare reform; 

• prevents the administration from implementing its plan to 

waive the work requirements of the 1996 welfare reform law; 

and 

• preserves critical reforms that have helped lift millions of 

American families out of poverty. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

1Public Law 104–193. 

COMMITTEE VIEWS

Introduction 

In 1996, the Republican-led Congress passed, and President Bill 

Clinton signed into law, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act 1, better known as the welfare reform law of 1996. 

The reforms offered new flexibility to states in designing their welfare programs in exchange for fixed federal funds and a simple 

promise that welfare recipients engage in work and related activities. This important idea—that work should be an important part 

of the nation’s social programs—has been an unqualified success, 

leading to increased work and earnings, along with record declines 

in poverty and government dependence, for low-income families. 

Under the old system, approximately 5 million families were on 

welfare, many for as long as 13 years. Due to a lack of focus on 

obtaining work, the failed welfare policies of the past left families 

trapped in a cycle of dependency and poverty. 

Despite moving millions of Americans off government dependency and into a job, welfare reform is now being undermined 

through a regulatory effort by the Obama administration. Under 

the guise of state flexibility, the U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services announced it would allow states to seek a waiver 

from the work requirements critical to the success of welfare reform. Current law is clear that the work requirements cannot be 

waived, yet the administration is attempting to do so through an 

end run around Congress that could unilaterally weaken welfare 

reform. 

The House Committee on Education and the Workforce strongly 

believes H.J. Res. 118 is needed to ensure the work requirements 

under the 1996 welfare reform law are not undermined by the administration’s reckless waiver policy. This important action guarantees the work requirements defined in law continue to be effective 

in ensuring welfare recipients engage in the work and work-related 

activities they need to increase their earnings, leave welfare, and 

support themselves and their families. 

The importance and effects of welfare reform 

In 1996, Congress approved the historic welfare reform law, fundamentally transforming the federal government’s vision for assisting low-income individuals and families. The law centered on adding a workforce component to the main public assistance program, 

believing it would encourage employment among the poor, end dependency on government assistance, and reduce long-term intergenerational poverty. While most House Democrats opposed the 

1996 welfare reform (in fact, most House Democrats have opposed 

all nine attempts by Congress to institute or strengthen welfare’s 

work requirements over the last 16 years), it was signed into law 

by President Bill Clinton: 

I made my principles for real welfare reform very clear 

from the beginning. First and foremost, it should be about 

moving people from welfare to work (President Bill Clinton 

announcing welfare reform legislation, July 31, 1996). 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

2 42 U.S.C. 601–619. 

3GAO–07–1096, One-Stop System Infrastructure Continues to Evolve, but Labor Should Take 

Action to Require All Employment Service Offices Are Part of the System, September 4, 2007. 4 U.S. Department of Health and Human services, Monthly Number of Families Receiving 

Cash Welfare: 1959–2011. 

The law created the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

(TANF) block grant 2, which provides states with a set amount of 

federal funding and flexibility to design and carry out their social 

safety net program. TANF replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) entitlement program, created in 1935, 

which contained few restrictions on the availability of cash support 

to low-income families. 

Though TANF operates as a block grant, a number of important 

requirements are attached to states’ use of funds, particularly for 

families receiving ‘‘assistance’’ (largely defined as cash benefits). 

Under the law, states must demonstrate at least 50 percent of all 

families and 90 percent of all two-parent families are engaged in 

work-related activities, including: (1) unsubsidized employment; (2) 

subsidized private sector employment; (3) subsidized public sector 

employment; (4) work experience if sufficient private sector employment is not available; (5) on-the-job training; (6) job search and job 

readiness assistance (not to exceed six weeks, or 12 weeks if the 

participant lives in a state in which the unemployment rate is at 

least 50 percent greater than the national average); (7) community 

service programs; (8) vocational educational training (not to exceed 

12 months with respect to any individual); (9) job skills training directly related to employment; (10) education directly related to employment for a recipient who has not received a high school diploma or a certificate of high school equivalency; (11) satisfactory 

attendance at secondary school or in a course of study leading to 

a certificate of general equivalence, in the case of a recipient who 

has not completed secondary school or received a certificate; and 

(12) the provision of child care services to an individual who is participating in a community service program. The law also limits how 

long a family with an adult can receive assistance to five years. 

While state caseload reductions differ by state, welfare reform is 

considered an unqualified success. Prior to 1996, the main goal of 

state- and county-led welfare programs was to provide cash assistance. Now, most states have radically changed their welfare programs to emphasize work. More than 30 states reported that TANF 

operations were included in One-Stop Career Centers authorized 

under the Workforce Investment Act, and 16 states reported that 

TANF funds were used as one of the main sources to operate their 

workforce investment programs.3 Caseloads have declined by 65 

percent nationwide from their all-time high of 5.1 million families 

in 1994 to 1.8 million families in December 2011. The total number 

of families receiving assistance is now lower than at any time since 

1970.4

Most importantly, the law has been successful in helping end the 

cycle of dependency. Before reform, the average length of stay on 

welfare for recipients was 13 years. Even though TANF now has 

a five-year time limit, only 1.7 percent of the 1.7 million case closings in FY 2009 were due to a family reaching the federal time 

limit. More than two million mothers entered the workforce, earnings for female headed families increased while their income from 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

5 Brooks, Arthur C. ‘‘Obama and ‘Earning Your Success’: The work mandate was the most successful welfare reform in 60 years. Ending it is a tragedy’’ Wall Street Journal August 6, 2012. 6 Rasmussen Reports, ‘‘83% Favor Work Requirement for Welfare Recipients’’ (http:// 

www.rasmussenreports.com/public—content/business/jobs_employment/july_2012/ 

83_favor_work_requirement_for_welfare_recipients) July 18, 2012. 7 42 U.S.C. 1315. 

8 42 U.S.C. 602. 

9 42 U.S.C. 607. 

welfare payments fell, and child poverty declined every year between 1993 and 2000. 

Many Democrats and advocates have argued the nation’s economic prosperity should be credited with the significant reductions 

in state caseloads from 1996 to 2008, the increase in work, and the 

reduction in poverty. However, under the former law, caseloads remained constant or increased during times of economic expansion. 

In addition, the current national caseload has increased only slightly during the most recent recession and never approached 1994 levels. This clearly demonstrates the welfare reform law passed by Republicans has worked and continues to work for low-income families and the nation’s taxpayers. Arthur C. Brooks, president of the 

American Enterprise Institute, summarized the national and historic impact of the 1996 welfare reform law: 

The 1996 law was arguably the most successful policy 

change to help low-income Americans in the past 60 years. 

Welfare policies of the 1960s led generations of families to 

languish on the government dole at subsistence levels, 

never gaining the skills to work and with little hope to 

rise. It took more than a decade to get Congress to reverse 

course. But it was worth the effort.5

According to a recent survey, more than 80 percent of the American people continue to support the work requirements at the heart 

of welfare reform,6 which have raised earnings, lowered poverty, 

and reduced government dependence. H.J. Res. 118 ensures this 

important progress is not undermined by the current administration. 

Recent actions to undermine welfare reform 

On July 12, 2012, the U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services’ (HHS) Administration for Children and Families issued 

an Information Memorandum announcing its willingness to waive 

certain federal work participation standards of TANF to permit 

states to test ‘‘alternative and innovative strategies, policies, and 

procedures that are designed to improve employment outcomes for 

needy families.’’ In short, the new waiver scheme would permit 

states to have welfare-to-work initiatives assessed using measures 

other than work participation rates. 

HHS is using the limited authority the secretary is granted 

under section 1115 of the Social Security Act 7 (SSA) to limit state 

plan reporting requirements included in section 402 of the law 8 to 

waive the TANF mandatory work requirement under section 407 of 

the SSA,9 a highly questionable proposition and a clear violation of 

congressional intent. Similar to most federal laws, TANF requires 

states to submit a plan to receive federal funds. Included within 

this plan is an outline of the family assistance program the state 

intends to operate, which includes a requirement that it ensure 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

10 National Review Online, ‘‘HHS Can’t Waive Workfare,’’ August 9, 2012. 11 42 U.S.C. 1315. 12Press release entitled, ‘‘Camp, Hatch Blast HHS Move to Undermine Work Requirements 

for Welfare Recipients and Question HHS’ Legal Authority.’’ For more information see: http:// 

waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/7.12.12_tanf_work_requirements_letter.pdf. 13 Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives ‘‘Summary of Welfare Reforms Made By Public Law 104–193 The Personal Responsibility And Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act And Associated Legislation’’ November 6, 1996, page 23. 

‘‘parents and caretakers receiving assistance under the program engage in work activities’’ in accordance with the work participation 

standards. The administration is using this benign reference in the 

state plan to justify its recent action. 

As Robert Rector, one of the authors of the 1996 bill, and Andrew 

Grossman, an expert in social welfare policy, have stated: 

There is absolutely no indication, in the text of the 1996 

welfare reform or elsewhere, that Congress intended to 

allow the waiver of the centerpiece provision: work requirements. To waive those requirements is to violate the 

‘‘workfare’’ law, the Constitution’s vesting of legislative 

power in the Congress, and the president’s fundamental 

duty to faithfully carry out all the laws.10

Since TANF was authorized more than 16 years ago, no HHS 

Secretary—Republican or Democratic—has attempted to assert his 

or her authority to waive the mandatory work requirements under 

the law. It is clear the secretary does not have authority to waive 

the work requirements included in section 407. Section 1115 of the 

SSA, authorizing limited demonstration projects, clearly states: 

The Secretary may waive compliance with any of the requirements of section 2, 402, 454, 1002, 1402, 1602, or 

1902, as the case may be, to the extent and for the period 

he finds necessary to enable such State or States to carry 

out such project. . .11

The language does not authorize the secretary to waive section 

407. In a letter dated July 12, 2012 to HHS Secretary Kathleen 

Sebelius, House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp wrote, 

‘‘Simply put, if Congress had intended to allow waivers of TANF 

work requirements, it would have said so in the statute. Instead, 

Congress did the opposite and explicitly prohibited waivers to section 407 work requirements, among other sections of the Social Security Act.’’ 12

Indeed, congressional intent is unambiguous. In the House Ways 

and Means Committee Report from November 1996, committee 

members state clearly, ‘‘Waivers granted after the date of enactment may not override provisions of the TANF law that concern 

mandatory work requirements.’’ 13

Even governors from across the country have expressed significant concerns about HHS’ July memorandum announcing states 

could waive the work requirements at the heart of the 1996 welfare 

reform law. Iowa Governor Terry Branstad recently stated in a letter to the secretary: 

This weakening of work requirements for TANF, veiled 

as flexibility for states, harms the ability of states to empower citizens and undermines the successful TANF reforms that have been in place since 1996. In this case, I 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 

14Letter entitled, ‘‘Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Information Memorandum Constitutes Rule for the Purposes of the Congressional Review Act.’’ For more information, see: 

http://www.gao.gov/assets/650/647778.pdf. 

believe your Department has confused flexibility for states 

with a selection of bad policy choices. 

Kansas Governor Sam Brownback also weighed in, stating: 

The Department’s recent informational memorandum released on July 12th giving states the ability to opt-out of 

the very work requirements which have proven successful 

over the past 15 years is alarming . . . The work requirement was the centerpiece of the 1996 reform law and intentionally set-aside by Congress so as not to be among 

those items that are waiver eligible. 

As the lack of hearings and committee action during the 110th, 

111th, and 112th Congresses authorizing changes to TANF’s work 

requirements demonstrates, HHS’ guidance was not issued in response to any change in TANF law, nor does it follow up on any 

proposal from the Obama administration that seeks to make policy 

changes to TANF through the regular legislative process. Instead, 

the unprecedented policy announcement by the Obama administration simply declares—despite specific statutory provisions to the 

contrary—states may waive work requirements at the heart of the 

nation’s successful welfare reform program. 

Protecting welfare reform and holding the administration accountable 

Under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), the Comptroller 

General of the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is responsible for reviewing all rules in order to determine whether relevant federal agencies have complied with federal requirements. As 

part of these duties, he or she determines what constitutes a rule 

for the purposes of the CRA. In this case, HHS did not submit the 

Information Memorandum as a rule to Congress nor GAO, arguing 

that the TANF waiver proposal does not constitute an official rule. 

At the behest of House Ways and Means Committee Chairman 

Camp and Senator Orrin Hatch, GAO released an analysis of the 

Information Memorandum.14 While HHS stated the memorandum 

did not fit into the definition of a rule, GAO concluded the Information Memorandum is a ‘‘statement of general applicability and future effect, designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or 

policy with regard to TANF’’ and, therefore, concluded ‘‘the July 12, 

2012 Information Memorandum is a rule under the CRA.’’ As 

Chairman John Kline stated in his opening remarks during the 

committee’s markup of H.J. Res. 118: 

The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office has 

confirmed the administration’s welfare waiver plan is a 

rule and Congress has the right to review it. If a president 

runs roughshod over the law, seizes power that he doesn’t 

have, and pursues policies that hurt needy families, Congress has no choice but to act. 

The committee believes congressional action, consistent with the 

law, is necessary to protect the requirements that are the heart of 

the nation’s successful efforts to promote work for welfare recipiVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:02 Sep 19, 2012 Jkt 075947 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR677P2.XXX HR677P2

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
8 

15GAO–05–821, HHS Should Exercise Oversight to Help Ensure TANF Work Participation Is 

Measured Consistently across States, August 19, 2005. 

ents. The committee notes the Obama administration, more so than 

any president or executive branch in recent memory, has demonstrated a pattern of regulatory overreach and action by executive 

fiat. Instead of working with Congress or submitting plans for the 

House and Senate to consider during the upcoming reauthorization 

process, the administration chooses to ignore the law. Rep. Judy 

Biggert summarized this fact in her remarks during the committee’s markup of H.J. Res. 118: 

Like many of my colleagues, I am concerned that this 

represents yet another example of this Administration’s 

my way or the highway’ approach to governing. We’ve seen 

it in education, immigration, health care, and labor policy, 

and now it’s happening in welfare reform. According to the 

Government Accountability Office, these waivers have no 

basis in law. And, by circumventing the authority of Congress, this Administration has lost any credibility to argue 

that this is anything more than an attempt to unwind 

years of progress in moving families from welfare to work. 

Though no states have been approved for waivers at this time, 

it is conceivable states could apply and receive approval to count 

as ‘‘work’’ many activities that have been previously rejected by 

Congress. In 2005, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

issued a report that found states counted activities such as exercise, helping a friend with household tasks and errands, and personal journaling as ‘‘work activities.’’ 15 In 2006, Congress reauthorized the TANF program as part of the Deficit Reduction Act, preventing states from continuing such practices. The administration’s 

actions would devalue work, taking us back not only to the questionable practices of the mid-2000s, but to the 1930s, 1960s, and 

1980s. 

Debunking false statements from the administration and congressional Democrats 

The committee notes the administration has stated it will only 

approve waivers relating to the work participation requirements 

that would lead to a ‘‘more effective means of meeting the work 

goals of TANF.’’ In a letter to Senator Hatch dated July 18, 2012, 

Secretary Sebelius explains HHS will only approve waivers to 

states that promise a 20 percent increase in employment exits from 

the year before. While supposedly an important part of the administration’s waiver package, this ‘20 percent promise’ does not appear anywhere in the Information Memorandum and was only 

made after congressional Republicans challenged the president’s 

controversial waiver scheme. 

The plan to ‘‘increase employment by 20 percent’’ centers on an 

old performance measure Congress explicitly excluded from the 

1996 reform because it is a misleading measure of workfare and dependency reduction. Employment exits naturally rise when more 

people are on welfare and fall when caseloads decrease. Using this 

metric is indeed a way to return us to the failed policies of the past 

that resulted in ever-increasing welfare rolls, and will undermine 

the successful efforts of the last two decades to reduce poverty and 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 

empower families. Furthermore, the 20 percent threshold is minuscule when compared to current employment exits. Currently, approximately 1.5 percent of the monthly TANF caseload leaves the 

program because of increased employment each month. Under the 

administration’s new welfare proposal, a state can be fully exempt 

from the work standards if it raises its employment exits by 0.3 

percent, to a mere 1.8 percent, equaling less than 100 people in 

some states. 

Recently, committee Democrats released a Congressional Research Service (CRS) memorandum suggesting H.R. 4297, the 

Workforce Investment Improvement Act of 2012, provides authority 

to states to waive welfare work requirements. In an effort to hide 

their opposition to welfare reform and make excuses for the administration’s recent actions to weaken the current work requirements 

contained in law, Democrat Members of the House Committee on 

Education and the Workforce criticized Republicans for supporting 

efforts to streamline effective workforce development programs. 

Under section 501 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 

(WIA), states are permitted to submit to the appropriate secretaries 

a unified plan to administer employment and training programs 

across one or more of 15 different federal programs. This unified 

plan can include coordination between WIA and TANF programs. 

Under the law, the secretary of each program approving such plan 

has the authority to deny a plan that is not consistent with the requirements of the federal statute authorizing the activity or program. 

H.R. 4297 adds a new subsection (e) to section 501 allowing 

states to consolidate funds from a specified list of programs into 

the Workforce Investment Fund ‘‘in order to reduce inefficiencies in 

the administration of federally-funded State and local employment 

and training programs’’ not to bypass the rules and regulations to 

which these programs must adhere. Some examples include: allowing TANF offices to be co-located in the One-Stop Career Centers, 

reducing the number of state directors and local personnel required 

to administer multiple federally funded employment and training 

programs (e.g. some federal laws require states to designate, hire, 

and use specific personnel), and directing federal funds to a single 

state and/or local agency. 

The language in H.R. 4297 is clear that governors can consolidate funds only to ‘‘reduce inefficiencies in the administration of 

federally-funded State and local employment and training programs.’’ Even the CRS report on which Democrats rely recognizes 

this fact, noting ‘‘the amendment [H.R. 4297] states that the purpose’’ is to reduce administrative inefficiencies. Rather than have 

multiple state departments responsible for administering job training programs, H.R. 4297 allows states to consolidate their administrative funds and administrative activities into one single place. 

Republicans have a clear record of strengthening the work requirements at the heart of the 1996 welfare reform bill. Democrats, on 

the other hand, have voted on numerous occasions to weaken 

TANF work requirements. 

Conclusion 

Welfare reform has been one of the most successful domestic policy reform initiatives of the last two decades. The Temporary AsVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:02 Sep 19, 2012 Jkt 075947 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR677P2.XXX HR677P2

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
10 

sistance for Needy Families program has reduced dependency and 

improved the lives of millions. In contrast to House Democrats, 

who have opposed the last nine attempts to support strong work 

requirements in our nation’s welfare system, the Committee on 

Education and the Workforce strongly supports House Joint Resolution 118. Congress cannot allow the Obama administration to circumvent the law and roll back critical welfare reform. 

Nearly 23 million Americans are struggling to find a full-time job 

in the Obama economy. Yet even in the midst of a persistently 

weak economy, the percentage of children in female-headed households living in poverty today is lower than before welfare reform 

was signed into law. Instead of providing support that will help unemployed Americans move into employment, the president’s executive overreach will lead to more dependency for those struggling 

the most under his failed policies. President Obama should work 

with Congress on solutions that will create jobs and expand opportunity, not circumvent Congress to advance controversial policies 

that lead to more dependence and less hope for the American people. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Congress expresses its disapproval 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 Temporary Assistance to Needy Families and prohibits it from going into effect. 

EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENTS

No amendments to H.J. Res. 118 were offered. 

APPLICATION OF LAW TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104–1 requires a description of 

the application of this resolution to the legislative branch. H.J. Res. 

118 expresses congressional disapproval of the U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services July 12, 2012 rule proposing to allow 

states to waive work requirements under the Temporary Assistance 

for Needy Families program, and states that the rule ‘‘shall have 

no force or effect.’’ 

UNFUNDED MANDATE STATEMENT

Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (as amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, P.L. 104–4) requires a statement of whether the 

provisions of the reported bill include unfunded mandates. This 

issue is addressed in the CBO letter. 

EARMARK STATEMENT

H.J. Res. 118 does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9 of 

House Rule XXI. 

ROLLCALL VOTES

Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires the Committee Report to include for each record vote 

on a motion to report the measure or matter and on any amendVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:02 Sep 19, 2012 Jkt 075947 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR677P2.XXX HR677P2

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
11 

ments offered to the measure or matter the total number of votes 

for and against and the names of the Members voting for and 

against. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
12 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 14 here HR677P2.001
13 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

In accordance with clause 3(c) of House Rule XIII, the goal of 

H.J. Res. 118 is to disapprove the rule proposing to waive welfare 

work requirements and provide that the rule shall have no force or 

effect. The Committee expects the Department of Labor to comply 

with these provisions and implement the law in accordance with 

these stated goals. 

STATEMENT OF OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE

COMMITTEE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause 2(b)(1) 

of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee’s oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the 

body of this report. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND CBO COST ESTIMATE

With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of 

the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect to requirements 

of clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the 

Committee has received the following estimate for H.J. Res. 118 

from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office: 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, September 17, 2012. 

Hon. JOHN KLINE, 

Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.J. Res. 118, a joint resolution 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. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Jonathan Morancy. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF, Director. 

Enclosure. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
14 

H.J. Res. 118—A joint resolution 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 

Summary: H.J. Res. 118 would disapprove the rule submitted by 

the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on July 12, 

2012, that modifies the waiver authority with respect to work requirements in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program (TANF). H.J. Res. 118 would invoke a legislative process established by the Congressional Review Act (Public Law 104–121) to 

disapprove the new waiver authority rule. If H.J. Res. 118 is enacted, the rule would have no force or effect. 

CBO estimates that enacting the resolution would reduce direct 

spending by $59 million over the 2013–2022 period. (The resolution 

would not affect revenues.) Pay-as-you-go procedures apply because 

enacting the legislation would affect direct spending. 

CBO does not expect that implementing the resolution would 

have any significant effect on spending subject to appropriation. 

The joint resolution contains no intergovernmental or privatesector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA). 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of House Joint Resolution 118 is shown in the following table. The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 600 (income security). 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2013– 

2017 

2013– 

2022 

CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING 

Estimated 

Budget Authority .......... ¥5 ¥6 ¥6 ¥6 ¥6 ¥6 ¥6 ¥7 ¥7 ¥7 ¥28 ¥59 

Estimated Outlays .............. ¥5 ¥6 ¥6 ¥6 ¥6 ¥6 ¥6 ¥7 ¥7 ¥7 ¥28 ¥59 

Note: Components may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

Basis of estimate: For the purposes of this estimate, CBO assumes that the legislation will be enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2013. 

On July 12, 2012, HHS released Information Memorandum No. 

TANF–ACF–IM–2012–03. That memorandum encouraged states to 

come up with new ways to meet TANF goals, and it stated that the 

Administration for Children and Families (ACF), which administers TANF, would provide states waivers through section 1115 of 

the Social Security Act so that states could implement those proposals. Enacting H.J. Res. 118 would prevent that memorandum 

from taking effect. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
15 

Under the memorandum, CBO expects that penalties for states 

that don’t meet the work requirements specified in the Social Security Act would be reduced because states would have more options 

to meet such requirements. Thus, CBO estimates that enacting the 

resolution would reduce direct spending by $59 million over the 

2012–2022 period, as some states would pay increased penalties to 

the federal government (which are recorded in the budget as an offset to direct spending) for failing to meet the work requirements. 

Pay-As-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act 

of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement procedures 

for legislation affecting direct spending or revenues. The net 

changes in outlays that are subject to those pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in the following table. 

CB0 ESTIMATE OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS FOR H.J. RES. 118 AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS ON SEPTEMBER 13, 2012 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2012– 

2017 

2012– 

2022 

NET INCREASE OR DECREASE (¥) IN THE DEFICIT 

Statutory Pay-AsYou-Go Impact ... 0 ¥5 ¥6 ¥6 ¥6 ¥6 ¥6 ¥6 ¥7 ¥7 ¥7 ¥28 ¥59 

Note: Components may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: For large entitlement programs like TANF, UMRA defines an increase in the stringency of conditions as an intergovernmental mandate if the affected governments lack authority to offset the costs of those conditions while continuing to provide required services. If H.J. Res. 118 

were enacted, CBO expects that some states would fail to meet 

work requirements of the program and would therefore be assessed 

penalties that would total $59 million over the 2013–2022 period. 

However, states would continue to be able to make changes to 

TANF, for example adjusting eligibility criteria or the structure of 

programs, to avoid or offset such costs. Because the TANF program 

affords states such broad flexibility, voiding the memorandum 

would not be considered an intergovernmental mandate as defined 

by UMRA. H.J. Res. 118 also contains no private-sector mandates. 

Previous CBO estimate: On September 17, 2012, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.J. Res. 118 as ordered reported by the 

House Committee on Ways and Means. The resolution language in 

both versions is identical and the estimated budgetary effects are 

the same. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Jonathan Morancy; Impact 

on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Lisa Ramirez-Branum; 

Impact on the Private Sector: Vi Nguyen. 

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Assistant Director for 

Budget Analysis. 

COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison of the costs 

that would be incurred in carrying out H.J. Res. 118. However, 

clause 3(d)(2)(B) of that rule provides that this requirement does 

not apply when the Committee has included in its report a timely 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
16 

submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the 

Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional 

Budget Act. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

This legislation does not make any changes in existing federal 

statute. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(17) 

iSee, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/08/ron-haskins-calls-welfare-chargesridiculous.html. iiSee, http://www.factcheck.org/2012/08/gutting-welfare-to-work. 

iiiSee, http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/07/mitt-romney/mitt-romney -says-barack-obamas-plan-abandons-tenet/. ivSee, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/policy/im-ofa/2012/im201203/im201203.html. v Congressional Resource Service Memo to Honorable Sander M. Levin, September 4, 2012, 

Authority of the Secretary of HHS to Approve Certain Demonstration Programs Pursuant to 

Section 1115 of the Social Security Act. 

MINORITY VIEWS 

H.J. Resolution 118 is a cynical political stunt during an election 

season. We are deeply disappointed that Committee Republicans 

have chosen to polarize, politicize, and obstruct instead of working 

together to provide solutions for the real problems confronting 

American families, rather than fabricated ones. 

Despite the inflammatory rhetoric, Republican claims that the 

Information Memorandum (IM) issued by the Department of 

Health and Human Services (HHS) will gut welfare reform are 

simply false. Ron Haskins, former Republican staff director of the 

Ways and Means Human Resources Subcommittee and one of the 

chief architects of the 1996 law, has concluded that the charges 

that the IM weakens the work requirements are false.i

FactCheck.org, ‘‘a nonpartisan, nonprofit consumer advocate for 

voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in 

U.S. politics,’’ a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at 

the University of Pennsylvania, has concluded these charges are 

false.ii PolitiFact, a project of the Tampa Bay Times, has concluded 

these charges are false. And the Fact Checker at the Washington 

Post has concluded these charges are false.iii When asked by Representative Andrews during the Committee mark-up of H.J. Resolution 118 to point to where in the IM work requirements are 

weakened, Republicans provided no response. 

The rhetoric behind H.J. Resolution 118 is short on facts. The 

fact is the Administration’s waiver proposal allows state-driven innovation to improve employment outcomes.iv The fact is the waiver 

proposal clearly states: ‘‘HHS will only consider approving waivers 

relating to the work participation requirements that make changes 

intended to lead to more effective means of meeting the work goals 

of TANF.’’ The fact is the waiver proposal is explicitly designed ‘‘to 

challenge states to engage in a new round of innovation that seeks 

to find more effective mechanisms for helping families succeed in 

employment’’ and requires evaluations and performance targets 

‘‘that ensure an immediate focus on measurable outcomes.’’ The 

fact is the Secretary of HHS has even further clarified that waiver 

applications must show how a state’s proposed changes would increase employment of TANF recipients by at least 20 percent. The 

fact is the legal authority for the Department of Health and 

Human Services to issue these waivers is clear.v The fact is that 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
18 

vi Roll Call Vote #170, May 16, 2002; Roll Call Vote #30, February 13, 2003; Roll Call Vote 

#601, November 18, 2005. vii Congressional Resource Service Memo to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, 

September 12, 2012, State Unified Plan Provisions in H.R. 4297. 

requests for HHS to exercise its waiver authority came from the 

states, including from Republican Governors, yet Republican cries 

of the rules being gamed must mean Governors wish to gut the 

welfare system, despite states having no financial incentive to do 

so and despite Committee Republicans’ repeated requests for increased state flexibility in a wide range of federal policies. The fact 

is that Republicans have repeatedly voted for an even broader 

waiving of TANF program requirements, including the work participation standards. According to the Congressional Research 

Service, that Republican proposal passed the House of Representatives three times between 2002 and 2005.vi And on June 7, 2012, 

just weeks before the Obama administration announced its waiver 

process, the House Education and the Workforce Committee debated and voted on Republican legislation to reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), H.R. 4297, a bill which allows states 

to eliminate work participation requirements under the TANF program altogether.vii The state discretion provided under H.R. 4297 

to mix funds and ignore program requirements is not surprising: 

The mantra behind H.R. 4297 is state flexibility. So, at the same 

time Republicans continue to repeat widely discredited statements 

on the Obama administration proposal, it was Committee Republicans who just voted to eliminate work requirements. 

While the economy has shown signs of moving in the right direction, Committee Democrats believe more must be done to help the 

estimated 23 million unemployed and underemployed Americans 

find and keep jobs that promote self-sufficiency. The Administration’s proposal that would provide waivers for state plans that increase employment by 20 percent or more should not be blocked as 

part of a political campaign. This Congress should rise above the 

campaign advertisements. 

Committee Democrats have repeatedly asked the Majority to 

work together on bipartisan solutions for our country. There is an 

urgent need for Congress to pass legislation such as the American 

Jobs Act to help local communities hire more police, firefighters 

and teachers; modernize, renovate, and repair American schools 

and community colleges; and other job creating policies that will 

keep our economy moving in the right direction. Efforts to move 

portions of that bill were blocked by Committee Republicans repeatedly this Congress. Our current economy also requires preparing more American workers to advance to higher-skilled jobs of 

the future. Even with a stubbornly high unemployment rate, employers currently need to fill 3.7 million jobs in high-growth industries such as health care that require specific skill sets. Education 

and training investments in our diverse workforce are now more 

important than ever. On its face, the waiver proposal that H.J. 

Resolution 118 would block is intended to give states more leeway, 

for example, in providing opportunities for TANF recipients to receive the training they need to obtain and keep a job. 

Instead of obstructing the Administration’s effort to get more 

Americans employed, we should be working together to move the 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
19 

country forward. Committee Democrats therefore reject H.J. Resolution 118, recognizing it for the counterproductive political stunt 

that it is. It does not create a single job. It does not increase employment. It does nothing to help the lives of American families. 

GEORGE MILLER, Senior 

Democratic Member. 

DALE E. KILDEE. 

BOBBY C. SCOTT. 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA. 

JOHN F. TIERNEY. 

RUSH HOLT. 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA. 

MAZIE K. HIRONO. 

MARCIA L. FUDGE. 

ROBERT E. ANDREWS. 

LYNN WOOLSEY. 

CAROLYN MCCARTHY

DENNIS J. KUCINICH. 

SUSAN A. DAVIS. 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP. 

JASON ALTMIRE. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS