29–006 

113TH CONGRESS REPT. 113–13 " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session Part 1 

PRESERVING WORK REQUIREMENTS FOR WELFARE 

PROGRAMS ACT OF 2013 

MARCH 11, 2013.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. CAMP, from the Committee on Ways and Means, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 890] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Ways and Means, to whom was referred the 

bill (H.R. 890) to prohibit waivers relating to compliance with the 

work requirements for the program of block grants to States for 

temporary assistance for needy families, and for other purposes, 

having considered the same, report favorably thereon without 

amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. 

I. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND

A. Purpose and summary 

The bill, H.R. 890, as ordered reported by the Committee on 

Ways and Means on March 6, 2013, prohibits the Secretary of 

Health and Human Services (HHS) from issuing waivers relating 

to compliance with the work requirements for welfare recipients 

under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. Specifically, the legislation states that the Secretary of 

Health and Human Services (HHS) may not ‘‘finalize, implement, 

enforce, or otherwise take any action to give effect to the Information Memorandum dated July 12, 2012’’ which HHS issued regarding waiving the TANF work requirements. Further, the legislation 

states the Secretary may not ‘‘authorize, approve, renew, modify, or 

extend any experimental, pilot, or demonstration project . . . that 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

1Ways and Means Committee Print 104–14, Background Material and Data on Programs 

within the Jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means (Green Book) Section 8, page 505, 

available online at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/ 

pagedetails.action?granuleId=&packageId=GPO-CPRT-104WPRT23609. 2 HHS TANF Ninth Report to Congress, Chapter 10, Table E, available online at http:// 

www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ofa/9th_report_to_congress_3_26_12.pdf. 

waives compliance with a requirement of section 407,’’ which contains the TANF work requirements. 

B. Background and the need for legislation 

On February 28, 2013, Representative Dave Camp (R–MI), 

Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, and Representative John Kline (R–MN), Chairman of the Committee on Education 

and the Workforce, along with Representative Steve Scalise (R–LA) 

and Representative Steve Southerland (R–FL) introduced H.R. 890, 

which prohibits the Secretary of HHS from issuing waivers related 

to compliance with the work requirements for welfare recipients 

under the TANF program. 

Today’s work requirements for welfare recipients under the 

TANF program stem from the 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104– 

193), which led to increased work and earnings, along with record 

declines in poverty and dependence on government cash welfare 

benefits among low-income families. Fully understanding the need 

for H.R. 890 requires a brief review of welfare reform history dating back to the late 1980s. 

The failed former AFDC program did not include real work 

requirements 

The 1996 welfare reforms replaced the prior Aid to Families with 

Dependent Children (AFDC) program with the new Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. AFDC, which originated in the New Deal of the 1930s, was characterized by no effective work or activity requirements for welfare recipients, who were 

allowed to collect welfare checks for unlimited periods of time. 

Prior to the 1996 reforms, almost two-thirds of families receiving 

welfare under AFDC remained on welfare for eight or more years, 

and the average lifetime receipt of welfare for families then receiving AFDC benefits was 13 years.1

Further, prior to the 1996 reforms, few recipients engaged in 

work while collecting benefits. In fiscal year 1995, a year in which 

the U.S. unemployment rate was under 6 percent, only nine percent of adults receiving AFDC were actually working. In contrast, 

in 2009 in the midst of the deepest recession since World War II 

during which the unemployment rate reached 10 percent, 24 percent of adults collecting TANF assistance were working, while 

other recipients of cash welfare participated in a variety of worklike activities including job training, job readiness, and education 

in exchange for their benefits.2

States tested new work requirements with pre-1996 waivers 

Recognizing the serious failings of the former AFDC program, in 

the late 1980s and early 1990s a number of States sought waivers 

of AFDC rules so they could test new work and related requirements for welfare recipients, which otherwise would have been prohibited under AFDC law. Based in part on evidence from those prereform waiver demonstrations, the bipartisan 1996 TANF reforms 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

3 Congressional Research Service estimates based on Census Bureau data prepared for Ways 

and Means staff. 4 HHS TANF Ninth Report to Congress, Chapter 4, available online at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/ 

sites/default/files/ofa/9th_report_to_congress_3_26_12.pdf. 5 HHS, ACF, 2011 TANF Caseload Data, available online at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ 

ofa/data-reports/caseload/caseload_current.htm. 6 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplements, Table 3, Poverty Status of People, by Age, Race, And Hispanic Origin: 1959 to 2011, 

available online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/historical/hstpov3.xls. 

created strong new work requirements for both persons receiving 

welfare benefits as well as States, among other major changes. 

1996 Reforms created strong new work requirements in all 

states 

In general, the 1996 reforms offered States new flexibility in designing welfare programs in exchange for fixed federal funds. However, in order to ensure that low-income families in all States benefitted from the lessons of pre-reform waiver demonstrations, the 

1996 reforms included strong new Federal work requirements that 

expected all States to engage adult welfare recipients in work and 

related activities including job training, job readiness, and education. These work requirements now specify the minimum hours 

of work or related activities an individual must engage in each 

week, how ‘‘work activities’’ are defined, what share of adults on 

welfare must engage in work or related activities, and penalties for 

failure to comply, among other requirements. 

A significant body of evidence suggests that the work requirements included in the 1996 welfare reform law have been essential 

to improvements in work, earnings, poverty and welfare dependence in the wake of that legislation. Specifically, since the workbased 1996 welfare reforms were enacted: (1) The employment of 

single mothers increased by 15 percent from 1996 through 2000, 

and even after the 2007 recession it is still higher than before welfare reform 3; (2) According to HHS’ latest report on the TANF program, ‘‘earnings in female-headed families remained higher in 2009 

than in 1996 despite various shifts in the economic climate since 

TANF’s enactment’’ 4; (3) Since it replaced the New Deal-era AFDC 

program in 1996, TANF has been successful at cutting welfare dependence as caseloads have declined by 57 percent through December 2011 5; and (4) Child poverty fell dramatically after welfare reform and is still below the level in the early 1990s.6

Extensive evidence that TANF work requirements cannot be 

waived 

To ensure that no State was able to re-establish the type of policies that led to record dependence under the prior AFDC program, 

the 1996 reforms included a prohibition on States’ ‘‘waiving’’ the 

new work requirements. TANF law, history, and precedent support 

the fact that TANF work requirements may not be waived by the 

Secretary of HHS. 

In passing the 1996 welfare reform law to end AFDC and create 

TANF, Congress redesigned every section of the prior AFDC program. Provisions applying to AFDC were eliminated, new requirements were added, and specific restrictions were put in place to 

create a program of fixed funding to States with strong work requirements. One fundamental change reflected in the new TANF 

law was a restructuring of section 402 of the Social Security Act, 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

7Ways and Means Committee Print 104–15, Summary of Welfare Reforms Made By Public 

Law 104–93, available online at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CPRT-104WPRT27305/pdf/CPRT104WPRT27305.pdf. 8Federal Register, Vol. 64, No. 69, April 12, 1999, Rules and Regulations, HHS, Administration for Children and Families (ACF), TANF Final Rule, available online at http://www.gpo.gov/ 

fdsys/pkg/FR-1999-04-12/pdf/99–8000.pdf. 

which previously had specified 45 mandatory requirements States 

had to implement subject to review and approval by HHS. Section 

402 was fundamentally redesigned through welfare reform to specify only seven reporting requirements that States must outline in 

a written report, with HHS having authority only over reviewing 

the State plans for completeness—instead of approving specific 

State policies as under the prior AFDC law. 

Congress also created a new section titled ‘‘Waivers’’ in section 

415 of the Social Security Act to explain how waivers would function after the passage of welfare reform. One provision allowed 

temporary waiver programs in effect prior to the enactment of welfare reform to continue until their natural expiration date. A second provision allowed for waivers submitted before August 22, 1996 

and approved by the Secretary of HHS by July 1, 1997 to begin, 

but expressly prohibited such waivers from having any effect on 

the new TANF work requirements. Section 415 did not even contemplate waivers after the AFDC program ended, which the new 

TANF law required by no later than July 1, 1997 in all States. 

Driving home this point that there could be no waivers of the 

TANF work requirements after enactment of the new law is the 

clear intention of the Committee on Ways and Means, whose Members were the principle authors of the reforms. Shortly after Congress approved the 1996 welfare reform law, the Ways and Means 

Committee issued a ‘‘Committee Print’’ in November 1996 summarizing the legislation.7 In the section describing waivers under the 

new law, the summary stated simply ‘‘Waivers granted after the 

date of enactment may not override provisions of the TANF law that 

concern mandatory work requirements.’’ 

Further, after the passage of welfare reform and as required as 

part of the law, HHS issued regulations describing how certain provisions of TANF would be implemented. One section of these final 

1999 HHS regulations 8 detailed how waivers granted under the 

prior AFDC program would continue to operate, and what States 

must do to continue their waivers until their expiration date. The 

HHS regulations said States with waivers to test work requirements under the prior AFDC program ‘‘may delay implementing 

TANF requirements for work participation’’ but that ‘‘because all 

States will need to conform to all TANF rules once their waivers 

expire, we urge States to plan accordingly.’’ This final rule does not 

discuss waivers under the TANF program, and by indicating that 

all States would eventually have to implement TANF work requirements, it is clear that HHS agreed that there existed no authority 

to waive work requirements in the future. 

In the years following this 1999 determination, HHS continued 

to state in official documents that the agency could not waive 

TANF work requirements. For example, in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, States contacted HHS to determine what flexibility may be available to them under TANF law. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

9 HHS, TANF Program Instruction, No. TANF–ACF–PI–2005–06, October 11, 2005, available 

online at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/policy/pi-ofa/2005/pi2005-6.htm. 10 HHS, TANF Program Instruction, No. TANF–ACF–PI–2007–08, November 28, 2007, available online at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/policy/pi-ofa/2007/200708/PI200708.htm. 11 HHS, TANF Information Memorandum, No. TANF–ACF–IM–2012–03, available online at 

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/resource/policy/im-ofa/2012/im201203/im201203. 12Letter from Representative Dave Camp and Sen. Orrin Hatch to Comptroller Gene Dorado 

at GAO, July 31, 2012, available online at http://waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/ 

gao_tanf_waivers_letter.pdf. 13Letter from GAO Comptroller General Gene Dorado to Representative Dave Camp and Sen. 

Orrin Hatch, September 4, 2012, available online at http://waysandmeans.house.gov/news/ 

documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=307447. 

In the official HHS guidance issued in response,9 HHS cited a 

number of things States could do to assist those affected by the 

hurricane given the substantial flexibility in the TANF law. However, the HHS guidance was unequivocal regarding HHS’ waiver 

authority, stating ‘‘we have no authority under current law to 

waive any of the TANF statutory requirements’’ and ‘‘we have no 

authority to waive any of the provisions in the Act.’’ Additional official HHS guidance regarding disasters was issued in 2007,10 which 

repeated word for word the same statements about waiver authority made in the 2005 HHS guidance. 

Obama Administration illegally waives work requirements 

Despite this history and legal precedent, and after 16 years of 

welfare policy and practice to the contrary, the Obama Administration on July 12, 2012 released an ‘‘Information Memorandum’’ 11

that for the first time in the history of the TANF program suggested the Secretary of HHS has authority to waive work requirements in any State. The Administration’s July 12, 2012 rule was 

not the result of any new legislation passed by Congress, nor even 

connected to any proposal submitted in a prior Administration 

budget or other legislative proposal. The Administration’s July 

2012 rule would have the effect of allowing any State to opt out of 

the TANF work requirements for the first time since welfare reform’s passage in 1996. No prior HHS Secretary, Republican or 

Democrat, had ever concluded that he or she had the authority to 

waive the TANF work requirements. 

House acts in 2012 to reject administration waiver policy 

under Congressional Review Act 

It was to prevent precisely such illegal legislating by the Executive branch that Congress created the Congressional Review Act in 

1996. The Congressional Review Act established expedited procedures by which Congress may disapprove of a federal agency rule 

by enacting a joint resolution of disapproval. 

As HHS did not officially submit to Congress their guidance indicating that they would waive work requirements nor publish the 

July 12 Information Memorandum officially as a rule, on July 31, 

2012, Chairman Camp and Senate Finance Ranking Member 

Hatch (R–UT) asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

to review this Information Memorandum to determine if it was a 

rule that should have been submitted officially to Congress before 

taking effect.12 On September 4, 2012, GAO reported to Congress 

that the HHS Information Memorandum was in fact a rule that 

must be submitted to Congress and that it is subject to review— 

and disapproval—under the Congressional Review Act.13 On SepVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:33 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR13P1.XXX HR13P1

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

14 CBO Letter to Chairman Dave Camp, February 27, 2013, available on line at: http:// 

waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hjr118davecampltr.pdf. 

tember 11, 2012, senior members of the House and Senate introduced resolutions (H.J. Res. 118 and S.J. Res 50, respectively) to 

disapprove of the HHS July 12, 2012 rule waiving work requirements in the TANF program. The House Committees on Ways and 

Means and Education and the Workforce marked up and favorably 

reported H.J. Res. 118 on September 18, 2012, and this resolution 

of disapproval passed the House by a vote of 250–164 on September 

20, 2012. The Senate did not act on S.J. Res 50 before the end of 

the 112th Congress. 

House acts in 2013 to reject administration waiver policy 

under H.R. 890, saving taxpayers $61 million 

As of March 6, 2013, the Committee knows of no States that 

have formally requested a waiver based on the Administration’s illegal waiver rule. However, to ensure that the TANF work requirements are not waived by HHS, on February 28, 2013, Ways and 

Means Chairman Camp, along with Chairman Kline of the Committee on Education and the Workforce and Representatives Scalise and Southerland, introduced H.R. 890, the Preserving Work Requirements for Welfare Programs Act of 2013. This legislation 

would prohibit the Secretary of HHS from issuing waivers related 

to compliance with the work requirements for welfare recipients 

under the TANF program. The Committee on Ways and Means approved this legislation in a markup session held on March 6, 2013. 

According to the Congressional Budget Office, H.R. 890 would reduce Federal welfare spending by $61 million over 10 years. CBO 

explained the reason for these savings in a February 27, 2013 letter 14 to Chairman Camp, suggesting that the Obama Administration’s waiver policy would ‘‘lower the potential penalties assessed 

by the federal government for states’ failure to meet work requirements in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) 

program.’’ Under current law, States that fail the work requirements are penalized by losing some Federal TANF funds. Thus if 

the work requirements are waived, the penalties for failing the 

work requirements also would not be imposed, and Federal welfare 

spending would rise—specifically in States that would fail to satisfy 

the current work requirements. In short, by waiving the work requirements, the Administration policy would also let States that 

fail to satisfy the work requirements evade the current financial 

penalties for doing so. Avoiding this unnecessary expenditure of 

Federal welfare funds resulting from the Administration’s illegal 

waiver policy is yet another reason arguing for the passage of H.R. 

890. 

As outlined above, the Committee believes H.R. 890 is needed to 

ensure the Secretary is not allowed to waive the critical TANF 

work requirements. The Secretary’s waivers would not only cost 

taxpayers $61 million more in welfare spending, but they would 

also allow States to weaken work requirements and may effectively 

revive former AFDC rules under which large numbers of adults on 

welfare failed to engage in any productive work or activities in exchange for benefits. That would be especially destructive for families on welfare, millions of whom remained trapped in dependence 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 

year after year before welfare was transformed into a program that 

expected work or preparation for work in exchange for benefits. 

C. Legislative history 

Background 

H.R. 890 was introduced on February 28, 2013, and was referred 

to the Committee on Ways and Means, in addition to the Committee on Education and the Workforce. 

Committee action 

The Committee on Ways and Means marked up the bill on 

March 6, 2013, and ordered the bill favorably reported. 

Chairman Kline, Chairman of the Committee on Education and 

the Workforce, indicated by letter to Chairman Camp that the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce would forgo further 

consideration of H.R. 890, 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 the Committee on Education 

and the Workforce. 

Committee hearings 

On February 28, 2013, the Subcommittee on Human Resources 

held a hearing on the effects of waiving the work requirements in 

the TANF program. During this hearing, the Subcommittee heard 

testimony from experts on work and activity requirements and 

their importance in ensuring that States engage low-income parents in work and other productive activities so they can increase 

their work and earnings, leave poverty, and lead lives independent 

from welfare. 

II. EXPLANATION OF THE BILL

Present law 

The Public Welfare Amendments of 1962 (P.L. 87–543) established waiver authority within Section 1115 of the Social Security 

Act for public assistance programs, including the AFDC program 

that preceded TANF in helping fund cash assistance for needy families with children. 

Though waivers under Section 1115 were allowed as early as 

1962, they were not sought with much frequency until the late 

1980s. Until that point, waivers were primarily related to program 

administration and service delivery. Between 1987 and 1989, during the Reagan Administration, 15 waiver applications for welfare 

reform were approved for 14 States; during the Administration of 

George H.W. Bush, another 15 applications from 12 States were 

approved. Until the enactment of the 1996 welfare law, the Clinton 

Administration continued to approve waivers of AFDC law. Between January 1993 and August 1996, a total of 83 waiver applications from 43 States and the District of Columbia were approved. 

The 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104–193) replaced the prior 

AFDC program with the new TANF block grant. At the same time, 

the statute was reorganized and a new section 407 was added, titled ‘‘Mandatory Work Requirements.’’ Section 402, which today is 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
8 

the only section of TANF listed under the waiver ‘‘demonstration 

projects’’ authority in section 1115 of the Social Security Act, is titled ‘‘Eligible States; State Plan.’’ Section 402 generally defines the 

‘‘written document’’ that States must submit to the Secretary of 

HHS each year describing how the State intends to achieve various 

TANF program purposes, among other purposes. As a result of 

these and other changes, present law does not provide for waivers 

of TANF work requirements. The Obama Administration’s July 12, 

2012 information memorandum claiming authority to waive work 

requirements would be the first time HHS has claimed to have 

such waiver authority since TANF was created in 1996, and if allowed to stand would permit HHS to circumvent statutory work requirements in section 407 of the law. 

Reasons for change 

The Committee believes it is necessary to ensure the continuation and proper functioning of the work requirements that are the 

heart of the nation’s successful efforts at promoting work for welfare recipients. Accordingly, H.R. 890 states that the Secretary of 

Health and Human Services (HHS) may not ‘‘finalize, implement, 

enforce, or otherwise take any action to give effect to the Information Memorandum dated July 12, 2012’’ which HHS issued regarding waiving the TANF work requirements. Further, the legislation 

states the Secretary may not ‘‘authorize, approve, renew, modify, or 

extend any experimental, pilot, or demonstration project . . . that 

waives compliance with a requirement of section 407,’’ which contains the TANF work requirements. Finally, although to the Committee’s knowledge as of March 6, 2013 no State had sought or 

been granted a waiver under the Administration’s July 12, 2012 

rule, H.R. 890 would rescind any waivers the Secretary may have 

granted related to the work requirements prior to the legislation’s 

enactment. 

The Committee believes that prohibiting waivers relating to compliance with the TANF work requirements is appropriate and that 

it will ensure the continuation of effective work requirements for 

adults collecting welfare benefits under the TANF program. Ultimately, this will promote more work, higher incomes, lower poverty, and more departures from welfare for independence and selfsupport, which are among the most important of the TANF program’s goals. 

Explanation of provision 

The provision would prohibit the Secretary of HHS from issuing 

waivers related to compliance with the work requirements for welfare recipients under the TANF program. 

Effective date 

The provision becomes effective upon enactment. 

III. VOTES OF THE COMMITTEE

In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the following statements are made concerning the votes of the Committee on Ways and Means in its consideration of the bill, H.R. 890. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 

The bill, ‘‘H.R. 890, prohibiting waivers relating to compliance 

with the work requirements for the program of block grants to 

States for temporary assistance for needy families, and for other 

purposes,’’ was ordered favorably reported without amendment to 

the House of Representatives by a roll call vote of 21 yeas to 14 

nays (with a quorum being present). The vote was as follows: 

Votes of the committee 

In compliance with the Rules of the House of Representatives, 

the following statement is made concerning the vote of the Committee on Ways and Means during the markup consideration of 

H.R. 890 ‘‘Preserving Work Requirements for Welfare Programs 

Act of 2013.’’ 

The bill, H.R. 890, was ordered favorably reported by a roll call 

vote of 21 yeas to 14 nays (with a quorum being present). The vote 

was as follows: 

Representative Yea Nay Present Representative Yea Nay Present 

Mr. Camp .......................... X ............. ............. Mr. Levin .......................... ............. X .............

Mr. Johnson ...................... X ............. ............. Mr. Rangel ........................ ............. X .............

Mr. Brady .......................... X ............. ............. Mr. McDermott .................. ............. X .............

Mr. Ryan ........................... X ............. ............. Mr. Lewis .......................... ............. X .............

Mr. Nunes ......................... X ............. ............. Mr. Neal ............................ ............. X .............

Mr. Tiberi .......................... X ............. ............. Mr. Becerra ....................... ............. X .............

Mr. Reichert ...................... X ............. ............. Mr. Doggett ...................... ............. X .............

Mr. Boustany .................... X ............. ............. Mr. Thompson ................... ............. X .............

Mr. Roskam ...................... X ............. ............. Mr. Larson ........................ ............. X .............

Mr. Gerlach ....................... X ............. ............. Mr. Blumenauer ................ ............. X .............

Mr. Price ........................... X ............. ............. Mr. Kind ............................ ............. X .............

Mr. Buchanan ................... X ............. ............. Mr. Pascrell ...................... ............. X .............

Mr. Smith .......................... X ............. ............. Mr. Crowley ....................... ............. ............. .............

Mr. Schock ........................ X ............. ............. Ms. Schwartz .................... ............. ............. .............

Ms. Jenkins ....................... X ............. ............. Mr. Davis .......................... ............. X .............

Mr. Paulsen ...................... X ............. ............. Ms. Sanchez ..................... ............. X .............

Mr. Marchant .................... X ............. .............

Ms. Black .......................... X ............. .............

Mr. Reed ........................... X ............. .............

Mr. Young ......................... X ............. .............

Mr. Kelly ............................ X ............. .............

Mr. Griffin ......................... X ............. .............

Mr. Renacci ...................... X ............. .............

Votes on amendments 

No amendments to the bill were offered. 

IV. BUDGET EFFECTS OF THE BILL

A. Committee estimate of budgetary effects 

In compliance with clause 3(d) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the following statement is made concerning the effects on the budget of the revenue provisions of the 

bill, H.R. 890 as reported: The Committee agrees with the estimates prepared by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which 

are included below. 

Statement regarding new budget authority and tax expenditures budget authority 

The bill as reported is in compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule 

XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives. Further, the bill 

involves no new or increased tax expenditures. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
10 

B. Cost estimate prepared by the Congressional Budget Office 

In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, requiring a cost estimate prepared by 

the CBO, the following statement by CBO is provided. 

U.S. CONGRESS

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Washington, DC, March 8, 2013. 

Hon. DAVE CAMP, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 890, the Preserving Work 

Requirements for Welfare Programs Act of 2013. 

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

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

Sincerely, 

PETER A. FONTAINE

(For Douglas W. Elmendorf). 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 890—Preserving Work Requirements for Welfare Programs Act 

of 2013 

Summary: H.R. 890 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). If H.R. 890 is enacted, the rule would have no force 

or effect. 

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 890 would reduce direct 

spending by $61 million over the 2013–2023 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 H.R. 890 would have 

any significant effect on spending subject to appropriation. 

H.R. 890 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 890 is shown in the following table. The effects 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 2023 2013– 

2018 

2013– 

2023 

CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING 

Estimated Budget 

Authority ......... 0 –6 –6 –6 –6 –6 –6 –7 –7 –7 –7 –29 –61 

Estimated Outlays 0 –6 –6 –6 –6 –6 –6 –7 –7 –7 –7 –29 –61 

Note: Annual amounts do not sum to totals because of rounding. 

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


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
11 

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, which administers 

TANF, would provide states waivers through section 1115 of the 

Social Security Act so that states could implement those proposals. 

Enacting H.R. 890 would prevent that memorandum from taking 

effect. 

Under the memorandum, CBO expects that penalties for states 

that do not meet the work requirements specified in section 407 of 

the Social Security Act would be reduced because some states 

would be able to have those requirement waived. We expect there 

would be no impact on net federal spending during fiscal year 

2013, but that the expected net increase in penalties would average 

about $6 million in subsequent years. Thus, CBO estimates that 

enacting H.R. 890 would reduce direct spending by $61 million over 

the 2013–2023 period, as some states would face increased penalties to the federal government, in the form of reduced family assistance grants, 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. 

CBO ESTIMATE OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS FOR H.R. 890 AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS ON MARCH 6, 2013 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2013– 

2018 

2013– 

2023 

NET DECREASE (¥) IN THE DEFICIT 

Statutory Pay-AsYou-Go Impact 0 –6 –6 –6 –6 –6 –6 –7 –7 –7 –7 –29 –61 

Note: Annual amounts do 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.R. 890 

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 $61 million over the 2013–2023 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.R. 890 also contains no private–sector mandates. 

Previous CBO estimate: On September 17, 2012, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.J. Res. 118, a proposal similar to H.R. 

890. The bill language for H.R. 890 is somewhat different from the 

language contained in H.J. Res. 118 (in the 112th Congress), but 

CBO expects that the average annual effect would be the same. 

CBO’s estimate of the cumulative 10-year impact for H.R. 890 is 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
12 

slightly different from the total shown in our estimate last year for 

H.J. Res. 118 because of an assumption of later enactment for the 

current legislation (in 2013 versus in 2012), and because last year’s 

estimate covered the period through fiscal year 2022, while the estimate for H.R. 890 covers the period through fiscal year 2023. 

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. 

V. OTHER MATTERS TO BE DISCUSSED UNDER THE RULES OF THE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

A. Committee oversight findings and recommendations 

With respect to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives (relating to oversight findings), the Committee concluded that it was appropriate and timely to enact the 

sections included in the bill, as reported. 

On July 12, 2012, the Obama Administration released an ‘‘Information Memorandum’’ that for the first time in the history of the 

TANF program suggested the Secretary of HHS has authority to 

waive work requirements for welfare recipients. The Administration’s July 2012 rule would have the effect of allowing any State 

to opt out of the TANF work requirements for the first time since 

welfare reform’s passage in 1996. No prior HHS Secretary, Republican or Democrat, had ever concluded that he or she had the authority to waive the TANF work requirements. 

On February 28, 2013, the Subcommittee on Human Resources 

held a hearing on the effects of waiving the work requirements in 

the TANF program. During this hearing, the Subcommittee heard 

testimony from experts on work and activity requirements and 

their importance in ensuring that States engage low-income parents in work and other productive activities so they can increase 

their work and earnings, leave poverty, and lead lives independent 

from welfare. 

The Committee believes this legislation is necessary to ensure 

that TANF continues to operate as intended by current law. This 

legislation is also needed to ensure that any changes to the TANF 

work requirements are made by Congress, not through unilateral 

action taken by the Executive branch. 

B. Statement of general performance goals and objectives 

With respect to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the bill contains no measure that authorizes new or additional funding compared with the current law baseline, so no statement of general 

performance goals and objectives for which any measure authorizes 

funding is required. 

C. Duplication of federal programs 

No provision of H.R. 890, the ‘‘Preserving Work Requirements for 

Welfare Programs Act of 2013,’’ establishes or reauthorizes a program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of another Federal program, a program that was included in any report 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
13 

from the Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to 

section 21 of Public Law 111–139, or a program related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. 

D. Disclosure of directed rule makings 

The Committee estimates that H.R. 890 specifically directs to be 

completed no specific rule makings within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 

551. 

E. Information relating to unfunded mandates 

This information is provided in accordance with section 423 of 

the Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104–4). 

The bill does not impose a Federal mandate on the private sector. The bill does not impose a Federal intergovernmental mandate 

on State, local, or tribal governments. 

F. Applicability of house rule XXI 5(B) 

Clause 5(b) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives provides, in part, that ‘‘A bill or joint resolution, amendment, 

or conference report carrying a Federal income tax rate increase 

may not be considered as passed or agreed to unless so determined 

by a vote of not less than three-fifths of the Members voting, a 

quorum being present.’’ The Committee has carefully reviewed the 

sections of the bill, and states that the bill does not involve any 

Federal income tax rate increases within the meaning of the rule. 

G. Congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, and limited tariff 

benefits 

With respect to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee has carefully reviewed the provisions of the bill, and states that the provisions of the bill do not 

contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited 

tariff benefits within the meaning of the rule. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

H.R. 890 makes no changes to current law. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(14) 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

We oppose H.R. 890 because it, just like nearly identical legislation brought before the Committee last year, is based on partisan 

charges that have been widely discredited by independent fact 

checkers and because the bill would block new and innovative ways 

to move more people from welfare to work. At a time when Congress confronts so many pressing issues, not the least of which is 

preventing the misguided cuts in the sequester from hurting our 

economy, H.R. 890 is a step in the wrong direction. 

On July 12, 2012 the Department of Health and Human Services 

(HHS) issued a memorandum under its authority under Section 

1115 of the Social Security Act to entertain requests from states to 

conduct demonstration projects under the Temporary Assistance for 

Needy Families (TANF) program. The HHS notice clearly states 

that these demonstration projects must be focused on improving 

employment outcomes. In a letter to the Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, HHS Secretary Sebelius stated, ‘‘the 

Department is providing a very limited waiver opportunity for 

states that develop a plan to measurably increase the number of 

beneficiaries who find and hold down a job. Specifically, Governors 

must commit that their proposals will move at least 20% more people from welfare to work compared to the state’s past performance.’’ 

The Republican Governor of Utah, Gary Herbert, highlighted the 

need for waivers when he wrote a letter to HHS saying, ‘‘some of 

[the TANF work] participation requirements are difficult and costly 

to verify, while other participation requirements do not lead to 

meaningful employment outcomes and are overly prescriptive. 

Utah suggested that we be evaluated on the basis of the state’s 

success in placing our customers in employment . . . [and] this approach would require some flexibility at the state level and the 

granting of a waiver.’’ 

Other states also have highlighted how much time, money and 

effort is now dedicated to meeting federal paperwork requirements, 

especially after changes included in the Deficit Reduction Act of 

2005. For example, one study in Minnesota found that TANF employment counselors spend more time documenting activities than 

they spend on providing direct services to help people find work. 

The majority’s current effort to prevent flexibility through waivers seems in direct conflict with their past support for waivers. For 

example, in 2002, 2003, and 2005, Republicans brought legislation 

to the House floor that included a much broader waiver authority 

than now being permitted by HHS. The non-partisan Congressional 

Research Service (CRS) has confirmed that all three bills ‘‘would 

have had the effect of allowing TANF work participation standards 

to be waived.’’ 

In terms of HHS’ authority to permit demonstration projects, 

CRS has found that the current HHS waiver initiative is ‘‘conVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:33 Mar 12, 2013 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR13P1.XXX HR13P1

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
15 

sistent’’ with prior practice. The CRS review found that dozens of 

waivers for demonstration projects have been approved in the past 

when their subject matter has been referenced in Section 402 of the 

Social Security Act (just as the Secretary now proposes). CRS also 

found nothing in the law that bars the Secretary from providing 

waivers related to employment activities in the TANF program. 

Just like a very similar measure from last year, H.R. 890 seems 

more focused on politics than on policy. On that basis, and because 

it would impede progress in helping more welfare recipients move 

into work, we oppose this measure. 

SANDER M. LEVIN. 

CHARLES B. RANGEL. 

JIM MCDERMOTT. 

JOHN B. LEWIS. 

RICHARD E. NEAL. 

XAVIER BECERRA. 

MIKE THOMPSON. 

JOHN B. LARSON. 

EARL BLUMENAUER. 

RON KIND. 

BILL PASCRELL, Jr. 

JOSEPH CROWLEY. 

ALLYSON SCHWARTZ. 

DANNY K. DAVIS. 

LINDA SA ́ NCHEZ. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS