September 10, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6047 

two experience-driven publications produced by CMF that provide new House 

Members, Senators, and their staff a 

detailed outline for setting up and running an effective office. ‘‘Keeping it 

Local’’ stresses the importance of 

maintaining a strong presence in district offices and the value of effective 

constituent outreach and interaction 

at the local level. These publications 

are time-tested, indispensable resources that provide our leaders with 

the appropriate tools they need to 

overcome the challenges of lawmaking 

on the national stage. 

In the past decade, CMF has adapted 

its mission to keep up with the rapid 

introduction of new technology on Capitol Hill. Recently CMF has offered 

guidance on how to design effective and 

accessible Web sites, culminating in 

CMF’s Gold Mouse Awards for the best 

congressional Web sites. CMF has 

helped Senators significantly improve 

their online operations, resulting in 

more transparency and accountability 

in government. Because of CMF’s research and guidance in Web sites and 

online communications, Americans 

have a better understanding of the 

Congress and better access to necessary services. 

Finally, I wish to congratulate CMF 

on focusing on improving the Congress 

in a nonpartisan way. There are only a 

few places left in Washington where 

those of us who are in public service 

can gather and truly engage in problem 

solving. I congratulate the Congressional Management Foundation on 

more than three decades of outstanding 

work and wish them success in all of 

their future endeavors. 

f 

TRIBUTE TO STEPHEN J. 

CLOOBECK 

Mr. REID. Mr President, I rise to 

honor my friend Steve Cloobeck of Las 

Vegas, the chairman of the board for 

Brand USA. This month, Steve will 

step down from the board after 2 years 

of working tirelessly to build Brand 

USA from the ground up. 

Over the past decades, the United 

States lost valuable tourism dollars as 

international visitors traveled to other 

destinations instead of the U.S. In 

part, the United States lost market 

share because we failed to promote 

tourism, while other countries invested 

in tourism promotion. To encourage 

tourists to visit the U.S., I worked for 

the passage of the Travel Promotion 

Act. This bipartisan legislation established the first-ever United States public-private initiative to promote tourism. The new organization would help 

attract millions of international visitors by advertising our Nation 

abroad—all at no cost to the taxpayers. 

If this new organization, Brand USA, 

was going to be successful, it would 

need a strong leader with a bold vision 

to promote tourism. Fortunately, we 

found that leader in Steve Cloobeck. 

From the moment he joined the board, 

Steve established aggressive timelines 

for setting up the new organization. He 

helped draft the organization’s strategic platform and goals, while ensuring that operations continued on 

schedule. 

Steve was also actively engaged in 

building partnerships with the private 

sector. Because of his business relationships in the tourism industry, 

Steve received many large commitments and contributions from companies in Nevada and across the Nation. 

With a slate of committed partners 

from Marriott to Best Western to Disney, Brand USA will raise more than 

$50 million from the private sector this 

year alone. 

Under the direction of Steve and the 

board, Brand USA unveiled their new 

advertising campaign. Featuring a 

song by Rosanne Cash, these ads showcase America as a ‘‘Land of Dreams’’ 

where anything is possible. These advertisements, which have been running 

in nine key international markets, 

have created a strong brand identity 

for the United States abroad. 

Today, we can already see that Brand 

USA is making a difference. So far this 

year, international visitation to the 

U.S. has increased 12 percent and we 

are heading for a record-setting year. 

And most importantly, during these 

hard economic times, travel promotion 

is creating new, good-paying jobs as we 

welcome millions of new visitors to our 

Nation’s world-class cities, national 

parks, and tourist attractions. 

Under Chairman Cloobeck’s leadership, Brand USA has been a tremendous success for our Nation and the 

travel industry. His enthusiasm and 

dedication have ensured that Brand 

USA is well positioned for the future. I 

am confident that Brand USA will be a 

critical asset to American tourism for 

years to come, and I am proud to join 

everyone at Brand USA and the travel 

industry in thanking Steve for his important contributions. 

f 

TANF 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent to have printed in 

the RECORD the GAO opinion letter 

dated September 4, 2012, and the TANF 

Information Memorandum dated July 

12, 2012. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

U.S. 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 General. 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. 

BACKGROUND

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant, administered by the U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, 

provides federal funding to states for both 

traditional welfare cash assistance as well as 

a variety of other benefits and services to 

meet the needs of low-income families and 

children. While states have some flexibility 

in implementing and administering their 

state TANF programs, there are numerous 

federal requirements and guidelines that 

states must meet. For example, under section 402 of the Social Security Act, in order 

to be eligible to receive TANF funds, a state 

must submit to HHS a written plan outlining, among other things, how it will implement various aspects of its TANF program. More specifically, under section 

402(a)(1)(A)(iii) of the Social Security Act, 

the written plan must outline how the state 

will ensure that TANF recipients engage in 

work activities. Under section 407 of the Social Security Act, states must also ensure 

that a specified percentage of their TANF recipients engage in work activities as defined 

by federal law. 

In its July 12 Information Memorandum, 

HHS notified states of HHS’ willingness to 

exercise its waiver authority under section 

1115 of the Social Security Act. Under section 1115, HHS has the authority to waive 

compliance with the requirements of section 

402 in the case of experimental, pilot, or 

demonstration projects which the Secretary 

determines are likely to assist in promoting 

the objectives of TANF. In its Information 

Memorandum, HHS asserted that it has the 

authority to waive the requirement in section 402(a)(1)(A)(iii) and authorize states to 

‘‘test approaches and methods other than 

those set forth in section 407,’’ including 

definitions of work activities and the calculation of participation rates. HHS informed states that it would use this waiver 

authority to allow states to test various 

strategies, policies, and procedures designed 

to improve employment outcomes for needy 

families. The Information Memorandum sets 

forth requirements that must be met for a 

waiver request to be considered by HHS, including an evaluation plan, a set of performance measures that states will track to monitor ongoing performance and outcomes, and 

a budget including the costs of program evaluation. In addition, the Information Memorandum provides that states must seek public input on the proposal prior to approval by 

HHS. 

ANALYSIS

The definition of ‘‘rule’’ in the CRA incorporates by reference the definition of ‘‘rule’’ 

in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 

with some exceptions. Therefore, our analysis of whether the July 12 Information 

Memorandum is a rule under the CRA involves determining whether it is rule under 

the APA and whether it falls within any of 

the exceptions contained in the CRA. The 

APA defines a rule as follows: 

‘‘[T]he whole or a part of an agency statement of general or particular applicability 

and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or describing the organization, procedure, or practice 

requirements of an agency and includes the 

approval or prescription for the future of 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S6048 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 10, 2012 

rates, wages, corporate or financial structures or reorganizations thereof, prices, facilities, appliances, services or allowances 

therefor or of valuations, costs, or accounting, or practices bearing on any of the 

foregoing[.]’’ 

This definition of a rule has been said to 

include ‘‘nearly every statement an agency 

may make.’’ 

The CRA identifies 3 exceptions from its 

definition of a rule: (1) any rule of particular 

applicability; (2) any rule relating to agency 

management or personnel; or (3) any rule of 

agency organization, procedure, or practice 

that does not substantially affect the rights 

or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 

804(3). 

The definition of a rule under the CRA is 

very broad. See B–287557, May 14, 2001 (Congress intended that the CRA should be broadly interpreted both as to type and scope of 

rules covered). The CRA borrows the definition of a rule from 5 U.S.C. §551, as opposed 

to the more narrow definition of legislative 

rules requiring notice and comment contained in 5 U.S.C. §553. As a result, agency 

pronouncements may be rules within the definition of 5 U.S.C. §551, and the CRA, even if 

they are not subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under section 553. 

See B–316048, April 17, 2008 (the breadth of 

the term ‘‘rule’’ reaches agency pronouncements beyond those that require notice and 

comment rulemaking) and B–287557, cited 

above. In addition to the plain language of 

the CRA, the legislative history confirms 

that it is intended to include within its purview almost all rules that an agency issues 

and not only those rules that must be promulgated according to the notice and comment requirements in section 553 of the APA. 

In his floor statement during final consideration of the bill, Representative McIntosh, a 

principal sponsor of the legislation, emphasized this point: 

‘‘Although agency interpretive rules, general statements of policy, guideline documents, and agency policy and procedure 

manuals may not be subject to the notice 

and comment provisions of section 553(c) of 

title 5, United States Code, these types of 

documents are covered under the congressional review provisions of the new chapter 8 

of title 5. 

Under section 801(a), covered rules, with 

very few exceptions, may not go into effect 

until the relevant agency submits a copy of 

the rule and an accompanying report to both 

Houses of Congress. Interpretive rules, general statements of policy, and analogous 

agency policy guidelines are covered without 

qualification because they meet the definition of a ‘rule’ borrowed from section 551 of 

title 5, and are not excluded from the definition of a rule.’’ 

On its face, the July 12 Information Memorandum falls within the definition of a rule 

under the APA definition incorporated into 

the CRA. First, consistent with our prior decisions, we look to the scope of the agency’s 

action to determine whether it is a general 

statement of policy or an interpretation of 

law of general applicability. That determination does not require a finding that it has 

general applicability to the population as a 

whole; instead, all that is required is that it 

has general applicability within its intended 

range. See B–287557, cited above (a record of 

decision affecting the issues of water flow in 

two rivers was a general statement of policy 

with general applicability within its intended range). Applying these principles, we 

have held that a letter released by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to 

state health officials concerning the State 

Children’s Health Insurance Program 

(SCHIP) was of general applicability because 

it extended to all states that sought to enroll children with family incomes exceeding 

250 percent of the federal poverty level in 

their SCHIP programs, as well as all states 

that had already enrolled such children. 

Similarly, the July 12 Information Memorandum is of general, rather than particular, 

applicability because it extends to all states 

administering Temporary Assistance for 

Needy Families (TANF) programs that seek 

a waiver for a demonstration project. 

Next we must determine whether the action is prospective in nature, that is, whether it is concerned with policy considerations 

for the future and not with the evaluation of 

past conduct. In B–316048, we held that the 

SCHIP letter was intended to clarify and explain the manner in which CMS applies statutory and regulatory requirements to states 

that wanted to extend coverage under the 

SCHIP programs. Similarly, the July 12 Information Memorandum is concerned with 

authorizing demonstration projects in the 

future, rather than the evaluation of past or 

present demonstration projects. Specifically, 

the Information Memorandum informs 

states that HHS will use its statutory authority to consider waiver requests, and sets 

out requirements that waiver requests must 

meet. Accordingly, it is designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy. 

In addition, the Information Memorandum 

does not fall within any of the three exclusions for a rule under the CRA. As discussed 

above, the Information Memorandum applies 

to all states that administer TANF programs, and therefore is of general applicability, rather than particular applicability. 

The Information Memorandum applies to the 

states, and does not relate to agency management or personnel. Finally, the Information Memorandum sets out the criteria by 

which states may apply for waivers from certain requirements of the TANF program. 

These criteria affect the obligations of the 

states, which are non-agency parties. 

GAO has consistently emphasized the 

broad scope of the definition of ‘‘rule’’ in the 

CRA in determining the applicability of the 

CRA to an agency document. Other documents deemed to be rules include letters, 

records of decision, booklets, interim guidance, and memoranda. See, for example, B– 

316048, April 17, 2008 (a letter released by the 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services of 

HHS concerning a State Children’s Health 

Insurance Program measure, to ensure that 

coverage under a state plan does not substitute for coverage under group health 

plans, described by the agency as a general 

statement of policy, was a rule) and B–287557, 

May 14, 2001 (a ‘‘record of decision’’ issued by 

the Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of Interior in connection with a federal 

irrigation project was a rule). 

Finally, the cases where we have found 

that an agency pronouncement was not a 

rule involved facts that are clearly distinguishable from the July 12 Information 

Memorandum. 

We requested the views of the General 

Counsel of HHS on whether the July 12 Information Memorandum is a rule for purposes 

of the CRA by letter dated August 3, 2012. 

HHS responded on August 31, 2012, stating 

that the Information Memorandum was 

issued as a non-binding guidance document, 

and that HHS contends that guidance documents do not need to be submitted pursuant 

to the CRA. Furthermore, HHS notes that it 

informally notified Congress by providing 

notice to the Majority and Minority staff 

members of the House Ways and Means Committee and Senate Finance Committee on 

the day the Information Memorandum was 

issued. 

We cannot agree with HHS’s conclusion 

that guidance documents are not rules for 

the purposes of the CRA and HHS cites no 

support for this position. The definition of 

‘‘rule’’ is expansive and specifically includes 

documents that implement or interpret law 

or policy. This is exactly what the HHS Information Memorandum does. It interprets 

section 402(a) and section 1115 to permit 

waivers for a demonstration program HHS is 

initiating. We have held that agency guidance, including guidance characterized as 

non-binding, constitutes a rule under the 

CRA. See B–281575, cited above. In addition, 

the legislative history of the CRA specifically includes guidance documents as an example of an agency pronouncement subject 

to the CRA. A joint statement for the record 

by Senators Nickles, Reid, and Stevens, submitted to the Congressional Record upon enactment of the CRA, details four categories 

of rules covered by the definition in section 

551. These categories include formal rulemaking under sections 556 and 557, noticeand-comment rulemaking under section 553, 

statements of general policy and interpretations of general applicability under section 

552, and ‘‘a body of materials that fall within 

the APA definition of a ‘rule’ . . . but that 

meet none of procedural specifications of the 

first three classes. These include guidance 

documents and the like.’’ Finally, while HHS 

may have informally notified the cited Congressional committees of the issuance of the 

Information Memorandum, informal notification does not meet the reporting requirements of the CRA. 

CONCLUSION

We find that the July 12 Information 

Memorandum issued by HHS is a statement 

of general applicability and future effect, designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe 

law or policy with regard to TANF. Furthermore, it does not come within any of the exceptions to the definition of rule contained 

in the CRA. Accordingly, the Information 

Memorandum is a rule under the Congressional Review Act. 

We note that this opinion is limited to the 

issue of whether the Information Memorandum is a rule under the CRA. We are not 

expressing an opinion on the applicability of 

any other legal requirements, including, but 

not limited to, notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the APA, or 

whether the Information Memorandum 

would be a valid exercise or interpretation of 

statutes or regulations. 

Accordingly, given our conclusions above, 

and in accordance with the provisions of 5 

U.S.C. 801(a)(1), the Information Memorandum is subject to the requirement that it 

be submitted to both Houses of Congress and 

the Comptroller General before it can take 

effect. 

If you have any questions concerning this 

opinion, please contact Edda Emmanuelli 

Perez, Managing Associate General Counsel. 

LYNN H. GIBSON, 

General Counsel. 

TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES

INFORMATION MEMORANDUM

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance, Washington, DC. 

Transmittal No. TANF–ACF–IM–2012–03, July 

12, 2012 

To: States administering the Temporary 

Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program and other interested parties 

Subject: Guidance concerning waiver and 

expenditure authority under Section 1115 

Reference: Section 1115 of the Social Security Act. [42 U.S.C. 1315]; Section 402 of the 

Social Security Act. [42 U.S.C. 602] 

Background: Section 1115 of the Social Security Act provides authority for the Secretary of the Department of Health and 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
September 10, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6049 

Human Services (HHS) to consider and approve experimental, pilot, or demonstration 

projects which, in the Secretary’s judgment, 

are likely to assist in promoting the objectives of Title IV-A. Section 1115 allows for 

waiver of compliance with section 402 of the 

Social Security Act to the extent and for the 

period necessary to enable a state to carry 

out an approved project. The statute also 

provides authority for costs of such projects 

which would not otherwise be an allowable 

use of funds under Part A of Title IV to be 

regarded as an allowable use of funds, to the 

extent and for the period approved. 

As specified in statute, the purpose of Part 

A is to increase the flexibility of states in 

operating a program designed to: (1) provide 

assistance to needy families so that children 

may be cared for in their own homes or in 

the homes of relatives; (2) end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and 

marriage; (3) prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and establish annual numerical goals for preventing and reducing the incidence of these 

pregnancies; and (4) encourage the formation 

and maintenance of two-parent families. 

Purpose: HHS is encouraging states to consider new, more effective ways to meet the 

goals of TANF, particularly helping parents 

successfully prepare for, find, and retain employment. Therefore, HHS is issuing this information memorandum to notify states of 

the Secretary’s willingness to exercise her 

waiver authority under section 1115 of the 

Social Security Act to allow states to test 

alternative and innovative strategies, policies, and procedures that are designed to improve employment outcomes for needy families. 

States led the way on welfare reform in the 

1990s—testing new approaches and learning 

what worked and what did not. The Secretary is interested in using her authority to 

approve waiver demonstrations to challenge 

states to engage in a new round of innovation that seeks to find more effective mechanisms for helping families succeed in employment. In providing for these demonstrations, HHS will hold states accountable by 

requiring both a federally-approved evaluation and interim performance targets that 

ensure an immediate focus on measurable 

outcomes. States must develop evaluation 

plans that are sufficient to evaluate the effect of the proposed approach in furthering a 

TANF purpose as well as interim targets the 

state commits to achieve. States that fail to 

meet interim outcome targets will be required to develop an improvement plan and 

can face termination of the waiver project. 

The demonstration authority provided by 

section 1115 and sound evaluation of approved projects will provide valuable knowledge that will help lead to improvements in 

achieving the purposes of the TANF program. 

Information: Scope of Authority. Section 

1115 authorizes waivers concerning section 

402. Accordingly, other provisions of the 

TANF statute are not waivable. For example, the purposes of TANF are not waivable, 

because they are contained in section 401. 

The prohibitions on assistance are not 

waivable, because they are contained in section 408. 

While the TANF work participation requirements are contained in section 407, section 402(a)(1)(A)(iii) requires that the state 

plan ‘‘[e]nsure that parents and caretakers 

receiving assistance under the program engage in work activities in accordance with 

section 407.’’ Thus, HHS has authority to 

waive compliance with this 402 requirement 

and authorize a state to test approaches and 

methods other than those set forth in section 407, including definitions of work activities and engagement, specified limitations, 

verification procedures, and the calculation 

of participation rates. As described below, 

however, 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. 

Moreover, HHS is committed to ensuring 

that any demonstration projects approved 

under this authority will be focused on improving employment outcomes and contributing to the evidence base for effective programs; therefore, terms and conditions will 

require a federally-approved evaluation plan 

designed to build our knowledge base. TANF 

funds may be used to fund an approved evaluation and state funds spent on an approved 

evaluation may be considered state maintenance-of-effort (MOE) expenditures. In addition, terms and conditions will require either 

interim targets for each performance measure or a strategy for establishing baseline 

performance on a set of performance measures and a framework for how interim goals 

will be set after the baseline measures are 

established. The terms and conditions will 

establish consequences for failing to meet interim performance targets including, but not 

limited to, the implementation of an improvement plan and, if the failure to meet 

performance targets continues, termination 

of the waivers and demonstration project. 

HHS Priorities. In exercising her broad discretion for waivers, the Secretary is interested in approaches that seek to improve employment outcomes. Accordingly: 

Waivers will be granted only for provisions 

related to section 402. 

The purposes of TANF, the prohibitions 

contained in section 408 (including the time 

limits on assistance contained in that section), or any other provision of TANF other 

than those specified in section 402 will not be 

waived. 

The Secretary will not approve a waiver 

for an initiative that appears substantially 

likely to reduce access to assistance or employment for needy families. 

The Secretary will not use her authority 

to allow use of TANF funds to provide assistance to individuals or families subject to the 

TANF prohibitions on assistance. 

The Secretary will not waive section 

402(a)(5) relating to requirements to provide 

equitable access to Indians. 

Waiver demonstration projects may be 

conducted in limited geographic areas or 

statewide. The Administration for Children 

and Families (ACF) is interested in more efficient or effective means to promote employment entry, retention, advancement, or 

access to jobs that offer opportunities for 

earnings and advancement that will allow 

participants to avoid dependence on government benefits. The following are examples of 

projects that states may want to consider— 

these are illustrative only: 

Projects that improve coordination with 

other components of the workforce investment system, including programs operated 

under the Workforce Investment Act, or to 

test an innovative approach to use performance-based contracts and management in 

order to improve employment outcomes. 

Projects that demonstrate attainment of 

superior employment outcomes if a state is 

held accountable for negotiated employment 

outcomes in lieu of participation rate requirements. 

Projects under which a state would count 

individuals in TANF-subsidized jobs but no 

longer receiving TANF assistance toward 

participation rates for a specified period of 

time in conjunction with an evaluation of 

the effectiveness of a subsidized jobs strategy. 

Projects that improve collaboration with 

the workforce and/or post-secondary education systems to test multi-year career 

pathways models for TANF recipients that 

combine learning and work. 

Projects that demonstrate strategies for 

more effectively serving individuals with disabilities, along with an alternative approach 

to measuring participation and outcomes for 

individuals with disabilities. 

Projects that test the impact of a comprehensive universal engagement system in 

lieu of certain participation rate requirements. 

Projects that test systematically extending the period in which vocational educational training or job search/readiness programs count toward participation rates, either generally or for particular subgroups, 

such as an extended training period for those 

pursuing a credential. The purpose of such a 

waiver would be to determine through evaluation whether a program that allows for 

longer periods in certain activities improves 

employment outcomes. 

Note that this is not a comprehensive list, 

and HHS will consider other projects consistent with the statute and the guidance 

provided in this IM. HHS is especially interested in testing approaches that build on existing evidence on successful strategies for 

improving employment outcomes. 

Waiver requests must include an evaluation plan. In order to provide the strongest 

evidence about the effectiveness of the demonstration, the preferred evaluation approach is a random assignment methodology, 

unless the Secretary determines that an alternative approach is more appropriate in 

light of the demonstration proposed. All 

evaluation plans and funds to support them 

must reflect an adequate level of effort and 

sound methods to produce credible findings. 

ACF anticipates actively engaging with 

states to ensure that evaluation plans are 

appropriate in light of the nature of the demonstration and that the evaluation findings 

can reasonably be expected to provide information that will enhance understanding of 

whether the initiative was successful in furthering HHS priorities. ACF staff members 

are available to work collaboratively with 

states to develop further or refine the evaluation plan. 

Waiver requests must include a set of performance measures that states will track to 

monitor ongoing performance and outcomes 

throughout the length of the demonstration 

project, along with the evaluation. Waiver 

applications must specify interim targets for 

each performance measure, including a 

framework for how often the measures will 

be reported, or a strategy for establishing 

baseline performance on a set of performance 

measures and a framework for how interim 

goals will be set after the baseline measures 

are established. Performance measures must 

be designed to track improvement across the 

entire set of families targeted as well as appropriate subgroups. In developing the final 

terms and conditions for an approved waiver, 

ACF will work with the state to further refine the appropriate performance measures 

and interim targets as needed. All approved 

waivers will include a provision that requires 

timely reporting to HHS on the agreed upon 

performance measures and progress toward 

meeting established interim targets. States 

that fail to meet interim targets will be required to develop improvement plans. Repeated failure to meet performance benchmarks may lead to the termination of the 

waiver demonstration pilot. 

The request must specify the proposed 

length of time for the demonstration project. 

The final terms and conditions will specify 

the approved length of the project. Absent 

special circumstances, the length of an approved project will not exceed five years. 

A state will need to develop and submit a 

budget that includes the costs of program 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S6050 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE September 10, 2012 

evaluation. TANF and state MOE funds can 

be used for the costs of evaluation, including 

third party contributions counting toward 

meeting a state’s MOE requirement. 

HHS recognizes the importance of public 

input into the process of developing and implementing a waiver demonstration project. 

Therefore, the state must provide the public 

with a meaningful opportunity to provide 

input into the decision-making process prior 

to the time a proposal is approved by HHS. 

Further guidance concerning this requirement will be forthcoming. 

Waivers are subject to HHS and Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) approval and 

terms and conditions may include additional 

requirements, such as site visits, before implementation. 

Terms and conditions will require periodic 

reporting on how the implementation and 

operation of the demonstration is progressing, including reporting on the performance measures, in addition to evaluation reports. To support learning and knowledge development, ACF staff may conduct on-site 

visits to observe demonstration operations 

and meet with relevant managers and staff. 

Inquiries: Inquiries and applications for 

projects involving waiver requests should be 

directed to the appropriate Regional TANF 

Program Manager. 

EARL S. JOHNSON, 

Director, Office of Family Assistance. 

JULY 12, 2012. 

DEAR STATE HUMAN SERVICE OFFICIAL: 

Today, the Administration for Children and 

Families’ Office of Family Assistance issued 

an Information Memorandum that informs 

states that the Department of Health and 

Human Services will use its statutory authority to consider waiver requests that 

strengthen the Temporary Assistance for 

Needy Families (TANF) program. This Information Memorandum reflects the Department’s commitment to provide states, tribes, 

and territories with more flexibility to innovate in the TANF program with the goal of 

helping more families find jobs and move toward self-sufficiency. 

On February 28, 2011, President Obama 

issued a Presidential Memorandum that directed federal agencies ‘‘to work closely with 

state, local, and tribal governments to identify administrative, regulatory, and legislative barriers in Federally funded programs 

that currently prevent states, localities, and 

tribes, from efficiently using tax dollars to 

achieve the best results for their constituents.’’ 

The Administration for Children and Families took this charge seriously and held a series of consultation meetings with states, 

tribes, and territories on a variety of topics 

including TANF. During those consultations, 

many jurisdictions expressed a strong interest in greater flexibility in TANF and indicated that greater flexibility could be used 

by states to improve program effectiveness. 

We also heard concerns that some TANF 

rules stifle innovation and focus attention 

on paperwork rather than helping parents 

find jobs. States offered a range of suggestions for ways in which expanded flexibility 

could lead to more effective employment 

outcomes for families. Two states—Utah and 

Nevada—submitted written comments that 

specifically identified waivers as one mechanism for testing new approaches to promoting employment and self-sufficiency, and 

a number of others states—including California, Connecticut, and Minnesota—have 

asked about the potential for waivers. 

As described in more detail in the Information Memorandum, the Social Security Act 

provides the Secretary of the Department of 

Health and Human Services with the authority to grant states waivers of certain TANF 

provisions for the purpose of testing new approaches to meeting the goals of the TANF 

statute. The Secretary is interested in using 

her authority to allow states to test alternative and innovative strategies, policies, 

and procedures that are designed to improve 

employment outcomes for needy families. 

The statute does not permit tribes to receive 

waivers under Section 1115, however we are 

committed to using the underlying flexibility in federal law to help tribes innovate 

in their programs. 

TANF Waiver demonstration projects 

under Section 1115 must be accompanied by a 

high quality evaluation plan, which is critical to ensuring that the pilots result in rigorous evidence about what works and what 

doesn’t in order to inform future decisions 

made by policymakers at the federal, state, 

tribal, territorial, and local levels. In addition, states that apply for a waiver must 

identify interim performance targets that 

will be used to hold states accountable for 

improving outcomes for families. We will 

work with states interested in developing 

waiver demonstration projects to design 

these performance measures and targets. 

The Information Memorandum outlines 

the types of waivers that will and will not be 

considered. The Secretary is only interested 

in approving waivers if the state can explain 

in a compelling fashion why the proposed approach may be a more efficient or effective 

means to promote employment entry, retention, advancement, or access to jobs that 

offer opportunities for earnings and advancement that will allow participants to avoid 

dependence on government benefits. 

States have shown their ability to innovate in ways that help parents find jobs. In 

2009 and 2010, 42 states used the TANF Emergency Fund authorized under the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act to create 

260,000 subsidized jobs for jobless parents and 

disadvantaged youth. Over a short period of 

time, states exhibited enormous creativity 

as they developed new subsidized employment initiatives that responded to an urgent 

need for jobs in communities across the 

country. 

It is critical that we work together to develop effective employment strategies that 

prepare workers for the jobs of the 21st century. We stand ready to work with states interested in developing innovative demonstration projects that test new approaches to 

helping parents succeed in the labor market. 

Sincerely, 

GEORGE SHELDON, 

f 

Acting Assistant Secretary. 

TRIBUTE TO RICHARD F. 

GRIMMETT 

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today I 

wish to recognize the extraordinary career achievements of Richard F. 

Grimmett, specialist in international 

security with the Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division of the Congressional Research Service, who is retiring on September 30, after 38 years 

of distinguished government service. A 

native of Akron, OH, Richard graduated with honors from Kent State 

University, where he also received a 

Ph.D. in American history with a focus 

on recent U.S. national security policy. 

Since 1974, when he joined CRS, Richard has been involved in a wide range 

of major international security policy 

issues that have confronted the Congress, from questions involving intelligence community oversight, war powers, and the basing and use of U.S. 

military forces overseas, to the international arms trade and arms export 

controls. Through his nearly four decades as a staff adviser to the Congress 

and several of its major committees, 

his various appearances as a 

con1mittee witness, and through his 

authoring of numerous in-depth CRS 

reports, Richard has become recognized 

as a national expert in these critical 

defense and foreign policy issues. 

The broad sweep of his intellect is reflected in the substantive reports and 

memoranda he has written for the Congress. Yet an especially significant 

part of his contributions to congressional policy debates has been through 

the numerous consultations and briefings he has provided to major committees of the Senate and House on key 

issues before them. At the beginning of 

his career at CRS, Richard provided direct support to major congressional investigations of events of great consequence for U.S. national security interests. Among these were his analytical support for the Senate and House 

Select Intelligence Committees—the 

panels chaired by Senator Frank 

Church and Representative Otis Pike— 

charged with investigating the activities of the U.S. intelligence community 

during 1975 to 1976, investigations that 

ultimately led to the creation of permanent select committees in the House 

and Senate that oversee the budget and 

activities of the U.S. intelligence community today. Later, in 1985 to 1987, 

Richard was a senior coordinator of the 

support provided by CRS to the House 

and Senate joint committee investigating the Iran-Contra affair, personally providing advice and suggestions 

that focused attention on key deficiencies in U.S. law, several of which 

were later corrected by legislative enactment. Immediately after the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, he directly assisted the 

Senate and the House in clarifying its 

understanding of the legislative options available to the Congress to respond, through use of force, against 

those responsible for the attacks on 

this country. His comprehensive understanding of the War Powers Resolution 

and its provisions have proven invaluable to the Congress when it has needed to consider what actions it might 

take when the President has engaged 

the U.S. military in hostile operations 

overseas. In 2005 Richard provided the 

Congress with an analytical roadmap 

that highlighted the common policy 

suggestions for legislation that the 9/11 

Commission and previous similar inquiries had 1nade to bolster U.S. internal security against the threat of terrorism. Subsequently, several of these 

proposals were enacted into law. 

Throughout his career Richard has 

been the leading specialist at CRS on 

issues relating to U.S. arms sales to 

foreign nations, U.S. arms export control law, and the international arms 

trade in general. From the mid-1970s to 

the present, he has advised the Congress and its policy committees on 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE