H6174 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 20, 2012 

Cuellar 

Cummings 

Davis (CA) 

Davis (IL) 

DeFazio 

DeGette 

DeLauro 

Deutch 

Dicks 

Dingell 

Doggett 

Doyle 

Edwards 

Ellison 

Engel 

Eshoo 

Farr 

Fattah 

Frank (MA) 

Fudge 

Garamendi 

Gonzalez 

Green, Al 

Green, Gene 

Grijalva 

Gutierrez 

Hahn 

Hanabusa 

Hastings (FL) 

Heinrich 

Higgins 

Himes 

Hinchey 

Hinojosa 

Hirono 

Hochul 

Holden 

Holt 

Honda 

Hoyer 

Israel 

Jackson Lee 

(TX) 

Johnson (GA) 

Johnson, E. B. 

Kaptur 

Keating 

Kildee 

Kind 

Kissell 

Kucinich 

Langevin 

Larsen (WA) 

Larson (CT) 

Lee (CA) 

Levin 

Lewis (GA) 

Lipinski 

Loebsack 

Lofgren, Zoe 

Lowey 

Luja ́n 

Lynch 

Maloney 

Markey 

Matsui 

McCarthy (NY) 

McCollum 

McDermott 

McGovern 

McNerney 

Meeks 

Michaud 

Miller (NC) 

Miller, George 

Moore 

Moran 

Murphy (CT) 

Nadler 

Napolitano 

Neal 

Olver 

Pallone 

Pascrell 

Pastor (AZ) 

Pelosi 

Perlmutter 

Peters 

Peterson 

Pingree (ME) 

Polis 

Price (NC) 

Quigley 

Rahall 

Rangel 

Reyes 

Richardson 

Richmond 

Rothman (NJ) 

Roybal-Allard 

Ruppersberger 

Rush 

Ryan (OH) 

Sa ́nchez, Linda 

T. 

Sanchez, Loretta 

Sarbanes 

Schakowsky 

Schiff 

Schrader 

Schwartz 

Scott (VA) 

Scott, David 

Serrano 

Sewell 

Sherman 

Sires 

Slaughter 

Smith (WA) 

Stark 

Sutton 

Thompson (CA) 

Thompson (MS) 

Tierney 

Tonko 

Towns 

Tsongas 

Van Hollen 

Vela ́ zquez 

Visclosky 

Walz (MN) 

Wasserman 

Schultz 

Waters 

Watt 

Waxman 

Welch 

Wilson (FL) 

Woolsey 

Yarmuth 

NOT VOTING—12 

Akin 

Filner 

Gallegly 

Granger 

Jackson (IL) 

Jenkins 

Johnson (IL) 

Renacci 

Ross (AR) 

Ryan (WI) 

Speier 

Sullivan 

b 1406 

Messrs. GEORGE MILLER of California, DAVIS of Illinois, and TONKO 

changed their vote from ‘‘yea’’ to 

‘‘nay.’’ 

Messrs. GINGREY of Georgia and 

LABRADOR changed their vote from 

‘‘nay’’ to ‘‘yea.’’ 

So the previous question was ordered. 

The result of the vote was announced 

as above recorded. 

Stated against: 

Mr. CARNEY. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall 

vote No. 587 on Previous Question H. Res. 

788, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ‘‘yea’’ 

when I should have voted ‘‘nay.’’ 

I ask unanimous consent that my statement 

appear in the RECORD following rollcall vote 

No. 587. 

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 587, I 

was away from the Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been 

present, I would have voted ‘‘nay.’’ 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. 

QUAYLE). The question is on the resolution. 

The question was taken; and the 

Speaker pro tempore announced that 

the ayes appeared to have it. 

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on 

that I demand the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 

5-minute vote. 

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were—yeas 233, nays 

182, not voting 14, as follows: 

[Roll No. 588] 

YEAS—233 

Adams 

Aderholt 

Alexander 

Amash 

Amodei 

Austria 

Bachmann 

Bachus 

Barletta 

Bartlett 

Barton (TX) 

Bass (NH) 

Benishek 

Berg 

Biggert 

Bilbray 

Bilirakis 

Bishop (UT) 

Black 

Blackburn 

Bonner 

Bono Mack 

Boustany 

Brady (TX) 

Brooks 

Broun (GA) 

Buchanan 

Bucshon 

Buerkle 

Burgess 

Burton (IN) 

Calvert 

Camp 

Campbell 

Canseco 

Cantor 

Capito 

Carter 

Cassidy 

Chabot 

Chaffetz 

Chandler 

Coble 

Coffman (CO) 

Cole 

Conaway 

Cravaack 

Crawford 

Crenshaw 

Culberson 

Denham 

Dent 

DesJarlais 

Diaz-Balart 

Dold 

Dreier 

Duffy 

Duncan (SC) 

Duncan (TN) 

Ellmers 

Emerson 

Farenthold 

Fincher 

Fitzpatrick 

Flake 

Fleischmann 

Fleming 

Flores 

Forbes 

Fortenberry 

Foxx 

Franks (AZ) 

Frelinghuysen 

Gardner 

Garrett 

Gerlach 

Gibbs 

Gibson 

Gingrey (GA) 

Gohmert 

Goodlatte 

Gosar 

Gowdy 

Graves (GA) 

Graves (MO) 

Griffin (AR) 

Griffith (VA) 

Grimm 

Guinta 

Guthrie 

Hall 

Hanna 

Harper 

Harris 

Hartzler 

Hastings (WA) 

Hayworth 

Heck 

Hensarling 

Herger 

Herrera Beutler 

Huelskamp 

Huizenga (MI) 

Hultgren 

Hunter 

Hurt 

Issa 

Johnson (OH) 

Johnson, Sam 

Jones 

Jordan 

Kelly 

King (IA) 

King (NY) 

Kingston 

Kinzinger (IL) 

Kline 

Labrador 

Lamborn 

Lance 

Landry 

Lankford 

Latham 

LaTourette 

Latta 

Lewis (CA) 

LoBiondo 

Long 

Lucas 

Luetkemeyer 

Lummis 

Lungren, Daniel 

E. 

Mack 

Manzullo 

Marchant 

Marino 

McCarthy (CA) 

McCaul 

McClintock 

McHenry 

McIntyre 

McKeon 

McKinley 

McMorris 

Rodgers 

Meehan 

Mica 

Miller (FL) 

Miller (MI) 

Miller, Gary 

Mulvaney 

Murphy (PA) 

Myrick 

Neugebauer 

Noem 

Nugent 

Nunes 

Nunnelee 

Olson 

Owens 

Palazzo 

Paul 

Paulsen 

Pearce 

Pence 

Petri 

Pitts 

Platts 

Poe (TX) 

Pompeo 

Price (GA) 

Quayle 

Reed 

Rehberg 

Reichert 

Ribble 

Rigell 

Rivera 

Roby 

Roe (TN) 

Rogers (AL) 

Rogers (KY) 

Rogers (MI) 

Rohrabacher 

Rokita 

Rooney 

Ros-Lehtinen 

Roskam 

Ross (FL) 

Royce 

Runyan 

Scalise 

Schilling 

Schmidt 

Schock 

Schweikert 

Scott (SC) 

Scott, Austin 

Sensenbrenner 

Sessions 

Shimkus 

Shuler 

Shuster 

Simpson 

Smith (NE) 

Smith (NJ) 

Smith (TX) 

Southerland 

Stearns 

Stivers 

Stutzman 

Terry 

Thompson (PA) 

Thornberry 

Tiberi 

Tipton 

Turner (NY) 

Turner (OH) 

Upton 

Walberg 

Walden 

Walsh (IL) 

Webster 

West 

Westmoreland 

Whitfield 

Wilson (SC) 

Wolf 

Womack 

Woodall 

Yoder 

Young (AK) 

Young (FL) 

Young (IN) 

NAYS—182 

Ackerman 

Altmire 

Andrews 

Baca 

Baldwin 

Barber 

Barrow 

Bass (CA) 

Becerra 

Berkley 

Berman 

Bishop (GA) 

Bishop (NY) 

Blumenauer 

Bonamici 

Boren 

Boswell 

Brady (PA) 

Braley (IA) 

Brown (FL) 

Butterfield 

Capps 

Capuano 

Carnahan 

Carney 

Carson (IN) 

Castor (FL) 

Chu 

Cicilline 

Clarke (MI) 

Clarke (NY) 

Clay 

Cleaver 

Clyburn 

Cohen 

Connolly (VA) 

Conyers 

Cooper 

Costa 

Costello 

Courtney 

Critz 

Crowley 

Cuellar 

Cummings 

Davis (CA) 

Davis (IL) 

DeFazio 

DeGette 

DeLauro 

Deutch 

Dicks 

Dingell 

Doggett 

Donnelly (IN) 

Doyle 

Edwards 

Ellison 

Engel 

Eshoo 

Farr 

Fattah 

Frank (MA) 

Fudge 

Garamendi 

Gonzalez 

Green, Al 

Green, Gene 

Grijalva 

Gutierrez 

Hahn 

Hanabusa 

Hastings (FL) 

Higgins 

Himes 

Hinchey 

Hinojosa 

Hirono 

Hochul 

Holden 

Holt 

Honda 

Hoyer 

Israel 

Jackson Lee 

(TX) 

Johnson (GA) 

Johnson, E. B. 

Kaptur 

Keating 

Kildee 

Kind 

Kissell 

Kucinich 

Langevin 

Larsen (WA) 

Larson (CT) 

Lee (CA) 

Levin 

Lewis (GA) 

Lipinski 

Loebsack 

Lofgren, Zoe 

Lowey 

Luja ́n 

Lynch 

Maloney 

Markey 

Matheson 

Matsui 

McCarthy (NY) 

McCollum 

McDermott 

McGovern 

McNerney 

Meeks 

Michaud 

Miller (NC) 

Miller, George 

Moore 

Moran 

Murphy (CT) 

Nadler 

Napolitano 

Neal 

Olver 

Pallone 

Pascrell 

Pastor (AZ) 

Pelosi 

Perlmutter 

Peters 

Peterson 

Pingree (ME) 

Polis 

Price (NC) 

Quigley 

Rahall 

Rangel 

Reyes 

Richardson 

Richmond 

Rothman (NJ) 

Roybal-Allard 

Ruppersberger 

Rush 

Ryan (OH) 

Sa ́nchez, Linda 

T. 

Sanchez, Loretta 

Sarbanes 

Schakowsky 

Schiff 

Schrader 

Schwartz 

Scott (VA) 

Scott, David 

Serrano 

Sewell 

Sherman 

Sires 

Slaughter 

Smith (WA) 

Stark 

Sutton 

Thompson (CA) 

Thompson (MS) 

Tierney 

Tonko 

Towns 

Tsongas 

Van Hollen 

Vela ́ zquez 

Visclosky 

Walz (MN) 

Wasserman 

Schultz 

Waters 

Watt 

Waxman 

Welch 

Wilson (FL) 

Wittman 

Woolsey 

Yarmuth 

NOT VOTING—14 

Akin 

Filner 

Gallegly 

Granger 

Heinrich 

Jackson (IL) 

Jenkins 

Johnson (IL) 

Posey 

Renacci 

Ross (AR) 

Ryan (WI) 

Speier 

Sullivan 

b 1420 

So the resolution was agreed to. 

The result of the vote was announced 

as above recorded. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 

the table. 

Stated against: 

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 588, I 

was away from the Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been 

present, I would have voted ‘‘nay.’’ 

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, on 

Thursday, September 20, 2012 I had a delay 

on my American Airlines flight 1342 from Chicago to Washington, D.C. due to mechanical 

difficulties. I missed procedural votes on ordering the Previous Question and the Adoption of 

the rule for Welfare Work Requirements and 

Stop the War on Coal. 

Had I been present, I would have voted 

‘‘yea’’ on the above stated bills. 

f 

DISAPPROVING RULE RELATING 

TO WAIVER AND EXPENDITURE 

AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO 

THE TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE 

FOR NEEDY FAMILIES PROGRAM 

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to 

House Resolution 788, I call up the 

joint resolution (H.J. Res. 118) providing for congressional disapproval 

under chapter 8 of title 5, United 

States Code, of the rule submitted by 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 20, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6175 

the Office of Family Assistance of the 

Administration for Children and Families of the Department of Health and 

Human Services relating to waiver and 

expenditure authority under section 

1115 of the Social Security Act (42 

U.S.C. 1315) with respect to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

program, and ask for its immediate 

consideration. 

The Clerk read the title of the joint 

resolution. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 788, the joint 

resolution shall be considered as read. 

The text of the joint resolution is as 

follows: 

H.J. RES. 118 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves 

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 (issued 

July 12, 2012, as the Temporary Assistance 

for Needy Families Information Memorandum Transmittal No. TANF–ACF–IM– 

2012–03, and printed in the Congressional 

Record on September 10, 2012, on pages S6047– 

S6050, along with a letter of opinion from the 

Government Accountability Office dated 

September 4, 2012, that the Information 

Memorandum is a rule under the Congressional Review Act), and such rule shall have 

no force or effect. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. 

SIMPSON). Debate shall not exceed 1 

hour, with 30 minutes equally divided 

and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee 

on Ways and Means, and 30 minutes 

equally divided and controlled by the 

chair and ranking minority member of 

the Committee on Education and the 

Workforce. 

The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 

CAMP), the gentleman from Michigan 

(Mr. LEVIN), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. KLINE), and the gentleman 

from California (Mr. GEORGE MILLER) 

each will control 15 minutes. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Michigan (Mr. CAMP). 

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 

legislative days in which to revise and 

extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 118. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan? 

There was no objection. 

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support 

of H.J.Res 188, a resolution to disapprove of the Department of Health 

and Human Services rule waiving the 

work requirements in the Temporary 

Assistance for Needy Families, or 

TANF, cash welfare program. The requirement that 50 percent of a State’s 

welfare caseload work, or prepare for 

work, was a central part of the bipartisan 1996 welfare reforms signed into 

law by President Clinton. Those reforms were overwhelmingly successful 

in reducing welfare dependency and 

poverty while increasing work and 

earnings. Unfortunately, President 

Obama said that he would have opposed 

such reforms had he been in Congress 

at that time. And so on July 12 of this 

year the Obama administration issued 

an ‘‘information memorandum’’ to 

waive the welfare work requirements 

in a blatant end-run around the current Congress. 

The administration’s action is unlawful on two fronts. First, the welfare 

work requirements are contained in a 

section of the Social Security Act, section 407, that may not be waived according to that law. Second, the nonpartisan Government Accountability 

Office determined that the administration’s ‘‘information memorandum’’ 

qualifies as a rule and therefore should 

have been officially submitted to the 

Congress for review before being issued. 

It was not. 

Just yesterday, GAO released another report that found that HHS has 

never before issued any TANF waivers 

in the history of the program, including involving the TANF work requirements. More importantly, they found 

that when previous HHS Secretaries 

were asked about the possibility of 

waiving work requirements, HHS responded that ‘‘the Department does not 

have authority to waive any of these 

provisions.’’ That was the conclusion of 

the Clinton administration, the Bush 

administration, and at least, to date, 

the Obama administration. 

When it comes to welfare work requirements, I guess we can say President Obama was for them before he was 

against them. Unfortunately, for the 

President, the American people do not 

agree with his original and most recent 

position on this issue. A recent survey 

shows that 83 percent support a work 

requirement as a condition for receiving welfare. And for good reason. The 

work requirement and other 1996 reforms are responsible for increasing 

employment of single mothers by 15 

percent from 1996 to 2000, and decreasing welfare caseloads by 57 percent 

over the last decade-and-a-half. 

But inexplicably, these results don’t 

sit well with the Obama administration. They refuse to acknowledge their 

mistake and rescind their memorandum. That’s why we’ve brought this 

resolution to the floor today. 

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on 

both sides of the aisle to preserve the 

successful welfare work requirements 

and join me in passing this resolution. 

I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 3 minutes. 

This bill has one purpose: to provide 

a fig leaf of credibility for a political 

attack ad that has no credibility whatsoever. Every independent fact checker 

has said the attack ad on the President 

is false. Governor Romney’s claim that 

President Obama is eliminating work 

requirements for welfare recipients has 

been called ‘‘a pants on fire’’ lie and 

given four Pinocchios for dishonesty. 

b 1430 

The Republican staffer, Ron Haskins, 

who helped draft the 1996 welfare law 

says the charge is baseless. I quote: 

The idea that the administration is going 

to overturn welfare reform is ridiculous. 

Here are the facts. Any demonstration project allowed under the guidance announced by HHS would have to 

be designed to increase the employment of TANF recipients, would be 

subject to rigorous evaluation, and 

would be terminated if it failed to meet 

employment goals. 

The whole administration effort is 

about promoting ‘‘more work, not 

less,’’ as eloquently stated by President Clinton, who led efforts on welfare 

reform. 

The administration heard from State 

officials that if they’re allowed to 

focus more on outcomes and less on paperwork, they can put more people to 

work. So HHS said to the States, including Republican Governors who 

asked for this: Prove it. 

We may hear the majority state that 

HHS does not have the authority to 

provide waivers, but that’s not the conclusion reached by the nonpartisan 

CRS. In fact, CRS said the current HHS 

waiver initiative is ‘‘consistent with 

prior practice.’’ 

And now we’ve heard Republicans say 

that TANF waivers have never been 

provided before now, even when requested. But here’s what the GAO said 

about past requests: 

States were not asking for waivers to test 

new approaches through experimental, pilot, 

or demonstration projects, which would be 

necessary in order to get a waiver under section 1115. 

In other words, in the past, States 

weren’t asking for the waivers that 

HHS is allowed to provide under the 

law and is now offering. 

At the end of the day this debate 

isn’t about process or even policy. It’s 

about politics, pure politics, indeed, 

impure politics. 

This is the same Republican Party 

that passed their own much broader 

versions of welfare waivers in 2002, 2003, 

and 2005. 

Let me read to you what the Congressional Research Service said about 

those bills: 

The legislation would have had the effect 

of allowing TANF work participation standards to be waived. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds. 

Guess who voted three times for the 

waiver of the work participation requirement in TANF? Not only the 

chairman of Ways and Means, but the 

chairman of the Budget Committee and 

Governor Romney’s running mate, 

PAUL RYAN. 

We should be debating today issues 

that matter in terms of action today, a 

credible jobs plan. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H6176 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 20, 2012 

Instead, House Republicans, who are 

doing nothing on these issues, are 

doing something totally political, a 

disservice to this great institution. 

I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. CAMP. I yield myself 30 seconds 

only because the gentleman referred to 

me. 

I will just say that the issue that he 

refers to was actually to extend the 

work requirements to other programs, 

which actually would have increased 

the work requirements. 

Let me just say, I’m glad my friend 

brought up the fact checkers, because 

The Washington Post fact checker calls 

the Democrats’ claims of increasing 

work ‘‘a stretch,’’ stating that it is not 

clear that ‘‘the net result is that more 

people on welfare will end up working,’’ 

and actually gave the ‘‘eloquent 

speech’’ by President Clinton my friend 

referenced two Pinocchios for saying 

that it would increase work by 20 percent. 

At this time I would yield 2 minutes 

to the distinguished gentleman from 

Minnesota (Mr. PAULSEN), a Member of 

the Ways and Means Committee. 

Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise 

today in support of H.J. Res. 118. This 

is a resolution that will protect welfare 

work requirements from executive 

overreach, ensuring that welfare recipients must continue to work in order to 

qualify for benefits. 

As acting chairman of the Human 

Resources Subcommittee, I just want 

to talk real quickly about how this resolution accomplishes two very simple 

objectives. 

First, the resolution simply affirms 

congressional authority over welfare 

programs by invalidating the overreaching HHS rule. 

Back in July, HHS unilaterally 

granted itself the authority to rewrite 

the work requirements, claiming that 

they can approve or disapprove work 

rules at the State level. But that’s just 

not how Congress intended this to 

work. 

Both the nonpartisan Government 

Accountability Office and the Congressional Research Service agree that this 

HHS proposal is far more than guidance to States. It constitutes a new 

rule that must first be submitted to 

Congress for review before it can take 

effect. 

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, this resolution lets States know where Congress 

stands on the importance of strong 

work requirements. 

The 1996 welfare reform law, which 

first created these strong work requirements, was a historic bipartisan 

achievement. The result was a program 

that heavily emphasizes engaging welfare recipients in work and pro-work 

activities. Before the HHS guidance, 

States knew what the rules were. However, in the wake of this new HHS rule, 

it’s not clear what the rules are now. 

HHS seems intent now to simply 

make up the rules as they go along. 

That’s what an anonymous HHS official told The Washington Post recently, describing how this policy of 

waiving work requirements was evolving in an ‘‘iterative process.’’ 

The administration’s defense that 

these changes will strengthen the work 

requirements is not reassuring because 

it just doesn’t make sense. If States 

want to engage more welfare recipients 

in work for more hours and with tougher penalties for failing to work, there’s 

nothing that stops them from doing so 

under current law. They don’t need a 

waiver to apply to do any of that. 

Simple logic simply says that the 

HHS guidance is about weakening, not 

strengthening, work requirements for 

welfare recipients. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentleman an 

additional 30 seconds. 

Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Speaker, we cannot allow HHS to circumvent Congress 

and undermine welfare work requirements. 

I urge my colleagues to support the 

resolution. 

Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 11⁄2 minutes 

to the distinguished gentleman from 

New York, CHARLES RANGEL. 

(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given 

permission to revise and extend his remarks.) 

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank 

you for allowing me this opportunity 

to participate in the Republican Presidential campaign, because that’s exactly what this is. 

I saw a commercial with a white guy 

with leather gloves on working and 

sweating, and, oh, God. It looked like 

America to me except they had something in there about President Obama 

wanting people who didn’t want to 

work, that all they had to do was ask 

for a welfare check, and I think it had 

something like ‘‘I paid for this commercial,’’ or something like, ‘‘I’m 

proud of it.’’ 

This is the first time I’ve seen a 

standing committee manipulate itself 

to give credibility to a guy who just 

really doesn’t know what this business 

is all about. 

I never thought I’d be in the well 

talking about States’ rights, but I do 

recognize there are different employment needs of people in Alaska and 

people in Hawaii, people in New York, 

people in Mississippi. They just don’t 

all have the same job opportunity. 

And the whole idea of asking for Governors, Republican and Democrat, to 

have the flexibility not to fill out 

forms, but to say, What’s working? 

How are they putting people to work? 

But I think the most important thing 

that we’re forgetting is that not having 

a job and facing your family each and 

every day is more than not having a 

paycheck; it is not having self-esteem. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an 

additional 10 seconds. 

Mr. RANGEL. To believe that people 

who are used to working hard, having 

dignity, having pride in their kids, just 

because the candidate for President 

made another mistake, that we’re 

going to have to now legislate something to show that we think he makes 

any sense on that issue, it is wrong, 

and it ain’t going nowhere. 

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 

minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. GRAVES). 

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, we’re here today to head off at the 

pass President Obama’s and the administration’s attempt to gut the welfare 

reform work requirements. Americans 

don’t want something for nothing. 

Americans want to work. Why? Because it’s the American way. 

But this issue is bigger than welfare. 

It’s a skirmish in a war over America’s 

future, the direction we’re going in. 

Now, under this President’s watch 

just here in the last, what, 31⁄2 years, 

the number of able-bodied adults receiving food stamps has doubled. The 

Federal debt is up by $5 trillion, spending on welfare up 41 percent. More debt 

and greater dependency. It’s the wrong 

vision for America. 

b 1440 

Now, what’s happened here in the 

last several years—I guess the last 3 

years—is opportunity has diminished. 

There’s a clear choice right now, Mr. 

Speaker. It’s a choice between two futures. We can continue down this path 

of debt and dependency, or we can 

choose a different path, and that’s one 

of opportunity and prosperity. So I 

thank the gentleman for bringing this 

bill forward because the choice before 

America is very clear, and we choose 

opportunity and prosperity for every 

American. 

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 15 seconds. 

I hope everybody heard that last 

statement. It shows someone coming 

down and essentially endorsing, in a 

broad way, the 47 percent statement, 

the horribly misguided statement of 

the Governor of Massachusetts—former 

Governor. 

I now yield 11⁄2 minutes to the very 

distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. NEAL). 

Mr. NEAL. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Speaker, this is a paid political 

broadcast brought to you by the majority side of the Ways and Means Committee. 

I chaired the Democratic Party position in 1996 on welfare reform. I voted 

for it and supported the work requirement at the behest of President Clinton. The idea was to provide child care, 

transportation assistance, educational 

assistance and child support payments, 

and to balance that with a work requirement. But most importantly, at 

the request of names like Tommy 

Thompson and Bill Weld, John Engler 

and George Pataki, their request was 

that in the crucible of State opportunity, that they would position themselves with some flexibility to play out 

the work requirement. We never moved 

away from the 5-year requirement. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 20, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6177 

Their suggestion was simply: let us determine how we get to the 5-year requirement through some experimentation. 

So what we’re doing here today is 

trying to offer a criticism of the President 61⁄2 weeks before an election based 

upon misinformation that borders on 

being malevolent because of the content of what is being attempted here. 

Welfare reform worked overwhelmingly, and it worked because it was a 

compromise in the end, but not to understate the role that Republican Governors played in bringing this issue to 

that experiment. 

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 

minutes to a distinguished member of 

the Ways and Means Committee, the 

gentleman from Illinois (Mr. ROSKAM). 

Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the chairman. 

I for the life of me don’t understand 

why our friends on the other side of the 

aisle are defensive about this. This is 

nothing to defend. This is to say the 

White House made an error in engaging 

substantively in downgrading work requirements for welfare. And rather 

than being defensive about it, say, 

look, they messed up. Let’s not defend 

them; let’s make sure that they don’t 

color outside the lines. 

This is not some abstract thing, Mr. 

Speaker. There are very serious voices 

that have come out, and they’ve made 

this argument that the following 

things are work and should be included, Mr. Speaker, under the work 

definitions for welfare, things like: bed 

rest, personal care activities, massage, 

exercise, journaling, motivational 

reading, smoking cessation, weightloss promotion, participation in parent/ 

teacher meetings, and helping a friend 

or relative with household tasks or errands. 

So there are some folks that are 

making the argument that if you go 

help your neighbor rake the lawn, then 

somehow that’s work under the welfare-to-work requirement. This is not 

some abstract thing. This is not something that the GOP is looking for. This 

is a sense of clarity that most Americans said, look, we recognize that if 

people need help, they should get help, 

but not to be manipulated through absurd definitions that are coming from 

who knows where—some States with a 

straight face that actually want to manipulate this to their benefit. 

This is an area where everybody 

should come together. This should pass 

with a voice vote. This is an admonition to the White House to say: don’t 

do this; do not weaken these work requirements. Instead, make sure that 

they’re fast and solid and that they 

move people to work. But don’t subsidize massage therapy and pump a lot 

of sunshine and tell hardworking 

Americans that that’s work because 

it’s not. 

Let’s do the right thing. Let’s pass 

this quickly. 

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 30 seconds. 

Those statements, indeed, are an insult, an insult. That isn’t what the administration has in mind. I read a letter from the Governor of Utah to the 

Secretary of HHS. In discussion with 

HHS officials, Utah suggested that: 

We be evaluated on the basis of the State’s 

success in placing our customers in employment, while also using a full participation 

model. This approach would require some 

flexibility at the State level and the granting of a waiver. 

That’s what this is about. Don’t massage the truth. 

I now yield 11⁄2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California 

(Mr. THOMPSON). 

Mr. THOMPSON of California. I 

thank the gentleman for yielding, and 

I rise in opposition to this political 

poppycock. 

I’ve got a real personal interest in 

this issue in this legislation. When I 

was in the State senate, I wrote California’s welfare reform legislation, and 

the work requirement was a major part 

of that. It was a bipartisan effort in 

California. It was signed by a Republican Governor, Pete Wilson; and today 

it’s still being followed by Democratic 

Governor Jerry Brown. 

Welfare reform has worked. Fifteen 

years later, the program caseload in 

California is roughly 60 percent of what 

it was in 1998—even in the face of this 

terrible recession that we’re looking at 

today. Waivers were an important part 

of that, as they are in every State 

across the Nation. Those waivers allow 

flexibility to Governors to run Federal 

programs in the most effective and the 

most efficient way possible. One size 

does not fit all, and that’s why we have 

these waivers. In this case, they work 

because they move more people from 

welfare to work, and that’s what we 

want. 

This bill should be roundly defeated. 

Mr. CAMP. At this time, I yield 2 

minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. GINGREY). 

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank 

the gentleman for yielding, and I rise 

in strong support of H.J. Res. 118. 

The Department of Health and 

Human Services, in July, essentially 

stripped many of the provisions of the 

1996 Welfare Reform Act in regard to 

TANF, Temporary Assistance for 

Needy Families, and they should not do 

that. They absolutely should not do 

that. 

This resolution, of course, calls for 

action under the Congressional Review 

Act—our authority, Mr. Speaker, as 

Members of Congress to say, no, you 

cannot do this, HHS, by any kind of executive order, and we are going to challenge it. Because people, sometimes, 

yes, they do need a little bit of a nudge 

to get off welfare and onto work; but in 

the final analysis, these individuals 

have the pride of having a job. There is 

nothing that compares to that. And as 

long as you have that opportunity, I 

think most individuals—and as I say, 

some may need a little bit of a nudge— 

but most people would gladly embrace 

that opportunity. 

So that’s what this is all about. 

We’re just simply saying we want to 

make sure that the provisions—in a 

very bipartisan way—President Clinton, in agreeing with Congress to have 

that welfare reform, it was worked out 

very carefully. We as a Congress will 

not permit those provisions to be 

stripped out of welfare to work. So, 

please, my colleagues on both sides of 

the aisle, join me in supporting H.J. 

Res. 118. 

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. 

Res. 118, a bill expressing Congress’s disapproval of the administration’s waiving of 

TANF work requirements. 

This legislation would utilize the Congressional Review Act to restore the welfare to 

work requirements of the 1996 welfare reform 

law that the Department of Health and Human 

Services unilaterally stripped in July. When 

President Clinton signed welfare reform into 

law, he said, ‘‘First and foremost, it should be 

about moving people from welfare to work.’’ 

Mr. Speaker, the administration has absolutely 

no justification to waive the reforms required 

by this bipartisan law. 

Welfare to work requirements have proven 

to lower poverty levels, increase earnings, and 

reduce government dependence. This legislation will restore the reforms that are an integral part of helping people become independent and self-sufficient. 

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 118 because we cannot allow 

the Administration to roll back key features of 

the 1996 reforms. 

b 1450 

Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 11⁄2 minutes 

to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 

PASCRELL). 

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, the 

resolution before us today is an exercise in hypocrisy. 

Mr. Speaker, just a few days ago, before coming down to D.C., we had a 

commemoration for Monsignor Vincent 

Puma, who started rehab for drug addicts and for those folks addicted to alcohol. One of his famous statements— 

he only passed 6 months ago—was: 

Treat each person with dignity. 

With all of this talk and all that 

you’ve done, you not only make a political farce out of this—because I’ve 

heard a lot of political partisanship, 

which is not allowed on this floor apparently, supposedly—but you know 

what you do? You make people, the 

great majority of people who legitimately—legitimately—are on welfare 

and have sought a job—and have 

sought a job—you make them feel less 

than human. 

But Monsignor said treat everybody, 

every person with dignity, and that’s 

what this is all about. 

And for you to put this sham up here 

in front of us only adds to the disgrace. 

But only if States show they will use 

that flexibility to increase workforce. 

It says it right in the law, quote and 

unquote. 

Never mind that this is a policy that 

you folks on the other side of the 

aisle—including Mitt Romney, when he 

was back in Massachusetts, and our 

colleague, Congressman RYAN—have 

asked for. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H6178 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 20, 2012 

I will quote the letter written by the 

Republican Governors Association in 

2005, 8 years, at least, after the welfare 

reform was signed. Here’s Governor 

Romney. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an 

additional 30 seconds. 

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

Chair will remind the Members to direct their remarks to the Chair. 

Mr. PASCRELL. We’re going to start 

with me? 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

Chair would remind Members to direct 

their remarks to the Chair. 

Mr. PASCRELL. This is what Governor Romney signed in 2005, Mr. 

Speaker: 

Increased waiver authority, allowable 

work activities, availability of partial work 

credit, and the ability to coordinate State 

programs are all important aspects of moving recipients from welfare to work. 

I didn’t say it; you didn’t say it; he 

didn’t say it. Governor Romney signed 

the letter. 

The administration’s policy has 

nothing to do with waiving the work 

requirement. If anything, you’re increasing the work requirement, if you 

read the rules and not conjecture. 

This resolution would block Governors across the country from putting 

more people back to work. How do you 

like those fish? 

Mr. CAMP. I reserve the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. LEVIN. It’s now my pleasure to 

yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 

gentleman from New York (Mr. CROWLEY). 

Mr. CROWLEY. I thank my friend 

and colleague, the ranking member, for 

yielding me this time. 

With just days to go before the majority adjourns until after the election, 

there are numerous pressing bills we 

should be completing, but it seems that 

nothing will stop my colleagues on the 

other side of the aisle from the opportunity to spend time criticizing our 

President with a political stunt bill 

once again. 

I would think that an effort to move 

at least 20 percent more—that’s 20 percent more—people from welfare to 

work would be applauded by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. 

That’s right, an increase in employment among TANF recipients under 

the proposal by the President. But, instead, that bill we’re considering today 

actually stops people from moving towards work. 

Now, I know there has been a resistance to passing a jobs bill by this majority, but this is absolutely ridiculous. 

It’s one thing not to have a jobs bill on 

the floor, but to have a bill on the floor 

that would actually say ‘‘don’t 

incentivize more people to find work 

opportunity’’ just really is ridiculous. 

The truth is my colleagues on the 

other side of the aisle seem much more 

interested in attacking the President 

than in truly working to improve programs and policies, as evidenced by the 

unfinished work that they are leaving 

behind. 

I hope my colleagues will see through 

this charade on both sides of the aisle 

and will all vote ‘‘no’’ on this bill so we 

can get back to work on serious issues 

and not political gamesmanship. 

Mr. CAMP. I continue to reserve the 

balance of my time. 

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, could you 

tell us the time that’s left for us? 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. LEVIN) has 

21⁄2 minutes remaining. The gentleman 

from Michigan (Mr. CAMP) has 4 minutes remaining. 

Mr. LEVIN. I reserve the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. CAMP. I have no further speakers. I believe I have the right to close. 

I’m prepared to close when the gentleman is through with his speakers. 

Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself the balance of my time. 

You know, I think the public should 

ask why this resolution, why trying to 

provide some kind of a smokescreen for 

an ad that has been called a ‘‘pants on 

fire lie’’ and ‘‘four Pinocchio’s dishonest,’’ why do that? I think the reason is very clear. This is manipulating 

the truth to try, I think, to appeal to 

the worst instincts. 

I worked with Ron Haskins on welfare reform, and he says this, I quote: 

‘‘There is no plausible scenario on 

which it’’—he means this ad—‘‘really 

constitutes a serious attack on welfare 

reform.’’ 

He goes on to say, ‘‘the idea’’—I repeat this—‘‘that the administration is 

going to try to overturn welfare reform 

is ridiculous.’’ 

And then he says, ‘‘Republicans are 

the ones who talk about giving the 

States more flexibility. Now, all of a 

sudden, the States shouldn’t get the 

flexibility because they are going to 

mess it up? It doesn’t make sense.’’ 

But it’s worse than nonsense. It’s 

pernicious. The ad is pernicious, and 

it’s beneath the dignity of this House 

for Republicans in the House who are 

doing nothing on major issues to do 

something to try to protect the former 

Governor of Massachusetts, their candidate for President. 

This House deserves much better 

than becoming a political plaything, a 

political plaything. It won’t happen. 

Despite this vote, it won’t happen. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. 

When the bipartisan welfare reform 

bill was passed in 1996 and ultimately 

signed by President Clinton, the work 

requirement was a key part of that 

welfare bill. And the work requirement 

is this: that at least 50 percent of the 

caseload has to be engaged in work. 

And the principle was that, if you’re 

able-bodied, you ought to be working if 

you’re going to be receiving Federal 

benefits. 

Now, the statute named 12 different 

things that qualify as work. Most of us 

think of work as going actually to employment, but there are 12 things. And 

a couple of them, let me just say, such 

as job search and job readiness actually, under current law, qualify for 

work. Vocational training and education qualifies for work as long as it 

doesn’t exceed 1 year. 

Also put into the statute was a clear 

statement that the work requirement 

could not be waived, because changing 

the paradigm on welfare was absolutely 

critical. And as I said in my opening 

statement, it has been important to reducing welfare caseloads, to bringing 

people to independence, to reducing 

child poverty. Those were all critical 

goals that have been met. 

Let me read what Dr. Haskins, the 

Staff Director of the Ways and Means 

Committee—and I was on the Ways and 

Means Committee; I helped write the 

welfare bill; I was on the conference 

committee—said at that time, in terms 

of waivers. ‘‘Waivers’’—and this is the 

committee report. 

Waivers granted after the date of enactment may not override provisions of 

the TANF law that concern mandatory 

work requirements. 

That’s because this was such an important part of the change that we 

were trying to bring to welfare. And 

it’s been very successful, some might 

say the most successful social change 

that has occurred. 

b 1500 

So every administration since then, 

whether it was the Clinton administration or the Bush administration or 

even at the beginning of the Obama administration, recognized that work requirements could not be waived. There 

is plain language in the statute in section 407 that says the work requirement cannot be waived. 

Then here comes the Obama administration, through an information memorandum, that now both the GAO and 

the Congressional Research Service say 

is really a rule; and I would like to 

place in the RECORD both the letter of 

September 4 and the September 12 Congressional Research Service memorandum, both which say that the administration action was a rule. 

The full CRS report I am inserting 

in the RECORD is available online at 

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/ 

uploadedfiles/evaluatinglwhetherlthe 

ltanflinformationlmemorandumlis 

lalrulelunderlthelcralredactedl 

5.pdf 

Now comes the administration saying, Well, we don’t have to go to Congress to change the law. Even though 

Congress voted on this in a bipartisan 

way and this was a critical piece of 

major legislation, we’re just going to 

send in an information memorandum 

and have unelected bureaucrats change 

the law of the land. 

People who sort of referee things 

around here, like the GAO and CRS, 

said, No. Hold it. Stop. This is not an 

information memorandum. This is a 

rule. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 20, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6179 

If an administration wants to promulgate a rule, there are certain criteria that they have to follow. The reason is that unelected people are making law. So, in order to do that, they 

have to inform the Congress, and they 

have to do certain things, none of 

which the administration did. Let me 

read a piece of this information memorandum: 

Projects that test systematically extending the period in which vocational education 

training or job search-readiness programs 

count toward participation rates, either generally or for particular subgroups, such as an 

extended training period. 

Under the law I just said, vocational 

training can only last a year. This information memorandum reads you can 

be in training for longer than a year. 

Number one, that is weakening the 

work requirement. Number two, they 

did not follow the law by notifying the 

Congress. They need to go back, and 

they need to issue a rule. 

Frankly, if this is that important to 

them, come engage the Congress. There 

has been no consultation. There has 

not been one staff person from HHS 

who has come up and had an opportunity to brief any of us on this. I am 

willing to work with the administration. I’d like to hear their ideas. I’d 

like to have that opportunity to do so. 

I think it is regrettable that we’ve gotten to this point, but we’ve gotten to 

this point because there has been a 

mistake. They made a mistake, and 

they need to withdraw that. 

I urge that we support the resolution. 

This is too important to have 

unelected bureaucrats make the law of 

the land. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

GOVERNMENT

ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, September 4, 2012. 

Hon. ORRIN HATCH, 

Ranking Member, Committee on Finance, U.S. 

Senate. 

Hon. DAVE CAMP, 

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, 

House of Representatives. 

By letter of July 31, 2012, you asked whether an Information Memorandum issued by 

the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on July 12, 2012 concerning the 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

(TANF) program constitutes a rule for the 

purposes of the Congressional Review Act 

(CRA). The CRA is intended to keep Congress 

informed of the rulemaking activities of federal agencies and provides that before a rule 

can take effect, the agency must submit the 

rule to each House of Congress and the 

Comptroller Genera1. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the July 12, 

2012 Information Memorandum is a rule 

under the CRA. Therefore, it must be submitted to Congress and the Comptroller General before taking effect. 

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 

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 B287557, 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 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H6180 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 20, 2012 

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 the 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 

at (202) 512–2853. 

LYNN H. GIBSON, 

General Counsel. 

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 

I rise today in strong support of H.J. 

Res. 118, a resolution disapproving the 

Obama administration’s attempt to 

roll back successful welfare reforms. 

The resolution we are considering 

today is quite simple. It preserves bipartisan policies that serve low-income 

families, and it reins in this latest example of executive overreach by this 

administration. 

In 1996, a Republican Congress 

worked with a Democratic President to 

fix a broken welfare system. By promoting work as a central focus of helping individuals achieve self-sufficiency, 

this bipartisan achievement reduced 

poverty and strengthened the income 

security of millions of needy families. 

The success of the law is a testament 

to the power of work and personal responsibility as well as what we can 

achieve when both sides work together 

in good faith. Unfortunately, the bipartisan spirit of welfare reform has been 

tarnished by the Obama administration’s decision to waive the historic 

work requirements, ending welfare reform as we know it. 

While this action is troubling, it isn’t 

surprising. The President has a track 

record of weakening work requirements in other Federal programs, including with unemployment benefits 

and food stamps. The results have been 

disappointing. A memo by the Congressional Research Service notes the number of able-bodied adults on food 

stamps doubled—that’s right, doubled—after the President suspended the 

program’s work requirement, and now 

we are supposed to believe a similar experiment will help families on welfare. 

This is also not the first time the 

President has been guilty of executive 

overreach. The Obama administration 

has coerced States to adopt its education agenda through conditional 

waivers, ignoring congressional efforts 

to reauthorize the law. Now States and 

schools face more uncertainty than 

ever about the future of our Nation’s 

education system, and they remain 

tied to a broken law. Additionally, the 

President has announced which immigration laws he will and will not enforce, and has installed unconstitutional, nonrecess recess appointments 

to the National Labor Relations Board. 

Despite all of these heavy-handed attempts to advance the President’s 

agenda, 23 million workers are still 

searching for a full-time job, and 46 

million Americans are still living in 

poverty. Too many of our fellow citizens are unemployed and trapped in 

poverty, not because of failed welfare 

policies but because of President 

Obama’s failed leadership. If the President had ideas for enhancing flexibility 

in welfare policies, he must submit 

those proposals to Congress and work 

with us to change the law. He has not 

done that. Instead, he has chosen to 

adopt a controversial waiver scheme 

that rewrites law through executive 

fiat. 

The good news is we have an opportunity today to tell the President: 

Stop. Stop rewriting Federal law behind closed doors. Stop promoting 

schemes that undermine personal responsibility and that encourage government dependency. Stop advancing 

failed policies, and start working with 

Congress on positive solutions that will 

grow our economy and great jobs. The 

American people desperately need and 

expect as much from their elected leaders. 

I urge my colleagues to support H.J. 

Res. 118 and to take a stand against the 

President’s effort to roll back reforms 

that continue to lift families out of the 

poverty. 

I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. 

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. 

The House meets today to spend time 

debating a resolution that is on a purely fabricated problem. Rather than focusing on the real problems facing 

American families, we are, instead, focusing on a resolution of disapproval— 

a resolution that does not create a single job. 

In July, the administration announced a waiver process under the 

welfare law that would allow Governors to use innovative approaches to 

move more welfare recipients into employment. Immediately, Washington 

Republicans claimed the waiver would 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 20, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6181 

gut the welfare reform; but fact checker after fact checker has publicly discredited attempts to characterize the 

waiver as going soft on work requirements, and we are still waiting for the 

majority to show us exactly where the 

administration’s waiver proposal eliminates the work requirement. 

Even the Republican staff director of 

the Ways and Means Committee subcommittee at the time of the 1996 welfare reform law says that these claims 

are false. In fact, the administration 

has even clarified the rules, writing 

that no State will get a waiver unless 

it shows an increase in employment of 

20 percent. 

Actually, the Republican position 

here is fairly consistent. They haven’t 

done anything here to create new jobs. 

They’re against welfare recipients getting jobs, and they’re against Governors increasing employment opportunities by 20 percent. So I guess we now 

know, in these last waning days of session, that the Republican Party here is 

against all jobs. No matter who is 

standing in line for the jobs, they’re 

against those jobs even though the Republican Governors have petitioned for 

the right to change the welfare law so 

they can put more people to work. The 

administration says you can do that if 

you put 20 percent more people to 

work. Imagine putting 20 percent more 

people to work on the welfare rolls of 

California or New Jersey or Texas, but 

the Republicans say no. 

The Republican Governors and Democratic Governors asked for this authority in 2002, 2003, and 2005, and the House 

passed a much broader waiver authority in trying to give the Governors, if 

you will, State flexibility. That’s what 

they were asking for, but now all of a 

sudden, in this political year, their 

candidate is running a little behind, so 

we see this as an effort to try to attack 

the President of the United States for 

doing exactly what the Republican 

Governors and what the Republicans in 

Congress have done and have voted on 

and passed. 

As President Clinton says, it takes 

brass to denounce something that you, 

yourself, have already supported. The 

hypocrisy doesn’t stop there, but 

you’ve got to have a lot of hypocrisy 

when you’re defending a candidate who 

believes in everything and stands for 

nothing. 

Just weeks before the administration 

announced its waiver process, the Republican Workforce Investment bill 

was reported out of my committee. The 

mantra of the Republicans all through 

that bill and all through the consideration over the last couple years has 

been ‘‘State flexibility.’’ Well, they accomplished it in this bill. It provides so 

much State flexibility that the State 

with an approved unified workforce 

training plan can, at the State’s discretion, eliminate all work requirements 

from TANF. It passed out of the Education and the Workforce Committee 

on a partisan vote, with all Republicans supporting that effort to let 

Governors eliminate all work requirements. 

So this debate is a little bit behind 

the times and is probably not dealing 

with the serious problem, which is the 

reauthorization of the Republican 

Workforce Incentive Act. What a difference a few weeks and a convention 

make, and here we are using the valuable time of this House before we go to 

adjournment to carry out a political 

prank—a manufactured problem, a fabricated problem—based upon fabricated 

facts. Yet still we don’t see ourselves 

dealing with the questions of middle 

class tax cuts, and we don’t see ourselves dealing with jobs bills that we’ve 

been asking for time and again while 

this Congress has been in session. 

b 1510 

It’s a sad way to end this session of 

the Congress of the United States without providing the access to those jobs 

that this Congress could have been providing throughout this entire year to 

strengthen the economy. Then again, 

as the Senate leader has said, they 

don’t want to work with this President. 

They want him to fail. And for him to 

fail, that means the American people 

can’t have jobs. That’s the goal here. 

With that, I reserve the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased 

now to yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the committee, the 

gentlelady from North Carolina (Ms. 

FOXX). 

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I want to 

thank the chairman for yielding time. 

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that 

our colleagues across the aisle are attempting to paint Republicans as inconsistent on welfare work requirements to distract from their position 

in favor of undermining successful welfare reforms. They suggest that the 

Workforce Investment Improvement 

Act, WIIA, that I offered with my colleagues, Representatives BUCK MCKEON

and JOE HECK, would gut the 1996 

TANF work requirements. That is so 

far from the truth. 

WIIA would neither contradict nor 

supplant the 1996 work requirements. 

The WIIA legislation allows Governors 

to reduce the number of redundant taxpayer subsidized employment and job 

training programs and offer real assistance to the millions of Americans who 

are unemployed and suffering because 

of the policies of this administration. 

WIIA would reduce inefficiencies and 

have States administer these programs, not undermine welfare reform. 

Republicans have a clear record of 

strengthening the work requirements 

at the heart of the 1996 welfare reform 

bill, and we have a record of working 

with a Democrat President to accomplish that reform. 

I urge my colleagues to stand with us 

and with the 83 percent of Americans 

who want to see welfare’s work requirements upheld by voting in favor of 

this resolution. 

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. 

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 

from Maryland (Mr. HOYER). 

(Mr. HOYER asked and was given 

permission to revise and extend his remarks.) 

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I’m sure 

America has been watching the ads. 

The ads say that black is white, and 

they say it over and over and over and 

over again. And they hope the American people believe that black is white. 

But it’s not enough for them to say it 

on ads, now they bring it to this floor 

in the last 7 hours of the session of 

Congress before the election. Are we 

dealing with jobs? No. Are we dealing 

with violence against women? No. Are 

we dealing with farmers who are in distress? No. Are we dealing with middle 

class tax cuts? No. Are we dealing with 

postal reform as the postal department 

goes broke? No. What are we doing? We 

are trying to reaffirm an ad that some 

people are spending tens of millions of 

dollars on to misrepresent the facts. 

Mr. Speaker, black is not white. I can 

say it one time, a hundred times, a 

thousand times: black is black, and 

white is white. This action the administration has taken is to produce more 

jobs, more work to get more people 

back to work. How? To respond to Republican Governors and Democratic 

Governors who say, I have a better way 

of doing it. By the way, that’s what 

you proposed when you were in charge 

and we had President Bush in office on 

at least the three occasions that the 

chairman has just mentioned. 

White is not black, and black is not 

white. 

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today 

exemplifies the do-nothing Republican 

Congress. Once again, Republicans are 

choosing to focus on a political message over serious issues like jobs, middle class tax cuts, or the farm bill. Instead, we’re here today discussing a 

Republican bill that misrepresents the 

facts in an attempt to simply score political points. How sad for the American people. 

At issue is the Temporary Assistance 

for Needy Families program which was 

created in 1996 when Republicans and 

Democrats worked together to achieve 

welfare reform. So you understand on 

that side of the aisle, I was a Democrat 

who voted for welfare reform. I was a 

Democrat who said we ought to expect 

people to work if they can work. I’m 

also a Democrat that says we have to 

help people when through no fault of 

their own they can’t work or have lost 

work. 

The previous speaker talked about 

how we weren’t concerned about jobs. 

In the Bush administration, 4.4 million 

jobs were lost in the last 12 months of 

the Bush administration. Over the last 

30 months, we’ve created 4.6 million 

jobs. I ask you, who cares about jobs? 

Who creates jobs? There were, of 

course, 22 million jobs created in the 

Clinton administration. We heard a lot 

of talk about that at our convention. I 

didn’t hear anything about the Bush 

administration at the Republican convention. George Bush was not there, he 

was not mentioned, and the record was 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H6182 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 20, 2012 

certainly hidden. We care about jobs. 

We care about people getting to work. 

We also care about helping people. We 

can do both. 

Defeat this bill. 

Black is not white, and white is not 

black. 

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, at this 

time, I’m pleased to yield 3 minutes to 

a member of the committee, the subcommittee chair, the gentleman from 

Michigan (Mr. WALBERG). 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

There has been 8 percent unemployment for 43 straight months. I think 

the record speaks for itself. 

I come from the great State of Michigan, where a Governor, like a number 

of others in this great country, now is 

trying to do everything possible to undermine the malaise that is going on 

with lack of employment in this country because of the wrong approach to 

helping people with the dignity of 

work. 

In the eighties and nineties in Michigan, we struggled with high unemployment. We struggled with a welfare system that was putting people really in 

servitude, and in many cases against 

their own will and their own desires. 

They wanted to work. 

I still have at my home office copies 

of leaflets that were handed to people 

coming from other States to Michigan 

because it said you can cross the line 

and immediately get welfare assistance 

with no work requirements and no residency requirements. We struggled with 

that. 

Then in 1994, under a Republican administration and through the efforts of 

many of us, we put through what we 

called ‘‘workfare-edufare reform’’ and 

promoted the dignity of individuals 

with an opportunity to work. We saw 

amazing results begin to take place not 

overnight, but almost. We heard testimonies of people who were formerly on 

welfare assistance saying, I didn’t really think it would work, but I can now 

say on my own I am paying for my own 

way and my kids. I have got an education. I have got work now that gives 

me dignity. And I’m moving forward. 

We’ve continued on with that. And 

now here, when Governors have asked 

for some flexibility with TANF—not 

asking for the removal of work requirements—we’re going to do that. Well, I 

said ‘‘no,’’ and I’m glad our committee 

has said ‘‘no,’’ and we’ve moved forward with this resolution that speaks 

to the dignity and the value of individuals, but also of the work experience, 

the educational experience, and training for that. 

We don’t want to move backwards. 

We don’t want to put further roadblocks in the way of achieving all that 

America and its dream can be. We 

don’t have to. We can support a resolution like this. We can spur our President, this administration, on to doing 

the right thing for the right people. 

That’s the American people, people 

that will work with dignity and 

achieve things for the future. 

This country is great. Let’s work together. Let’s pass this resolution, H.J. 

Res. 118. 

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. 

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 

from New Jersey (Mr. ANDREWS). 

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given 

permission to revise and extend his remarks.) 

b 1520 

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for 

yielding. Ladies and gentlemen of the 

House, this resolution repeals a rule 

that doesn’t exist and ignores some 

problems that really do exist. 

The policy from the Department of 

Health and Human Services says this: 

if a Governor thinks he or she has a 

better way to move people from welfare to work as two Republican Governors have asked for since that time, 

they can get a waiver from some of the 

rules in the welfare law if, and only if, 

they move more people from welfare to 

work than they otherwise would have 

done. The bill that the majority did report out of committee abolishes the 

work requirement. 

In fact, the only way to save the 

work requirement is to let this rule go 

into effect. That’s the illusionary rule 

they are trying to repeal for the real 

problems that concern us, though. 

If you’re a small business person that 

would like to have a tax cut when you 

create jobs, the House is ignoring that 

problem because we’re not voting on 

that bill today. If you’re a teacher or a 

police officer who’s been laid off in the 

last 2 years, the House is ignoring your 

problem because we’re not voting on 

that bill today. 

If you’re an engineer or construction 

worker who would like to go to work 

building roads or bridges or trains, the 

House is ignoring your problem because we’re not voting on that bill 

today. 

This resolution repeals an imaginary 

rule at a time of real, acute, and serious problems for the American people. 

The majority does have a plan to deal 

with those problems. They’re going 

home for 61⁄2 weeks. The American people shouldn’t have to wait for 61⁄2 weeks 

to solve these problems. 

We should vote down this bill, stay 

on the job and pass jobs legislation 

that really helps the American people 

and a farm bill that helps American 

farmers. 

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 

minutes to a member of the committee, the subcommittee chairman of 

the Health Subcommittee, the gentleman from east Tennessee, Dr. ROE. 

Mr. ROE of Tennessee. I thank the 

chairman for yielding. 

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support 

of H.J. Res. 118. This resolution will express Congress’s disapproval of the 

Obama administration’s attempt at 

weakening bipartisan welfare reform 

and prevent the administration from 

implementing their plan to waive the 

work requirements of the current law. 

Sixteen years ago, a Republican-led 

Congress worked with President Clinton to fix a broken welfare system, a 

bipartisan law that resulted in the 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant. Our ranking member 

said there is about a 20 percent requirement to increase work, and I think 

that’s a great idea. But how do you define work? 

Well, the GAO in 2005 issued a report 

that said some States counted work as 

such activities as bed rest, personal 

care, massage, exercise, journaling, 

motivational reading, smoking cessation, weight-loss promotion, helping 

a friend with a household task or running errands. 

That makes a mockery of work, and 

that doesn’t pass the laugh test. Independents, Democrats, and Republicans 

in our area of the country know what 

work is, and that isn’t it. 

Since then, since the passage of the 

law, a number of individuals have 

dropped off the welfare, a 57 percent decrease. The poverty level among single 

women dropped by 30 percent while 

their income and earnings increased. 

More than 80 percent of the people in 

this country support work requirements in the welfare reform bill, and 

this legislation ensures that the hard 

work of the 104th Congress and President Clinton isn’t weakened by the 

Obama administration. 

Let me speak to my friend, Mr. ANDREWS, for just a moment. It’s a great 

idea to hire teachers and firefighters. 

I’ve done that as a mayor of a city of 

60,000 people. Democrats have it just 

backwards. What you do is you create 

a work environment with decreased 

regulations and decreased government 

interference where the private sector 

can go out and create the jobs that create the taxes that pay for all of these 

services that we want. 

That’s what we did. It works, and 

that’s a very basic difference in philosophy. 

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. 

I yield 21⁄2 minutes to the gentlewoman 

from California (Ms. WOOLSEY). 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, here we are, 

Mr. Speaker, 24 hours before the majority closes shop and sends us home for 7 

weeks, and what are we debating? 

Are we talking about creating jobs 

for families who are struggling to 

make ends meet and wondering what 

happened to the American Dream? No, 

of course not. Instead, we’re taking up 

yet another divisive partisan measure 

that will do nothing to kick-start the 

economy or help people who have been 

kicked in the teeth by this recession. 

The Obama administration’s TANF 

waivers promote work. They allow 

States the flexibility. For example, 

they allow States to consider education as work, providing education 

and training, to move people off welfare so that they can find jobs that actually pay a living wage so they can 

support their families. 

Mr. Speaker, I’ve been on public assistance. I know what it’s like. It’s a 

bad, bad feeling. It doesn’t make you 

proud. I did it because I had to, certainly not because I wanted to. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 20, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6183 

I would wake up in the middle of the 

night frozen in fear of what would happen if one of my three children, they 

were 1, 3 and 5 years old, got ill. What 

if they broke an arm. They were rowdy 

little kids. What if they grew out of 

their shoes before I planned to buy new 

shoes? It was a very scary time. 

The day that I went off welfare was 

the day that I celebrated because I 

didn’t need it. I could stand on my own 

two feet. But I guess we shouldn’t be 

surprised by this debate. The majority 

party’s current standard bearer has 

said he believes 47 percent of the American people are essentially—and that 

would have been me back there with 

my children—freeloaders and parasites 

who don’t take responsibility for themselves. That’s outrageous and it is class 

warfare. 

Denigrating the poor and the middle 

class is a favorite strategy on the 

right. It should be creating jobs, but it 

doesn’t seem to be the way they go. 

I would like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, 

that we stop all this tomfoolery and we 

think about the people in this country. 

We know we have a job to do, and that 

job should be done before we leave 

here. 

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains on 

each side. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota has 51⁄2 minutes 

remaining, and the gentleman from 

California has 31⁄2 minutes remaining. 

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 

minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 

GOWDY). 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the chairman. 

Mr. Speaker, some of our colleagues on 

the other side of the aisle wish to 

change the law, and that’s fine. They 

just need to do it navigating this testy 

little thing we call the Constitution 

and respect the separation of powers 

between the various branches. 

Mr. Speaker, I want to read the proposed rule to you in part: HHS has the 

authority to waive compliance with 

this work requirement and authorize 

the State to test approaches and methods other than those set forth in section 407, including definitions of work 

activities and engagement, specify limitations and verification procedures. 

Then the next sentence, Mr. Speaker, 

is essentially this, and I’ll paraphrase 

it; it’s by the HHS Secretary: trust us, 

trust us that we’re going to have the 

right motives when we weigh what 

Congress has expressly said to do. 

To my lawyer friends on the other 

side, I would ask you this, why do we 

have something called substantive due 

process and procedural due process? I’ll 

tell you why, Mr. Speaker. Because the 

way things are done matters. For my 

friends who prefer literature, the end 

does not justify the means. 

We have separation of branches under 

our system of government. Among my 

many limitations, Mr. Speaker, is an 

inability to deign the motives of other 

people. Their motives may be laudatory. I don’t know that. I know this. 

We have a process in this country 

which must be followed, and this President has repeatedly said if Congress 

won’t do it, I will do it alone. 

Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is, 

no, sir, you will not. In a democracy 

you will not do it alone, whether it’s 

the NLRB or EPA or most recently 

HHS with the health care mandate or 

now with this. 

b 1530 

There has been an erosion of Congress’ authority and we have ceded it 

to the executive branch. And I will say 

this to my colleagues on the other side 

of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, the sun does 

not always shine on the same people all 

the time. There will come a time where 

there will be a Republican chief executive. So I would be careful about ceding 

this body’s responsibility to the executive branch. And when that time 

comes, when there is a Republican 

President, I will stand up for the right 

of Congress to make the laws and not 

the executive branch, just as I am now. 

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. 

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time 

as I may consume. 

Mr. Speaker, this is all interesting, 

except the fact is there’s nothing in 

what the Secretary of Health and 

Human Services has proposed that’s inconsistent with the Republican position over the years, with the Bush administration position over the years, 

with the Clinton administration position over the years and the Obama administration position over the years, 

and that is that when they passed historic welfare reform there would be an 

authority in there so, as the Governors 

lived with this over time, they could 

make adjustments. And that’s why we 

keep reciting to the various instances 

when Governors have asked for this—29 

Governors of both parties, a couple of 

Republican Governors recently—asking 

for this authority, because they 

thought they had a better way to put it 

to work. 

It’s rather interesting today that one 

of the questions is whether or not we 

would extend the education time so 

people can get the proper credentials, 

the proper training for a job. Many 

people have been unemployed now for a 

couple of years from a job that may 

not be coming back and the skills they 

have need to either be updated or they 

have to learn new skills to get the job 

that’s available in their locality or 

maybe a ways down the road. 

It’s also interesting that the Business Roundtable is in Washington this 

week talking about this exact problem: 

How do we develop those new skills because of the skills mismatch that exists in this country today for hundreds 

of thousands of jobs that are available, 

but apparently the skills are not there? 

Now, I wonder if that skills training 

so that that person can get a job in a 

good industry and a good job, what if 

that takes 13 months as opposed to 12 

months or what if it takes 8 months instead of 6 months? Why don’t we live 

with the Governors having the flexibility if they believe that’s the economic plan for their arrangement? 

We see consortiums now, because of 

the Higher Ed Act, coming together— 

community colleges, State universities, manufacturing consortiums, employer consortiums—developing the 

programs to develop the skills for the 

American workforce. And some of that 

is inconsistent with the requirements 

under this law, and that’s why Governors who want to move to the future 

came and asked for that relief. And 

that waiver authority exists in the Social Security Act. That waiver authority is explicitly for this purpose. 

But in the name of politics, we’re 

going to deny those States that are 

struggling, those Governors that are 

struggling, with the ability to do this. 

And under the rules, as the memorandum has suggested, they would have 

to show a very substantial increase in 

moving people from welfare to work. 

Supposedly, that’s the goal of everybody who’s a Member of this body, but 

politics is has overwhelmed that. 

If you had these concerns, we could 

have fixed it and moved on with getting people off of welfare to work. But 

we will leave here with some kind of 

political statement, a hollow political 

victory that means nothing except that 

those people will still be waiting to get 

off of welfare and go to work. The Governors will still be waiting to implement the program to get them off of 

welfare and go to work. And the Congress will go home. 

In the face of the desperate need of 

these people to acquire these skills to 

improve their talents, to provide for 

these families, to feed their kids, to 

educate them, to provide for health 

care, the Congress will go home. It 

won’t give the Governors this authority because it’ll look bad for their 

Presidential candidate. They won’t 

give the Governors this authority because they can score a point here. 

Those Governors weren’t trying to 

score a point. They were trying to 

score some jobs. They were trying to 

score some jobs for their citizens. 

But political games are going to win 

out here because the clock is running 

out on this Congress. So we could have 

helped those Governors. You could 

have tweaked this so you could have 

said you change from what President 

Obama wanted, and we could have gone 

on and people could have had opportunity in America. You keep saying 

you’re for it, you just don’t get around 

to providing it. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. KLINE. I yield myself the balance of my time. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 3 minutes. 

Mr. KLINE. I have got a number of 

issues to address here. We’ve heard so 

much in a relatively short period of 

time here. 

We heard from some of our colleagues that we haven’t brought a jobs 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H6184 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 20, 2012 

bill. My colleagues on both sides of the 

aisle know very well that we have 

brought many jobs bills. In fact, over 

30 of them have passed this House— 

most of them in a bipartisan way—and 

are sitting in the Senate. We just don’t 

happen to believe that trillions more of 

borrowed money to jump-start the 

economy is a jobs bill. That’s been 

proven to fail. This, in fact, is a jobs 

bill because we want people on welfare 

to get to work. 

And so we’ve heard that, no, this information memorandum, which has 

been now correctly determined to be a 

rule—an information memorandum designed to bypass Congress—will in fact 

weaken the work requirements. And so 

how do we draw that conclusion? From 

a number of things. 

One, we’re very concerned about the 

definition of ‘‘work.’’ We’ve heard the 

number, 20 percent increase. It actually means instead of 1.5 percent of 

people leaving with a ‘‘job’’ that we 

still haven’t quite defined, apparently, 

we’d have 1.8 percent. Not an overwhelming number. And then we have 

the nonpartisan, ever-present Congressional Budget Office that has joined us 

with this opinion. Under the memorandum: 

CBO expects the penalties for States that 

don’t meet the work requirements specified 

in the Social Security Act would be reduced. 

It sounds like waiving work requirements to me. And they go on: 

Thus, CBO estimates that enacting Resolution 118 would reduce direct spending by $59 

million over the 2012–2022 period, as some 

States would pay increased penalties to the 

Federal Government for failing to meet the 

work requirements. 

The work requirements in section 

407, which the Congress explicitly said 

may not be waived. 

And we heard from the other side 

that Republicans in the committee, including the chairman, voted for the 

Workforce Investment Improvement 

Act, which waives all work requirements. We disagree with that. We disagree with that. Even the CRS concedes that the purpose of the provision 

in that bill is to reduce administrative 

inefficiencies, not to gut welfare reform. 

But we have some disagreement. It 

could be controversial. In an open system, an open process, we can address 

that question when it comes to the 

floor of the House; and if there is confusion, we can make it crystal clear 

that we do not want to waive work requirements that have been so important to the success of welfare reform. 

We’re here today because the President 

decided he would exercise power he 

does not have in order to waive welfare 

work requirements Congress has said 

must not be waived. 

I urge my colleagues to join me in 

support of this important piece of legislation, and I yield back the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, is 

it possible that I missed some fundamental 

shift in philosophy during the Republican Convention last month? I thought my Republican 

colleagues actually favored states’ rights and 

empowering our governors. I thought my Republican colleagues wanted to eliminate ‘‘job 

killing’’ government regulations. I thought my 

Republicans colleagues were focused on the 

economy and putting people back to work. 

Well, the Obama Administration’s proposal 

to grant waivers to states under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program 

would do those very things. It will reduce 

some of the more burdensome regulations associated with TANF, it will provide states with 

the flexibility they have been seeking to pursue more innovative strategies, and it will set 

a standard requiring participating states to 

move 20% MORE people from welfare to 

work. 

That sounds like a JOBS bill to me . . . and 

a bipartisan one no less. Republican governors from Utah and Nevada recently requested these waivers, and 29 Republican 

Governors, including Governor Romney, have 

sought this kind of flexibility in the past. If that 

weren’t enough, some of my Republican colleagues even voted to grant similar waivers 

when they were proposed by fellow Republicans in 2002, 2003 and 2005. 

So why then are my Republican colleagues 

not supporting this common-sense, bipartisan 

proposal? Because it undermines their election-year narrative for attacking the President—a narrative on this very issue that multiple fact checkers have labeled as bogus. 

This resolution of disapproval is nothing 

more than an exercise in crass political cynicism. If my Republican colleagues were serious about helping the economy, we’d be celebrating this as a bipartisan accomplishment 

that will put more people back to work. Instead 

they will vote against their own principles just 

to deny this President any semblance of a victory . . . even if it means keeping people out 

of work. You know, I had a friend who once 

said, ‘‘If you’re going to be a phony, at least 

be sincere about it.’’ No wonder the American 

people view this Republican Congress with 

such disdain. I urge my colleague to reject this 

resolution. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise 

today in strong opposition of H.J. Res. 118. 

This resolution expresses opposition to a condition that does not exist. Republicans, led by 

their presidential nominee, have been spreading the falsehood that the Obama administration has weakened the work requirement of 

the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, one of the 

landmark achievements of the Clinton administration. The claim is false, and has been 

conclusively refuted by the foremost authority 

on welfare reform, former President Bill Clinton himself. 

Here is what really happened. When some 

Republican governors asked for waivers to try 

new ways to put people on welfare back to 

work, the Obama administration listened. The 

administration agreed to give waivers to those 

governors and others only if they had a credible plan to increase employment by 20 percent, and they could keep the waivers only if 

they did increase employment. As noted by 

President Clinton, the waivers actually ‘‘ask for 

more work, not less.’’ 

The claim that the administration weakened 

welfare reform’s work requirement is just not 

true. This is simply a political stunt for the fall 

campaign that wastes precious time that could 

be spent working together on solutions for the 

real problems confronting American families 

like creating jobs and strengthening the economy. 

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that H.J. Res. 

118 is purely a messaging bill and not a bill 

for the American people. This is an effort to 

distract Americans from the Republicans’ dismal job record. Republicans should be passing the administration jobs package, middle 

class tax cuts, and a comprehensive deficit 

deal to stop sequestration instead of engaging 

in this election-year maneuvering as they 

leave town. This bill is a waste of time and 

shouldn’t have been introduced on the floor. I 

strongly oppose H.J. Res. 118 and urge my 

colleagues to do so as well. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in 

strong opposition to the resolution of disapproval before us today. Yet again, the 

House is wasting valuable time considering a 

resolution that is not about good policy, or 

helping Americans get back to work, but about 

political games and rhetoric driven by halftruths. 

In July of this year, the U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a 

memo outlining a program for the consideration of state proposals for alternative job 

placement performance measures for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) 

recipients. This was in direct response to the 

requests from at least 29 states who wanted 

more flexibility on how they measured work 

participation among recipients. Many of these 

states requested a waiver so they could focus 

on more outcome-based measures, rather 

than job placement rates. The memo released 

by HHS outlines the conditions that must be 

met by a state to receive a waiver: a clear and 

detailed explanation of how the alternative 

proposal would increase employment by 20 

percent, as well as show that there are clear, 

measurable goals for work placement. 

However, my Republican colleagues would 

have you believe that the administration is gutting the work requirements under TANF. Not 

so. It should be obvious to any honest man 

who is not blind that this proposal does not 

waive the work requirements. In fact, it is the 

administration’s effort to test more effective 

strategies for moving families from welfare to 

work while giving the states the flexibility to 

test which strategies they think will work best 

for their residents. As President Clinton said, 

‘‘The requirement was for more work, not 

less.’’ 

We hear on the floor of this body, day in 

and day out, about how onerous federal reporting requirements are to the states, and 

how federal reporting requirements do not account for the unique needs of each of our 

states. Yet here the administration is directly 

responding to this request for flexibility and my 

colleagues run to the floor waving around a 

dead-on-arrival resolution of disapproval. In 

my experience, when the administration has 

heard your complaints and takes the steps 

necessary to address these complaints you 

claim victory. 

As our economy has struggled so have 

American families. Many of these families 

have ended up on TANF through no fault of 

their own. These families are not looking for a 

hand-out from the federal government; they 

want a hand-up. The proposal put forth by 

HHS will help the states provide these families 

with a hand-up, while still retaining the integrity of welfare-to-work requirements under 

TANF. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 20, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6185 

I urge my colleagues to reject this baseless 

and nakedly political resolution. Let’s do the 

business of the American people in an honest, 

thoughtful, and proper way. I would remind my 

Republican colleagues that you are entitled to 

your own opinion, but you are not entitled to 

your own facts. The facts are that the administration’s proposal would increase work requirements and increase the ability of Americans to 

get back to work. And here my Republican 

colleagues are irresponsibly attempting to 

block that action. Shame. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time 

for debate has expired. 

Pursuant to House Resolution 788, 

the previous question is ordered. 

The question is on the engrossment 

and third reading of the joint resolution. 

The joint resolution was ordered to 

be engrossed and read a third time, and 

was read the third time. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further 

consideration of House Joint Resolution 118 will be postponed. 

Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, 

further consideration of 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, will now resume. 

The Clerk read the title of the joint 

resolution. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the passage of the joint 

resolution. 

The question was taken; and the 

Speaker pro tempore announced that 

the ayes appeared to have it. 

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. 

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 

and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The SPEAKER. Pursuant to clause 8 

of rule XX, further proceedings on this 

question will be postponed. 

f 

b 1540 

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER 

PRO TEMPORE 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair 

will postpone further proceedings 

today on the motion to suspend the 

rules on which a recorded vote or the 

yeas and nays are ordered, or on which 

the vote incurs objection under clause 

6 of rule XX. 

Any record vote on the postponed 

question will be taken later. 

f 

STEM JOBS ACT OF 2012 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I 

move to suspend the rules and pass the 

bill (H.R. 6429) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to promote 

innovation, investment, and research 

in the United States, to eliminate the 

diversity immigrant program, and for 

other purposes. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The text of the bill is as follows: 

H.R. 6429 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘STEM Jobs 

Act of 2012’’. 

SEC. 2. IMMIGRANT VISAS FOR CERTAIN ADVANCED STEM GRADUATES. 

(a) WORLDWIDE LEVEL OF IMMIGRATION.— 

Section 201(d)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151(d)(2)) is amended 

by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(D)(i) In addition to the increase provided 

under subparagraph (C), the number computed under this paragraph for fiscal year 

2013 and subsequent fiscal years shall be further increased by the number specified in 

clause (ii), to be used in accordance with 

paragraphs (6) and (7) of section 203(b), except that— 

‘‘(I) immigrant visa numbers made available under this subparagraph but not required for the classes specified in paragraphs 

(6) and (7) of section 203(b) shall not be 

counted for purposes of subsection (c)(3)(C); 

and 

‘‘(II) for purposes of paragraphs (1) through 

(5) of section 203(b), the increase under this 

subparagraph shall not be counted for purposes of computing any percentage of the 

worldwide level under this subsection. 

‘‘(ii) The number specified in this clause is 

55,000, reduced for any fiscal year by the 

number by which the number of visas under 

section 201(e) would have been reduced in 

that year pursuant to section 203(d) of the 

Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (8 U.S.C. 1151 note) if section 

201(e) had not been repealed by section 3 of 

the STEM Jobs Act of 2012. 

‘‘(iii) Immigrant visa numbers made available under this subparagraph for fiscal year 

2013, but not used for the classes specified in 

paragraphs (6) and (7) of section 203(b) in 

such year, may be made available in subsequent years as if they were included in the 

number specified in clause (ii), but only to 

the extent to which the cumulative number 

of petitions under section 204(a)(1)(F), and 

applications for a labor certification under 

section 212(a)(5)(A), filed in fiscal year 2013 

with respect to aliens seeking a visa under 

paragraph (6) or (7) of section 203(b) was less 

than the number specified in clause (ii) for 

such year. Such immigrant visa numbers 

may only be made available in fiscal years 

after fiscal year 2013 in connection with a petition under section 204(a)(1)(F), or an application for a labor certification under section 

212(a)(5)(A), that was filed in fiscal year 2013. 

‘‘(iv) Immigrant visa numbers made available under this subparagraph for fiscal year 

2014, but not used for the classes specified in 

paragraphs (6) and (7) of section 203(b) during 

such year, may be made available in subsequent years as if they were included in the 

number specified in clause (ii), but only to 

the extent to which the cumulative number 

of petitions under section 204(a)(1)(F), and 

applications for a labor certification under 

section 212(a)(5)(A), filed in fiscal year 2014 

with respect to aliens seeking a visa under 

paragraph (6) or (7) of section 203(b) was less 

than the number specified in clause (ii) for 

such year. Such immigrant visa numbers 

may only be made available in fiscal years 

after fiscal year 2014 in connection with a petition under section 204(a)(1)(F), or an application for a labor certification under section 

212(a)(5)(A), that was filed in fiscal year 

2014.’’. 

(b) NUMERICAL LIMITATION TO ANY SINGLE

FOREIGN STATE.—Section 202(a)(5)(A) of such 

Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(a)(5)(A)) is amended by 

striking ‘‘or (5)’’ and inserting ‘‘(5), (6), or 

(7)’’. 

(c) PREFERENCE ALLOCATION FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED IMMIGRANTS.—Section 203(b) of 

such Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)) is amended— 

(1) by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (8); and 

(2) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following: 

‘‘(6) ALIENS HOLDING DOCTORATE DEGREES

FROM U.S. DOCTORAL INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER

EDUCATION IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, OR MATHEMATICS.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Visas shall be made 

available, in a number not to exceed the 

number specified in section 201(d)(2)(D)(ii), to 

qualified immigrants who— 

‘‘(i) hold a doctorate degree in a field of 

science, technology, engineering, or mathematics from a United States doctoral institution of higher education; 

‘‘(ii) agree to work for a total of not less 

than 5 years in the aggregate for the petitioning employer or in the United States in 

a field of science, technology, engineering, or 

mathematics upon being lawfully admitted 

for permanent residence; and 

‘‘(iii) have taken all doctoral courses in a 

field of science, technology, engineering, or 

mathematics, including all courses taken by 

correspondence (including courses offered by 

telecommunications) or by distance education, while physically present in the 

United States. 

‘‘(B) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this 

paragraph, paragraph (7), and sections 

101(a)(15)(F)(i)(I) and 212(a)(5)(A)(iii)(III): 

‘‘(i) The term ‘distance education’ has the 

meaning given such term in section 103 of 

the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 

1003). 

‘‘(ii) The term ‘field of science, technology, 

engineering, or mathematics’ means a field 

included in the Department of Education’s 

Classification of Instructional Programs taxonomy within the summary groups of computer and information sciences and support 

services, engineering, mathematics and statistics, and physical sciences. 

‘‘(iii) The term ‘United States doctoral institution of higher education’ means an institution that— 

‘‘(I) is described in section 101(a) of the 

Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 

1001(a)) or is a proprietary institution of 

higher education (as defined in section 102(b) 

of such Act (20 U.S.C. 1002(b))); 

‘‘(II) was classified by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching on 

January 1, 2012, as a doctorate-granting university with a very high or high level of research activity or classified by the National 

Science Foundation after the date of enactment of this paragraph, pursuant to an application by the institution, as having equivalent research activity to those institutions 

that had been classified by the Carnegie 

Foundation as being doctorate-granting universities with a very high or high level of research activity; 

‘‘(III) has been in existence for at least 10 

years; 

‘‘(IV) does not provide any commission, 

bonus, or other incentive payment based directly or indirectly on success in securing 

enrollments or financial aid to any persons 

or entities engaged in any recruitment or admission activities for nonimmigrant students or in making decisions regarding the 

award of student financial assistance to nonimmigrant students; and 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE