`[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 128 (Thursday, September 20, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H6174-H6185]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  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

[[Page 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.

                              {time}  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.

[[Page H6176]]

  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 1\1/2\ 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, 3\1/2\ 
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.

                              {time}  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 1\1/2\ 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.

[[Page 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 6\1/2\ 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, weight-loss 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 1\1/2\ 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.

                              {time}  1450

  Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 1\1/2\ 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.

[[Page H6178]]

  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 
2\1/2\ 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.

                              {time}  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/evaluating_whether_the
_tanf_information_memorandum_is_a_rule_under_the_cra_redacted_ 5.pdf
  Now comes the administration saying, Well, we don't have to go to 
Congress to change the law. Even though Congress voted on this in a 
bipartisan way and this was a critical piece of major legislation, 
we're just going to send in an information memorandum and have 
unelected bureaucrats change the law of the land.
  People who sort of referee things around here, like the GAO and CRS, 
said, No. Hold it. Stop. This is not an information memorandum. This is 
a rule.

[[Page 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

[[Page H6180]]

     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, notice-and-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. Sec. 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

[[Page 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.

                              {time}  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

[[Page H6182]]

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.)

                              {time}  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 6\1/2\ weeks. 
The American people shouldn't have to wait for 6\1/2\ 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 2\1/2\ 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.

[[Page 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 5\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from California has 3\1/2\ 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.

                              {time}  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

[[Page H6184]]

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 half-truths.
  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.

[[Page 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.

                          ____________________`