House Report 112-677 - 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

[House Report 112-677]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

112th Congress Rept. 112-677
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session Part 2
======================================================================

PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL UNDER CHAPTER 8 OF TITLE 5,
UNITED STATES CODE, OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE OFFICE OF FAMILY
ASSISTANCE OF THE ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES RELATING TO WAIVER AND
EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 1115 OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT
(42 U.S.C. 1315) WITH RESPECT TO THE TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY
FAMILIES PROGRAM

_______

September 18, 2012.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_______

Mr. Kline, from the Committee on Education and the Workforce, submitted
the following

R E P O R T

together with

MINORITY VIEWS

[To accompany H.J. Res. 118]

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on Education and the Workforce, to whom was
referred the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 118) providing for
congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United
States Code, of the rule submitted by the Office of Family
Assistance of the Administration for Children and Families of
the Department of Health and Human Services relating to waiver
and expenditure authority under section 1115 of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1315) with respect to the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families program, having considered the
same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend
that the joint resolution do pass.

PURPOSE

House Joint Resolution 118, as ordered reported by the
Committee on Education and the Workforce and the Committee on
Ways and Means on September 13, 2012, expresses congressional
disapproval of the July 2012 U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) rule proposing to allow states to waive
work requirements under the Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) program. The resolution, authorized under the
Congressional Review Act (CRA), states that Congress
disapproves of the rule and that the rule ``shall have no force
or effect.''

COMMITTEE ACTION

The Committee on Education and the Workforce strongly
supports maintaining and strengthening the 1996 welfare reform
law, which has been successful in moving millions of low-income
families off of government dependence and into work. The
congressional resolution of disapproval is necessary to rein in
the Obama administration's abuse of power and protect reforms
that have effectively served millions of needy families.

110th Congress

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

111th Congress

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

112th Congress

On September 11, 2012, Reps. John Kline (R-MN), Dave Camp
(R-MI), and Jim Jordan (R-OH) introduced House Joint Resolution
118, to provide for congressional disapproval under chapter 8
of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the
Office of Family Assistance of the Administration for Children
and Families of the Department of Health and Human Services
relating to waiver and expenditure authority under section 1115
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1315) with respect to the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program.
On September 13, 2012, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce considered H.J. Res. 118 in legislative session and
reported the resolution favorably by a vote of 22 to 16.

SUMMARY

House Joint Resolution 118, a joint resolution under the
Congressional Review Act disapproving of the July 12, 2012
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Information Memorandum
(Transmittal No. TANF-ACF-IM-2012-03),
expresses Congress's disapproval of the
Obama administration's regulatory effort to weaken
welfare reform;
prevents the administration from
implementing its plan to waive the work requirements of
the 1996 welfare reform law; and
preserves critical reforms that have helped
lift millions of American families out of poverty.

COMMITTEE VIEWS

Introduction

In 1996, the Republican-led Congress passed, and President
Bill Clinton signed into law, the Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Act\1\, better known as the welfare reform law
of 1996. The reforms offered new flexibility to states in
designing their welfare programs in exchange for fixed federal
funds and a simple promise that welfare recipients engage in
work and related activities. This important idea--that work
should be an important part of the nation's social programs--
has been an unqualified success, leading to increased work and
earnings, along with record declines in poverty and government
dependence, for low-income families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Public Law 104-193.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the old system, approximately 5 million families were
on welfare, many for as long as 13 years. Due to a lack of
focus on obtaining work, the failed welfare policies of the
past left families trapped in a cycle of dependency and
poverty.
Despite moving millions of Americans off government
dependency and into a job, welfare reform is now being
undermined through a regulatory effort by the Obama
administration. Under the guise of state flexibility, the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services announced it would
allow states to seek a waiver from the work requirements
critical to the success of welfare reform. Current law is clear
that the work requirements cannot be waived, yet the
administration is attempting to do so through an end run around
Congress that could unilaterally weaken welfare reform.
The House Committee on Education and the Workforce strongly
believes H.J. Res. 118 is needed to ensure the work
requirements under the 1996 welfare reform law are not
undermined by the administration's reckless waiver policy. This
important action guarantees the work requirements defined in
law continue to be effective in ensuring welfare recipients
engage in the work and work-related activities they need to
increase their earnings, leave welfare, and support themselves
and their families.

The importance and effects of welfare reform

In 1996, Congress approved the historic welfare reform law,
fundamentally transforming the federal government's vision for
assisting low-income individuals and families. The law centered
on adding a workforce component to the main public assistance
program, believing it would encourage employment among the
poor, end dependency on government assistance, and reduce long-
term intergenerational poverty. While most House Democrats
opposed the 1996 welfare reform (in fact, most House Democrats
have opposed all nine attempts by Congress to institute or
strengthen welfare's work requirements over the last 16 years),
it was signed into law by President Bill Clinton:

I made my principles for real welfare reform very
clear from the beginning. First and foremost, it should
be about moving people from welfare to work (President
Bill Clinton announcing welfare reform legislation,
July 31, 1996).

The law created the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) block grant\2\, which provides states with a set amount
of federal funding and flexibility to design and carry out
their social safety net program. TANF replaced the Aid to
Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) entitlement program,
created in 1935, which contained few restrictions on the
availability of cash support to low-income families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\42 U.S.C. 601-619.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though TANF operates as a block grant, a number of
important requirements are attached to states' use of funds,
particularly for families receiving ``assistance'' (largely
defined as cash benefits). Under the law, states must
demonstrate at least 50 percent of all families and 90 percent
of all two-parent families are engaged in work-related
activities, including: (1) unsubsidized employment; (2)
subsidized private sector employment; (3) subsidized public
sector employment; (4) work experience if sufficient private
sector employment is not available; (5) on-the-job training;
(6) job search and job readiness assistance (not to exceed six
weeks, or 12 weeks if the participant lives in a state in which
the unemployment rate is at least 50 percent greater than the
national average); (7) community service programs; (8)
vocational educational training (not to exceed 12 months with
respect to any individual); (9) job skills training directly
related to employment; (10) education directly related to
employment for a recipient who has not received a high school
diploma or a certificate of high school equivalency; (11)
satisfactory attendance at secondary school or in a course of
study leading to a certificate of general equivalence, in the
case of a recipient who has not completed secondary school or
received a certificate; and (12) the provision of child care
services to an individual who is participating in a community
service program. The law also limits how long a family with an
adult can receive assistance to five years.
While state caseload reductions differ by state, welfare
reform is considered an unqualified success. Prior to 1996, the
main goal of state- and county-led welfare programs was to
provide cash assistance. Now, most states have radically
changed their welfare programs to emphasize work. More than 30
states reported that TANF operations were included in One-Stop
Career Centers authorized under the Workforce Investment Act,
and 16 states reported that TANF funds were used as one of the
main sources to operate their workforce investment programs.\3\
Caseloads have declined by 65 percent nationwide from their
all-time high of 5.1 million families in 1994 to 1.8 million
families in December 2011. The total number of families
receiving assistance is now lower than at any time since
1970.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\GAO-07-1096, One-Stop System Infrastructure Continues to Evolve,
but Labor Should Take Action to Require All Employment Service Offices
Are Part of the System, September 4, 2007.
\4\U.S. Department of Health and Human services, Monthly Number of
Families Receiving Cash Welfare: 1959-2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most importantly, the law has been successful in helping
end the cycle of dependency. Before reform, the average length
of stay on welfare for recipients was 13 years. Even though
TANF now has a five-year time limit, only 1.7 percent of the
1.7 million case closings in FY 2009 were due to a family
reaching the federal time limit. More than two million mothers
entered the workforce, earnings for female headed families
increased while their income from welfare payments fell, and
child poverty declined every year between 1993 and 2000.
Many Democrats and advocates have argued the nation's
economic prosperity should be credited with the significant
reductions in state caseloads from 1996 to 2008, the increase
in work, and the reduction in poverty. However, under the
former law, caseloads remained constant or increased during
times of economic expansion. In addition, the current national
caseload has increased only slightly during the most recent
recession and never approached 1994 levels. This clearly
demonstrates the welfare reform law passed by Republicans has
worked and continues to work for low-income families and the
nation's taxpayers. Arthur C. Brooks, president of the American
Enterprise Institute, summarized the national and historic
impact of the 1996 welfare reform law:

The 1996 law was arguably the most successful policy
change to help low-income Americans in the past 60
years. Welfare policies of the 1960s led generations of
families to languish on the government dole at
subsistence levels, never gaining the skills to work
and with little hope to rise. It took more than a
decade to get Congress to reverse course. But it was
worth the effort.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Brooks, Arthur C. ``Obama and `Earning Your Success': The work
mandate was the most successful welfare reform in 60 years. Ending it
is a tragedy'' Wall Street Journal August 6, 2012.

According to a recent survey, more than 80 percent of the
American people continue to support the work requirements at
the heart of welfare reform,\6\ which have raised earnings,
lowered poverty, and reduced government dependence. H.J. Res.
118 ensures this important progress is not undermined by the
current administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Rasmussen Reports, ``83% Favor Work Requirement for Welfare
Recipients'' (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public--content/business/
jobs_employment/july_2012/
83_favor_work_requirement_for_welfare_recipients) July 18, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recent actions to undermine welfare reform

On July 12, 2012, the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services' (HHS) Administration for Children and Families issued
an Information Memorandum announcing its willingness to waive
certain federal work participation standards of TANF to permit
states to test ``alternative and innovative strategies,
policies, and procedures that are designed to improve
employment outcomes for needy families.'' In short, the new
waiver scheme would permit states to have welfare-to-work
initiatives assessed using measures other than work
participation rates.
HHS is using the limited authority the secretary is granted
under section 1115 of the Social Security Act\7\ (SSA) to limit
state plan reporting requirements included in section 402 of
the law\8\ to waive the TANF mandatory work requirement under
section 407 of the SSA,\9\ a highly questionable proposition
and a clear violation of congressional intent. Similar to most
federal laws, TANF requires states to submit a plan to receive
federal funds. Included within this plan is an outline of the
family assistance program the state intends to operate, which
includes a requirement that it ensure ``parents and caretakers
receiving assistance under the program engage in work
activities'' in accordance with the work participation
standards. The administration is using this benign reference in
the state plan to justify its recent action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\42 U.S.C. 1315.
\8\42 U.S.C. 602.
\9\42 U.S.C. 607.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As Robert Rector, one of the authors of the 1996 bill, and
Andrew Grossman, an expert in social welfare policy, have
stated:

There is absolutely no indication, in the text of the
1996 welfare reform or elsewhere, that Congress
intended to allow the waiver of the centerpiece
provision: work requirements. To waive those
requirements is to violate the ``workfare'' law, the
Constitution's vesting of legislative power in the
Congress, and the president's fundamental duty to
faithfully carry out all the laws.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\National Review Online, ``HHS Can't Waive Workfare,'' August 9,
2012.

Since TANF was authorized more than 16 years ago, no HHS
Secretary--Republican or Democratic--has attempted to assert
his or her authority to waive the mandatory work requirements
under the law. It is clear the secretary does not have
authority to waive the work requirements included in section
407. Section 1115 of the SSA, authorizing limited demonstration
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
projects, clearly states:

The Secretary may waive compliance with any of the
requirements of section 2, 402, 454, 1002, 1402, 1602,
or 1902, as the case may be, to the extent and for the
period he finds necessary to enable such State or
States to carry out such project. . .\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\42 U.S.C. 1315.

The language does not authorize the secretary to waive
section 407. In a letter dated July 12, 2012 to HHS Secretary
Kathleen Sebelius, House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp
wrote, ``Simply put, if Congress had intended to allow waivers
of TANF work requirements, it would have said so in the
statute. Instead, Congress did the opposite and explicitly
prohibited waivers to section 407 work requirements, among
other sections of the Social Security Act.''\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\Press release entitled, ``Camp, Hatch Blast HHS Move to
Undermine Work Requirements for Welfare Recipients and Question HHS'
Legal Authority.'' For more information see: http://
waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/
7.12.12_tanf_work_requirements_letter.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, congressional intent is unambiguous. In the House
Ways and Means Committee Report from November 1996, committee
members state clearly, ``Waivers granted after the date of
enactment may not override provisions of the TANF law that
concern mandatory work requirements.''\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives
``Summary of Welfare Reforms Made By Public Law 104-193 The Personal
Responsibility And Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act And Associated
Legislation'' November 6, 1996, page 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even governors from across the country have expressed
significant concerns about HHS' July memorandum announcing
states could waive the work requirements at the heart of the
1996 welfare reform law. Iowa Governor Terry Branstad recently
stated in a letter to the secretary:

This weakening of work requirements for TANF, veiled
as flexibility for states, harms the ability of states
to empower citizens and undermines the successful TANF
reforms that have been in place since 1996. In this
case, I believe your Department has confused
flexibility for states with a selection of bad policy
choices.

Kansas Governor Sam Brownback also weighed in, stating:

The Department's recent informational memorandum
released on July 12th giving states the ability to opt-
out of the very work requirements which have proven
successful over the past 15 years is alarming . . . The
work requirement was the centerpiece of the 1996 reform
law and intentionally set-aside by Congress so as not
to be among those items that are waiver eligible.

As the lack of hearings and committee action during the
110th, 111th, and 112th Congresses authorizing changes to
TANF's work requirements demonstrates, HHS' guidance was not
issued in response to any change in TANF law, nor does it
follow up on any proposal from the Obama administration that
seeks to make policy changes to TANF through the regular
legislative process. Instead, the unprecedented policy
announcement by the Obama administration simply declares--
despite specific statutory provisions to the contrary--states
may waive work requirements at the heart of the nation's
successful welfare reform program.

Protecting welfare reform and holding the administration accountable

Under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), the Comptroller
General of the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is
responsible for reviewing all rules in order to determine
whether relevant federal agencies have complied with federal
requirements. As part of these duties, he or she determines
what constitutes a rule for the purposes of the CRA. In this
case, HHS did not submit the Information Memorandum as a rule
to Congress nor GAO, arguing that the TANF waiver proposal does
not constitute an official rule.
At the behest of House Ways and Means Committee Chairman
Camp and Senator Orrin Hatch, GAO released an analysis of the
Information Memorandum.\14\ While HHS stated the memorandum did
not fit into the definition of a rule, GAO concluded the
Information Memorandum is a ``statement of general
applicability and future effect, designed to implement,
interpret, or prescribe law or policy with regard to TANF''
and, therefore, concluded ``the July 12, 2012 Information
Memorandum is a rule under the CRA.'' As Chairman John Kline
stated in his opening remarks during the committee's markup of
H.J. Res. 118:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\Letter entitled, ``Temporary Assistance for Needy Families:
Information Memorandum Constitutes Rule for the Purposes of the
Congressional Review Act.'' For more information, see: http://
www.gao.gov/assets/650/647778.pdf.

The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office has
confirmed the administration's welfare waiver plan is a
rule and Congress has the right to review it. If a
president runs roughshod over the law, seizes power
that he doesn't have, and pursues policies that hurt
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
needy families, Congress has no choice but to act.

The committee believes congressional action, consistent
with the law, is necessary to protect the requirements that are
the heart of the nation's successful efforts to promote work
for welfare recipients. The committee notes the Obama
administration, more so than any president or executive branch
in recent memory, has demonstrated a pattern of regulatory
overreach and action by executive fiat. Instead of working with
Congress or submitting plans for the House and Senate to
consider during the upcoming reauthorization process, the
administration chooses to ignore the law. Rep. Judy Biggert
summarized this fact in her remarks during the committee's
markup of H.J. Res. 118:

Like many of my colleagues, I am concerned that this
represents yet another example of this Administration's
my way or the highway' approach to governing. We've
seen it in education, immigration, health care, and
labor policy, and now it's happening in welfare reform.
According to the Government Accountability Office,
these waivers have no basis in law. And, by
circumventing the authority of Congress, this
Administration has lost any credibility to argue that
this is anything more than an attempt to unwind years
of progress in moving families from welfare to work.

Though no states have been approved for waivers at this
time, it is conceivable states could apply and receive approval
to count as ``work'' many activities that have been previously
rejected by Congress. In 2005, the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) issued a report that found states counted
activities such as exercise, helping a friend with household
tasks and errands, and personal journaling as ``work
activities.''\15\ In 2006, Congress reauthorized the TANF
program as part of the Deficit Reduction Act, preventing states
from continuing such practices. The administration's actions
would devalue work, taking us back not only to the questionable
practices of the mid-2000s, but to the 1930s, 1960s, and 1980s.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\GAO-05-821, HHS Should Exercise Oversight to Help Ensure TANF
Work Participation Is Measured Consistently across States, August 19,
2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Debunking false statements from the administration and congressional
Democrats

The committee notes the administration has stated it will
only approve waivers relating to the work participation
requirements that would lead to a ``more effective means of
meeting the work goals of TANF.'' In a letter to Senator Hatch
dated July 18, 2012, Secretary Sebelius explains HHS will only
approve waivers to states that promise a 20 percent increase in
employment exits from the year before. While supposedly an
important part of the administration's waiver package, this `20
percent promise' does not appear anywhere in the Information
Memorandum and was only made after congressional Republicans
challenged the president's controversial waiver scheme.
The plan to ``increase employment by 20 percent'' centers
on an old performance measure Congress explicitly excluded from
the 1996 reform because it is a misleading measure of workfare
and dependency reduction. Employment exits naturally rise when
more people are on welfare and fall when caseloads decrease.
Using this metric is indeed a way to return us to the failed
policies of the past that resulted in ever-increasing welfare
rolls, and will undermine the successful efforts of the last
two decades to reduce poverty and empower families.
Furthermore, the 20 percent threshold is minuscule when
compared to current employment exits. Currently, approximately
1.5 percent of the monthly TANF caseload leaves the program
because of increased employment each month. Under the
administration's new welfare proposal, a state can be fully
exempt from the work standards if it raises its employment
exits by 0.3 percent, to a mere 1.8 percent, equaling less than
100 people in some states.
Recently, committee Democrats released a Congressional
Research Service (CRS) memorandum suggesting H.R. 4297, the
Workforce Investment Improvement Act of 2012, provides
authority to states to waive welfare work requirements. In an
effort to hide their opposition to welfare reform and make
excuses for the administration's recent actions to weaken the
current work requirements contained in law, Democrat Members of
the House Committee on Education and the Workforce criticized
Republicans for supporting efforts to streamline effective
workforce development programs.
Under section 501 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998
(WIA), states are permitted to submit to the appropriate
secretaries a unified plan to administer employment and
training programs across one or more of 15 different federal
programs. This unified plan can include coordination between
WIA and TANF programs. Under the law, the secretary of each
program approving such plan has the authority to deny a plan
that is not consistent with the requirements of the federal
statute authorizing the activity or program.
H.R. 4297 adds a new subsection (e) to section 501 allowing
states to consolidate funds from a specified list of programs
into the Workforce Investment Fund ``in order to reduce
inefficiencies in the administration of federally-funded State
and local employment and training programs'' not to bypass the
rules and regulations to which these programs must adhere. Some
examples include: allowing TANF offices to be co-located in the
One-Stop Career Centers, reducing the number of state directors
and local personnel required to administer multiple federally
funded employment and training programs (e.g. some federal laws
require states to designate, hire, and use specific personnel),
and directing federal funds to a single state and/or local
agency.
The language in H.R. 4297 is clear that governors can
consolidate funds only to ``reduce inefficiencies in the
administration of federally-funded State and local employment
and training programs.'' Even the CRS report on which Democrats
rely recognizes this fact, noting ``the amendment [H.R. 4297]
states that the purpose'' is to reduce administrative
inefficiencies. Rather than have multiple state departments
responsible for administering job training programs, H.R. 4297
allows states to consolidate their administrative funds and
administrative activities into one single place. Republicans
have a clear record of strengthening the work requirements at
the heart of the 1996 welfare reform bill. Democrats, on the
other hand, have voted on numerous occasions to weaken TANF
work requirements.

Conclusion

Welfare reform has been one of the most successful domestic
policy reform initiatives of the last two decades. The
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program has reduced
dependency and improved the lives of millions. In contrast to
House Democrats, who have opposed the last nine attempts to
support strong work requirements in our nation's welfare
system, the Committee on Education and the Workforce strongly
supports House Joint Resolution 118. Congress cannot allow the
Obama administration to circumvent the law and roll back
critical welfare reform.
Nearly 23 million Americans are struggling to find a full-
time job in the Obama economy. Yet even in the midst of a
persistently weak economy, the percentage of children in
female-headed households living in poverty today is lower than
before welfare reform was signed into law. Instead of providing
support that will help unemployed Americans move into
employment, the president's executive overreach will lead to
more dependency for those struggling the most under his failed
policies. President Obama should work with Congress on
solutions that will create jobs and expand opportunity, not
circumvent Congress to advance controversial policies that lead
to more dependence and less hope for the American people.

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Congress expresses its disapproval of the rule submitted by
the Office of Family Assistance of the Administration for
Children and Families of the Department of Health and Human
Services relating to waiver and expenditure authority under
section 1115 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1315) with
respect to Temporary Assistance to Needy Families and prohibits
it from going into effect.

EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENTS

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

APPLICATION OF LAW TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104-1 requires a
description of the application of this resolution to the
legislative branch. H.J. Res. 118 expresses congressional
disapproval of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
July 12, 2012 rule proposing to allow states to waive work
requirements under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
program, and states that the rule ``shall have no force or
effect.''

UNFUNDED MANDATE STATEMENT

Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act (as amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act, P.L. 104-4) requires a statement of
whether the provisions of the reported bill include unfunded
mandates. This issue is addressed in the CBO letter.

EARMARK STATEMENT

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

ROLLCALL VOTES

Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires the Committee Report to include for
each record vote on a motion to report the measure or matter
and on any amendments offered to the measure or matter the
total number of votes for and against and the names of the
Members voting for and against.

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

In accordance with clause 3(c) of House Rule XIII, the goal
of H.J. Res. 118 is to disapprove the rule proposing to waive
welfare work requirements and provide that the rule shall have
no force or effect. The Committee expects the Department of
Labor to comply with these provisions and implement the law in
accordance with these stated goals.

STATEMENT OF OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause
2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives,
the Committee's oversight findings and recommendations are
reflected in the body of this report.

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND CBO COST ESTIMATE

With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect
to requirements of clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives and section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received
the following estimate for H.J. Res. 118 from the Director of
the Congressional Budget Office:

U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, September 17, 2012.
Hon. John Kline,
Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.J. Res. 118, a joint
resolution providing for congressional disapproval under
chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted
by the Office of Family Assistance of the Administration for
Children and Families of the Department of Health and Human
Services relating to waiver and expenditure authority under
section 1115 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1315) with
respect to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Jonathan
Morancy.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Elmendorf,
Director.
Enclosure.

H.J. Res. 118--A joint resolution providing for congressional
disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of
the rule submitted by the Office of Family Assistance of the
Administration for Children and Families of the Department of
Health and Human Services relating to waiver and expenditure
authority under section 1115 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1315) with respect to the Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families program

Summary: H.J. Res. 118 would disapprove the rule submitted
by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on July
12, 2012, that modifies the waiver authority with respect to
work requirements in the Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families program (TANF). H.J. Res. 118 would invoke a
legislative process established by the Congressional Review Act
(Public Law 104-121) to disapprove the new waiver authority
rule. If H.J. Res. 118 is enacted, the rule would have no force
or effect.
CBO estimates that enacting the resolution would reduce
direct spending by $59 million over the 2013-2022 period. (The
resolution would not affect revenues.) Pay-as-you-go procedures
apply because enacting the legislation would affect direct
spending.
CBO does not expect that implementing the resolution would
have any significant effect on spending subject to
appropriation.
The joint resolution contains no intergovernmental or
private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (UMRA).
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of House Joint Resolution 118 is shown in the
following table. The costs of this legislation fall within
budget function 600 (income security).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2013-2017 2013-2022
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING

Estimated Budget Authority........................ -5 -6 -6 -6 -6 -6 -6 -7 -7 -7 -28 -59
Estimated Outlays................................. -5 -6 -6 -6 -6 -6 -6 -7 -7 -7 -28 -59
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Components may not sum to totals because of rounding.

Basis of estimate: For the purposes of this estimate, CBO
assumes that the legislation will be enacted near the beginning
of fiscal year 2013.
On July 12, 2012, HHS released Information Memorandum No.
TANF-ACF-IM-2012-03. That memorandum encouraged states to come
up with new ways to meet TANF goals, and it stated that the
Administration for Children and Families (ACF), which
administers TANF, would provide states waivers through section
1115 of the Social Security Act so that states could implement
those proposals. Enacting H.J. Res. 118 would prevent that
memorandum from taking effect.
Under the memorandum, CBO expects that penalties for states
that don't meet the work requirements specified in the Social
Security Act would be reduced because states would have more
options to meet such requirements. Thus, CBO estimates that
enacting the resolution would reduce direct spending by $59
million over the 2012-2022 period, as some states would pay
increased penalties to the federal government (which are
recorded in the budget as an offset to direct spending) for
failing to meet the work requirements.
Pay-As-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go
Act of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement
procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or
revenues. The net changes in outlays that are subject to those
pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in the following table.

CB0 ESTIMATE OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS FOR H.J. RES. 118 AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS ON SEPTEMBER 13, 2012
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2012-2017 2012-2022
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NET INCREASE OR DECREASE (-) IN THE DEFICIT
Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Impact....................... 0 -5 -6 -6 -6 -6 -6 -6 -7 -7 -7 -28 -59
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Components may not sum to totals because of rounding.

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: For large
entitlement programs like TANF, UMRA defines an increase in the
stringency of conditions as an intergovernmental mandate if the
affected governments lack authority to offset the costs of
those conditions while continuing to provide required services.
If H.J. Res. 118 were enacted, CBO expects that some states
would fail to meet work requirements of the program and would
therefore be assessed penalties that would total $59 million
over the 2013-2022 period. However, states would continue to be
able to make changes to TANF, for example adjusting eligibility
criteria or the structure of programs, to avoid or offset such
costs. Because the TANF program affords states such broad
flexibility, voiding the memorandum would not be considered an
intergovernmental mandate as defined by UMRA. H.J. Res. 118
also contains no private-sector mandates.
Previous CBO estimate: On September 17, 2012, CBO
transmitted a cost estimate for H.J. Res. 118 as ordered
reported by the House Committee on Ways and Means. The
resolution language in both versions is identical and the
estimated budgetary effects are the same.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Jonathan Morancy;
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Lisa Ramirez-
Branum; Impact on the Private Sector: Vi Nguyen.
Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Assistant Director
for Budget Analysis.

COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison of the
costs that would be incurred in carrying out H.J. Res. 118.
However, clause 3(d)(2)(B) of that rule provides that this
requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in
its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill
prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office
under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act.

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

This legislation does not make any changes in existing
federal statute.

MINORITY VIEWS

H.J. Resolution 118 is a cynical political stunt during an
election season. We are deeply disappointed that Committee
Republicans have chosen to polarize, politicize, and obstruct
instead of working together to provide solutions for the real
problems confronting American families, rather than fabricated
ones.
Despite the inflammatory rhetoric, Republican claims that
the Information Memorandum (IM) issued by the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) will gut welfare reform are
simply false. Ron Haskins, former Republican staff director of
the Ways and Means Human Resources Subcommittee and one of the
chief architects of the 1996 law, has concluded that the
charges that the IM weakens the work requirements are
false.ⁱ FactCheck.org, ``a nonpartisan, nonprofit
consumer advocate for voters that aims to reduce the level of
deception and confusion in U.S. politics,'' a project of the
Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of
Pennsylvania, has concluded these charges are
false.ⁱⁱ PolitiFact, a project of the Tampa Bay
Times, has concluded these charges are false. And the Fact
Checker at the Washington Post has concluded these charges are
false.ⁱⁱⁱ When asked by Representative Andrews
during the Committee mark-up of H.J. Resolution 118 to point to
where in the IM work requirements are weakened, Republicans
provided no response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\i\See, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/08/ron-
haskins-calls-welfare-charges-
ridiculous.html.
\ii\See, http://www.factcheck.org/2012/08/gutting-welfare-to-work.
\iii\See, http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/
aug/07/mitt-romney/mitt-romney -says-barack-obamas-plan-abandons-
tenet/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rhetoric behind H.J. Resolution 118 is short on facts.
The fact is the Administration's waiver proposal allows state-
driven innovation to improve employment outcomes.^iv
The fact is the waiver proposal clearly states: ``HHS will only
consider approving waivers relating to the work participation
requirements that make changes intended to lead to more
effective means of meeting the work goals of TANF.'' The fact
is the waiver proposal is explicitly designed ``to challenge
states to engage in a new round of innovation that seeks to
find more effective mechanisms for helping families succeed in
employment'' and requires evaluations and performance targets
``that ensure an immediate focus on measurable outcomes.'' The
fact is the Secretary of HHS has even further clarified that
waiver applications must show how a state's proposed changes
would increase employment of TANF recipients by at least 20
percent. The fact is the legal authority for the Department of
Health and Human Services to issue these waivers is
clear.^v The fact is that requests for HHS to
exercise its waiver authority came from the states, including
from Republican Governors, yet Republican cries of the rules
being gamed must mean Governors wish to gut the welfare system,
despite states having no financial incentive to do so and
despite Committee Republicans' repeated requests for increased
state flexibility in a wide range of federal policies. The fact
is that Republicans have repeatedly voted for an even broader
waiving of TANF program requirements, including the work
participation standards. According to the Congressional
Research Service, that Republican proposal passed the House of
Representatives three times between 2002 and 2005.^vi
And on June 7, 2012, just weeks before the Obama administration
announced its waiver process, the House Education and the
Workforce Committee debated and voted on Republican legislation
to reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), H.R. 4297, a
bill which allows states to eliminate work participation
requirements under the TANF program altogether.^vii
The state discretion provided under H.R. 4297 to mix funds and
ignore program requirements is not surprising: The mantra
behind H.R. 4297 is state flexibility. So, at the same time
Republicans continue to repeat widely discredited statements on
the Obama administration proposal, it was Committee Republicans
who just voted to eliminate work requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\iv\See, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/policy/im-ofa/2012/
im201203/im201203.html.
\v\Congressional Resource Service Memo to Honorable Sander M.
Levin, September 4, 2012, Authority of the Secretary of HHS to Approve
Certain Demonstration Programs Pursuant to Section 1115 of the Social
Security Act.
\vi\Roll Call Vote #170, May 16, 2002; Roll Call Vote #30, February
13, 2003; Roll Call Vote #601, November 18, 2005.
\vii\Congressional Resource Service Memo to the Committee on
Education and the Workforce, September 12, 2012, State Unified Plan
Provisions in H.R. 4297.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the economy has shown signs of moving in the right
direction, Committee Democrats believe more must be done to
help the estimated 23 million unemployed and underemployed
Americans find and keep jobs that promote self-sufficiency. The
Administration's proposal that would provide waivers for state
plans that increase employment by 20 percent or more should not
be blocked as part of a political campaign. This Congress
should rise above the campaign advertisements.
Committee Democrats have repeatedly asked the Majority to
work together on bipartisan solutions for our country. There is
an urgent need for Congress to pass legislation such as the
American Jobs Act to help local communities hire more police,
firefighters and teachers; modernize, renovate, and repair
American schools and community colleges; and other job creating
policies that will keep our economy moving in the right
direction. Efforts to move portions of that bill were blocked
by Committee Republicans repeatedly this Congress. Our current
economy also requires preparing more American workers to
advance to higher-skilled jobs of the future. Even with a
stubbornly high unemployment rate, employers currently need to
fill 3.7 million jobs in high-growth industries such as health
care that require specific skill sets. Education and training
investments in our diverse workforce are now more important
than ever. On its face, the waiver proposal that H.J.
Resolution 118 would block is intended to give states more
leeway, for example, in providing opportunities for TANF
recipients to receive the training they need to obtain and keep
a job.
Instead of obstructing the Administration's effort to get
more Americans employed, we should be working together to move
the country forward. Committee Democrats therefore reject H.J.
Resolution 118, recognizing it for the counterproductive
political stunt that it is. It does not create a single job. It
does not increase employment. It does nothing to help the lives
of American families.

George Miller, Senior Democratic
Member.
Dale E. Kildee.
Bobby C. Scott.
Ruben Hinojosa.
John F. Tierney.
Rush Holt.
Raul M. Grijalva.
Mazie K. Hirono.
Marcia L. Fudge.
Robert E. Andrews.
Lynn Woolsey.
Carolyn McCarthy
Dennis J. Kucinich.
Susan A. Davis.
Timothy H. Bishop.
Jason Altmire.