[House Report 112-677]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
112th Congress Rept. 112-677
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session Part 1
======================================================================
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. Camp, from the Committee on Ways and Means, submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.J. Res. 118]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Ways and Means, 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.
I. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND
A. Purpose and Summary
The resolution, H.J. Res. 118, as ordered reported by the
Committee on Ways and Means on September 13, 2012, expresses
disapproval of the July 12, 2012 Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) rule\1\ proposing to allow States to waive work
requirements for welfare recipients under the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. To achieve these
purposes, the resolution states that Congress disapproves of
the HHS rule and that it ``shall have no force or effect.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\HHS, TANF Information Memorandum, Transmittal No. TANF-ACT-IM-
2012-03, July 12, 2012, available online at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/
programs/ofa/policy/im-ofa/2012/im201203/im201203.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Background and Need for Legislation
On September 11, 2012, Rep. David Camp (R-MI), Chairman of
the Committee on Ways and Means and Rep. John Kline (R-MN),
Chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, along
with Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) introduced H.J. Res. 118, a
resolution to express Congress' disapproval of the July 12,
2012 HHS rule proposing to allow States to waive the welfare
work requirement.
Bipartisan, work-based welfare reform in the 1990s led to
increased work and earnings, along with record declines in
poverty and dependence on government cash welfare benefits
among low-income families. The reforms ended waiver authority
granted under the prior Aid to Families with Dependent Children
(AFDC) program and instead offered States new flexibility in
designing welfare programs in exchange for fixed federal funds
and a requirement that welfare recipients engage in work and
related activities. Despite this, the Administration claims in
their July 12, 2012 HHS rule that they still possess the waiver
authority available under the prior AFDC law, despite
substantial changes to the Social Security Act made in the 1996
welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193, officially titled the
``Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act'') that both limited States' waiver authority and created
real work requirements.
The Administration rule would have the effect of allowing
States to opt out of TANF work requirements for the first time
since welfare reform's passage in 1996. This is despite the
fact that current TANF law allows State waivers only related to
State plan reporting requirements (which are a paperwork
requirement authorized in Section 402 of the Social Security
Act) and does not provide authority for the Administration to
grant waivers related to the critical TANF work requirements in
section 407 of the Social Security Act.
Supporting the view that HHS does not have the authority to
waive TANF work requirements is TANF history, precedent, and
even the Administration's own arguments about recent
legislative activity involving TANF work requirements.
In passing the 1996 welfare reform law to end AFDC and
create TANF, Congress redesigned every section of the prior
AFDC program. Provisions applying to the earlier AFDC program
were eliminated, new requirements were added, and specific
restrictions were put in place to create a program of fixed
funding to States with strong work requirements. One
fundamental change to the TANF law was a restructuring of
section 402, which previously had specified 45 mandatory
requirements States had to implement subject to review and
approval by HHS. Section 402 was fundamentally redesigned
through welfare reform to specify only 7 mandatory reporting
requirements that States must outline in a written report, and
over which HHS had only the authority to review the plan for
completeness instead of approving specific State policies as
under the prior AFDC law.
Congress also created a section titled ``waivers'' within
Title IV in section 415 of the Social Security Act to explain
how waivers would function under TANF. One provision allowed
temporary waiver programs in effect prior to the enactment of
welfare reform to continue until their natural expiration date.
A second provision allowed for waivers submitted before August
22, 1996 and approved by the Secretary of HHS by July 1, 1997
to begin, but expressly prohibited such waivers from having any
effect on the new TANF work requirements. Section 415 did not
contemplate waivers after the AFDC program ended, which
occurred no later than July 1, 1997.
Driving home this point is the clear intention of the
Committee on Ways and Means in 1996 regarding the question of
whether TANF work requirements may be waived. Shortly after
Congress approved the historic 1996 welfare reform law, the
Ways and Means Committee issued a ``Committee Print'' in
November 1996 summarizing the legislation (titled ``Summary of
the Welfare Reforms Made by Public Law 104-193: The Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act and
Associated Legislation, WMCP 104-15). In the section describing
waivers under the new law, the summary\2\ said ``Waivers
granted after the date of enactment may not override provisions
of the TANF law that concern mandatory work requirements.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Ways and Means Committee Print, Summary of Welfare Reforms Made
By Public Law
104-93, available online at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CPRT-
104WPRT27305/pdf/CPRT-104WPRT27305.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, after the passage of welfare reform and as
required as part of the law, HHS issued regulations describing
how certain provisions of TANF would be implemented. One
section of these final 1999 HHS regulations\3\ detailed how
waivers granted under the prior AFDC program would continue to
operate, and what States must do to continue their waivers
until their expiration date. The HHS rule said States with
waivers to test work requirements under the prior AFDC program
``may delay implementing TANF requirements for work
participation'' but that ``because all States will need to
conform to all TANF rules once their waivers expire, we urge
States to plan accordingly.'' This final rule does not discuss
future waivers, and by indicating that all States would
eventually have to implement TANF work requirements, it is
clear that HHS agreed that there existed no authority to waive
work requirements in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Federal Register, Vol. 64, No. 69, April 12, 1999, Rules and
Regulations, HHS, Administration for Children and Families (ACF), TANF
Final Rule, available online at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1999-
04-12/pdf/99-8000.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the years following this 1999 determination, HHS
continued to state in official documents that the agency could
not waive TANF work requirements. For example, in the immediate
aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, States contacted HHS to
determine what flexibility may be available to them because of
the disaster. In the official HHS guidance issued in
response,\4\ HHS cited a number of things States could do to
assist those affected by the hurricane given the substantial
flexibility in the TANF law. However, the guidance was
unequivocal regarding HHS' waiver authority, stating ``we have
no authority under current law to waive any of the TANF
statutory requirements'' and ``we have no authority to waive
any of the provisions in the Act.'' Additional official HHS
guidance regarding disasters was issued in 2007,\5\ which
repeated word for word the same statements about waiver
authority made in the 2005 HHS guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\HHS, TANF Program Instruction, No. TANF-ACF-PI-2005-06, October
11, 2005, available online at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/
policy/pi-ofa/2005/pi2005-6.htm.
\5\HHS, TANF Program Instruction, No. TANF-ACF-PI-2007-08, November
28, 2007, available online at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/
policy/pi-ofa/2007/200708/PI200708.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After 16 years of welfare policy and practice to the
contrary, the Obama Administration in July 2012 announced that
for the first time in the history of the TANF program the
agency now claimed to have authority to waive work requirements
for welfare recipients. Importantly, the Administration's July
12 rule was not the result of any new legislation passed by
Congress, nor connected to any TANF proposal submitted in a
prior Administration budget document. No prior HHS Secretary,
Republican or Democrat, has ever concluded that he or she had
the authority to the TANF waive work requirements.
In her July 18, 2012 response\6\ to a letter from Chairman
Camp and Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Hatch (R-UT)
seeking the Administration rationale for its July 12
announcement, HHS Secretary Sebelius confirms the view that in
earlier years State governors also believed that Federal law
would need to be changed to create waiver authority: ``For
years, Republican and Democratic Governors have requested more
flexibility in implementing welfare reform. . . . In 2005, 29
Republican Governors requested (i)ncreased waiver authority,
allowable work activities, availability of partial work credit'
. . .'' This contention, and the fact TANF law was not changed
in 2005 or subsequent years to allow for waivers of work
requirements, simply reinforces the point that current law does
not allow for waivers of welfare work requirements, and that
Congress must change the law for such waiver authority to
exist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Letter from HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to Ways and Means
Committee Chairman Dave Camp, July 12, 2012, available online at http:/
/waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hhs_response_7-18-12.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Administration has also attempted to justify their
claim of waiver authority by stating that they will approve
only waivers that result in more welfare recipients entering
the workforce. Specifically, the Administration stated that
waivers will be approved only if they ``move at least 20% more
people from welfare to work compared with the state's past
performance.'' However, this ``20% more'' policy did not appear
in the initial July 12, 2012 Information Memorandum to States,
only appearing after Congress objected to HHS' waiving of the
work requirements. In addition, this ``20% more'' policy is not
contained in any rule or guidance, but instead only in a letter
to Congress, which does not appear to be of any force. While
public statements by Administration officials suggest that they
will approve only waivers resulting in more work, no binding
policy--or real details--exists to support these claims.
For these reasons, the Committee believes H.J. Res 118 is
needed to ensure that TANF work requirements are not waived in
whole or in part and that Congressional intent regarding the
mandatory nature of welfare work requirements remains in force.
C. Legislative History
Background
H.J. Res. 118 was introduced on September 11, 2012, and was
referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, in addition to the
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Committee Action
The Committee on Ways and Means marked up the resolution on
September 13, 2012, and ordered the resolution favorably
reported. The Committee on Education and the Workforce also
marked up the resolution on September 13, 2012, and ordered the
resolution favorably reported.
Committee Hearings
None specifically on H.J. Res. 118. On May 17, 2012, the
Subcommittee on Human Resources held a hearing on State TANF
Spending and Its Impact on Work Requirements.
II. EXPLANATION OF THE RESOLUTION
Present Law
The Public Welfare Amendments of 1962 (P.L. 87-543)
established waiver authority within Section 1115 of the Social
Security Act for public assistance programs, including the AFDC
program that preceded TANF in helping fund cash assistance for
needy families with children.
Though waivers under Section 1115 were allowed as early as
1962, they were not sought with much frequency until the late
1980s. Until that point, waivers were primarily related to
program administration and service delivery. Between 1987 and
1989, during the Reagan Administration, 15 waiver applications
for welfare reform were approved for 14 states; during the
Administration of George H.W. Bush, another 15 applications
from 12 states were approved. Until the enactment of the 1996
welfare law, the Clinton Administration continued to approve
waivers of AFDC law. Between January 1993 and August 1996, a
total of 83 waiver applications from 43 states and the District
of Columbia were approved.
The 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193) replaced the
prior AFDC program with the new TANF block grant. At the same
time, the statute was reorganized and a new section 407 was
added, titled ``Mandatory Work Requirements.'' Section 402,
which today is the only section of TANF listed under the waiver
``demonstration projects'' authority in section 1115 of the
Social Security Act, is titled ``Eligible States; State Plan.''
Section 402 generally defines the ``written document'' that
States must submit to the Secretary of HHS each year describing
how the State intends to achieve various TANF program purposes,
among other purposes. As a result of these and other changes,
present law does not provide for waivers of TANF work
requirements. The Obama Administration's July 12, 2012
information memorandum claiming authority to waive work
requirements would be the first time HHS has claimed to have
such waiver authority since TANF was created in 1996, and if
allowed to stand would permit HHS to circumvent statutory work
requirements in section 407 of the law.
Reasons for Change
The Committee believes it is necessary to ensure the
continuation and proper functioning of the work requirements
that are the heart of the nation's successful efforts at
promoting work for welfare recipients. Accordingly, H.J. Res.
118 disapproves of the Administration's July 12, 2012 rule
waiving the work requirements, declaring that ``such rule shall
have no force or effect.''
On July 31, 2012, Chairman Camp and Senate Finance Ranking
Member Hatch (R-UT) asked the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) to review the HHS Information Memorandum announcing
waivers of work requirements to determine if it was a rule that
should have been submitted officially to Congress before taking
effect.\7\ On September 4, 2012, GAO reported to Congress that
the HHS guidance was in fact a rule that must be submitted to
Congress and that it is subject to review--and disapproval--
under the Congressional Review Act.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\Letter from Rep. Dave Camp and Sen. Orrin Hatch to Comptroller
Gene Dorado at GAO, July 31, 2012, available online at http://
waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/gao_tanf_ waivers_letter.pdf.
\8\Letter from GAO Comptroller General Gene Dorado to Rep. Dave
Camp and Sen. Orrin Hatch, September 4, 2012, available online at
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/news/
documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=307447.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A significant body of evidence suggests that the work
requirements included in the 1996 welfare reform law have been
essential to improvements in work, earnings, poverty and
welfare dependence in the wake of that legislation.
Specifically, since the work-based 1996 welfare reforms were
enacted: (1) The employment of single mothers increased by 15
percent from 1996 through 2000, and even after the recession it
is still higher than before welfare reform;\9\ (2) According to
HHS' latest report on the TANF program, ``earnings in female-
headed families remained higher in 2009 than in 1996 despite
various shifts in the economic climate since TANF's
enactment'';\10\ (3) Since it replaced the New Deal-era AFDC
program in 1996, TANF has been successful at cutting welfare
dependence as caseloads have declined by 57 percent through
December 2011;\11\ and (4) Child poverty fell dramatically
after welfare reform and is still below the level in the early
1990s.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\Congressional Research Service estimates based on Census Bureau
data prepared for Ways and Means staff.
\10\HHS, TANF Program, Ninth Report to Congress, 2012, available
online at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/data-reports/
annualreport9/9th_report-to-congress_3-26-12.pdf.
\11\HHS, ACF, 2011 TANF Caseload Data, available online at http://
www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/data-reports/caseload/
caseload_current.htm.
\12\U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey, Annual
Social and Economic Supplements, Table 3, Poverty Status of People, by
Age, Race, And Hispanic Origin: 1959 to 2011, available online at
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/historical/hstpov3.xls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These reforms received bipartisan support from Republicans
and Democrats and were signed into law by President Clinton.
The fact that the Administration has now sought to waive the
TANF work requirements belies past bipartisan support for
requiring work by welfare recipients, including from the
following senior Democrats:
``I proposed a concept of welfare to work in 1987,
and I was pilloried by my colleagues on the Democratic side at
the time for suggesting that there be a mandatory work
requirement for anyone receiving welfare.'' (Then-Senator Joe
Biden,\13\ July 18, 1996)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\U.S. Congressional Record, 104th Congress, Vol. 142, No. 106,
July 18, 1996, available online at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-
1996-07-18/pdf/CREC-1996-07-18-senate.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``In order for welfare reform to be successful,
individuals must accept the responsibility of working and
providing for their families. In the instances where benefits
are provided, they must be tied to obligations. We must invest
our resources on those who value work and responsibility.
Moreover, we must support strict requirements which move people
from dependence to independence. Granting rights without
demanding responsibility is unacceptable.'' (Current House
Democrat Whip Steny Hoyer,\14\ July 31, 1996)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\U.S. Congressional Record, 104th Congress, Vol. 142, No. 115,
July 31, 1996, available online at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-
1996-07-31/pdf/CREC-1996-07-31-house.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Everyone agrees if you are able to work, you
should be working. Every taxpayer should be angry and annoyed
to find people slipping back on their responsibilities and not
working.'' (Congressman Charlie Rangel,\15\ July 31, 1996)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\U.S. Congressional Record, 104th Congress, Vol. 142, No. 115,
July 31, 1996, available online at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-
1996-07-31/pdf/CREC-1996-07-31-house.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``The key always has been the linkage of welfare
to work, within a definite time structure . . '' (Congressman
Sander Levin,\16\ July 31, 1996)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\U.S. Congressional Record, 104th Congress, Vol. 142, No. 115,
July 31, 1996, available online at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-
1996-07-31/pdf/CREC-1996-07-31-house.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result, the Committee believes that disapproving the
Administration's rule waiving welfare work requirements is
appropriate and that it will ensure the continuation of
effective work requirements for adults collecting welfare
benefits under the TANF program. Ultimately, this will promote
more work, higher incomes, lower poverty, and more departures
from welfare for independence and self-support, which are among
the most important of the TANF program's goals.
Explanation of Provision
The provision states that Congress disapproves the
Administration's July 12, 2012 rule waiving TANF work
requirements and that ``such rule shall have no force or
effect.''
Effective Date
The provision becomes effective upon enactment.
III. VOTES OF THE COMMITTEE
In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the following statements are made
concerning the votes of the Committee on Ways and Means in its
consideration of the resolution, H.J. Res. 118.
The resolution, ``H.J. Res. 118, providing for
congressional disapproval of the Administration's July 12, 2012
waiver of welfare work requirements,'' was ordered favorably
reported without amendment to the House of Representatives by a
rollcall vote of 18 yeas to 14 nays (with a quorum being
present). The vote was as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Yea Nay Present Representative Yea Nay Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Camp....................... X ........ ......... Mr. Levin........ ........ X .........
Mr. Herger..................... ........ ........ ......... Mr. Rangel....... ........ X .........
Mr. Johnson.................... X ........ ......... Mr. Stark........ ........ X .........
Mr. Brady...................... X ........ ......... Mr. McDermott.... ........ X .........
Mr. Ryan....................... ........ ........ ......... Mr. Lewis........ ........ ........ .........
Mr. Nunes...................... X ........ ......... Mr. Neal......... ........ X .........
Mr. Tiberi..................... X ........ ......... Mr. Becerra...... ........ X .........
Mr. Reichert................... X ........ ......... Mr. Doggett...... ........ X .........
Mr. Boustany................... X ........ ......... Mr. Thompson..... ........ X .........
Mr. Roskam..................... X ........ ......... Mr. Larson....... ........ X .........
Mr. Gerlach.................... X ........ ......... Mr. Blumenauer... ........ X .........
Mr. Price...................... X ........ ......... Mr. Kind......... ........ X .........
Mr. Buchanan................... X ........ ......... Mr. Pascrell..... ........ X .........
Mr. Smith...................... X ........ ......... Ms. Berkley...... ........ X .........
Mr. Schock..................... X ........ ......... Mr. Crowley...... ........ X .........
Ms. Jenkins.................... X ........ .........
Mr. Paulsen.................... X ........ .........
Mr. Marchant................... X ........ .........
Mr. Berg....................... ........ ........ .........
Ms. Black...................... X ........ .........
Mr. Reed....................... X ........ .........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Votes on Amendments
No amendments to the resolution were offered.
IV. BUDGET EFFECTS OF THE RESOLUTION
A. Committee Estimate of Budgetary Effects
In compliance with clause 3(d) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the following statement is made
concerning the effects on the budget of the revenue provisions
of the resolution, H.J. Res. 118 as reported: The Committee
agrees with the estimates prepared by the Congressional Budget
Office (CBO), which are included below.
Statement regarding new budget authority and tax
expenditures budget authority
The resolution as reported is in compliance with clause
3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives. Further, the resolution involves no new or
increased tax expenditures.
B. Cost Estimate Prepared by the Congressional Budget Office
In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, requiring a cost estimate
prepared by the CBO, the following statement by CBO is
provided.
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, September 17, 2012.
Hon. Dave Camp,
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.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.
CBO 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 Education and the Workforce.
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.
V. OTHER MATTERS TO BE DISCUSSED UNDER THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES
A. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations
With respect to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives (relating to oversight findings),
the Committee concluded that it was appropriate and timely to
enact the sections included in the resolution, as reported.
B. Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives
With respect to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the
resolution contains no measure that authorizes new or
additional funding compared with the current law baseline, so
no statement of general performance goals and objectives for
which any measure authorizes funding is required.
C. Information Relating to Unfunded Mandates
This information is provided in accordance with section 423
of the Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104-4).
The resolution does not impose a Federal mandate on the
private sector. The resolution does not impose a Federal
intergovernmental mandate on State, local, or tribal
governments.
D. Applicability of House Rule XXI 5(b)
Clause 5(b) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives provides, in part, that ``A bill or joint
resolution, amendment, or conference report carrying a Federal
income tax rate increase may not be considered as passed or
agreed to unless so determined by a vote of not less than
three-fifths of the Members voting, a quorum being present.''
The Committee has carefully reviewed the sections of the
resolution, and states that the resolution does not involve any
Federal income tax rate increases within the meaning of the
rule.
E. Congressional Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff
Benefits
With respect to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee has carefully reviewed
the provisions of the resolution, and states that the
provisions of the resolution do not contain any congressional
earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits
within the meaning of the rule.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE RESOLUTION, AS REPORTED
H.J. Res. 118 makes no changes to current law.
DISSENTING VIEWS
We oppose H.J. Res. 118 because the bill is based on a
widely discredited claim and because it would stymie innovative
approaches to moving more people from welfare to work.
Moreover, this bill is a distraction from what Congress should
be focused on--helping the economy grow and creating jobs.
On July 12, 2012 the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) issued a memorandum under its authority under
Section 1115 of the Social Security Act to entertain requests
from states to conduct demonstration projects under the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. The HHS
notice clearly and repeatedly states that all demonstration
projects must be focused on improving employment outcomes. In a
letter to the Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, HHS
Secretary Sebelius stated, ``the Department is providing a very
limited waiver opportunity for states that develop a plan to
measurably increase the number of beneficiaries who find and
hold down a job. Specifically, Governors must commit that their
proposals will move at least 20% more people from welfare to
work compared to the state's past performance.''
In short, any demonstration project would have to be
designed to increase employment, would be subject to rigorous
evaluation, and would be terminated if it failed to meet
employment goals. It is also important to note that nothing in
the waiver authority would change the current five-year federal
time limit on TANF benefits or the fixed funding levels now
provided to states under the TANF program.
Despite this clear focus on increasing employment,
Republicans have claimed the waiver initiative would eliminate
work requirements for welfare recipients. A variety of
independent fact checkers have forcefully declared this claim
is dishonest, using such phrases as ``pants on fire'' false.
Even the lead Republican staffer in charge of drafting the 1996
welfare law, Ron Haskins, has said, ``there is no plausible
scenario under which it really constitutes a serious attack on
welfare reform,'' and ``on the merits, waivers are justified.''
The Administration proposed the demonstration authority
after consultations with state officials who believed they can
do a better job of moving welfare recipients into work if
provided additional flexibility. For example, Governor Herbert
of Utah, a Republican, informed HHS that his State was
interested in being evaluated on the basis of the state's
success in placing welfare recipients into employment, and that
this approach ``would require some flexibility at the state
level and the granting of a waiver.'' Other states highlighted
how much time, money and effort was dedicated to meeting
federal paperwork requirements, especially after changes
included in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. For example, one
study in Minnesota found that TANF employment counselors spend
more time documenting activities than they spend on providing
direct services to help people find work.
Contrary to the majority's assertion that HHS does not have
the authority to permit demonstration projects, the non-
partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) has found that
the current HHS waiver initiative is ``consistent'' with prior
practice. The CRS review found that dozens of waivers for
demonstration projects have been approved in the past when
their subject matter has been referenced in Section 402 of the
Social Security Act (just as the Secretary now proposes). CRS
also found nothing in the law that bars the Secretary from
providing waivers related to employment activities in the TANF
program.
The majority's current effort to prevent flexibility
through waivers seems in direct conflict with their past
support for waivers. For example, in 2005, Republicans brought
legislation to the House floor that included a much broader
waiver authority than now being permitted by HHS. Under that
bill (H.R. 4241), HHS could have waived both work requirements
and time limits under the TANF program if ``necessary and
appropriate for conduct of the demonstration project.'' The
Congressional Research Service confirms that this legislation,
and two prior Republican bills, ``would have had the effect of
allowing TANF work participation standards to be waived.''
Based on false claims, H.J. Res. 118 appears more focused
on politics than on policy. On that basis, and because it would
impede progress in helping more welfare recipients move into
work, we oppose this measure.
Sander Levin.
Charles B. Rangel.
John Lewis.
Xavier Becerra.
Earl Blumenauer.
Joseph Crowley.
Mike Thompson.
Lloyd Doggett.
Jim McDermott.
Richard E. Neal.
John B. Larson.
Ron Kind.
Bill Pascrell, Jr.
Pete Stark.