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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend from Virginia, the majority leader, for the purpose of inquiring about the schedule for the week to come.

I thank the gentleman for his information with respect to what we're going to consider next week, and also I was going to ask him, but he has already indicated, that he does not expect the scheduled week of meeting in October to occur. I thank him for that information. That would indicate essentially then, therefore, that we have approximately a little over a day and a half or a day and three- quarters remaining before the election.

I want to ask the gentleman, first of all, there's been a lot of talk about the work that has not been done:

We have not done the jobs bill that I've been urging us to consider.

We have not addressed the middle class tax cut in a way that we'll deal with that and on which I think both sides agree. We have disagreement on tax cuts for those who are not in the middle class.

The farm bill, I want to discuss that in a second. The farm bill.

The Violence Against Women Act and the middle class tax cut have both passed the United States Senate.

Postal reform, there is also an agreement on that in the United States Senate.

Obviously sequestration.

And I want to talk a little bit about the fiscal cliff, Mr. Leader.

But in the farm bill, as you know we have a discharge petition that is pending, which is somewhat unusual in that our party has initiated a discharge petition to ask you to bring to the floor a bill that your committee reported out of committee. That's somewhat unusual in these discharge petitions. A number of Republicans have signed on to that as you know.

As a matter of fact, we understand your suggestion to some that they do sign--not you, personally, excuse me. But that there's been some suggestion they sign on to that as an indication of their support for the farm bill.

The Senate passed a farm bill, 64-35, Mr. Leader. We are hoping that that bill can be brought to the floor next week. It's not on the calendar. But in light of the fact that 16 Republicans voted in favor of it in the Senate, it's clear that it does have broad bipartisan support.

The Ag Committee here in this House reported out a bill 35-11. That bill has, of course, not been brought to the floor.

We don't have much time left, as you've just announced. Even if we count Thursday as a full day and even if we count Friday as a full day of next week, we have essentially 2 days and then suspension votes on Wednesday night.

Many farmers are facing the worst droughts they've seen in many years. We passed a drought bill here that is not agreed to by the Senate. In fact, the farm community, as I think the gentleman probably knows, perhaps not unanimously, but in large number, opposes the drought bill that we passed, and the reason they oppose it is because-- and I think you were absolutely right, Mr. Majority Leader, when you talked over the past years about certainty. The farmers are opposed to the drought bill that we passed in the House because it doesn't give them any certainty. They think a 5-year bill is preferable. They've seen two-thirds of the Senate, almost, pass a bill, and they hope we would pass that.

I would ask the gentleman, therefore, if there is any, I was going to ask for assurance, but if there is any possibility that we're going to consider a farm bill, either the House bill as reported out overwhelmingly from the Republican-chaired committee or the Senate bill that was passed in a bipartisan fashion, is there any possibility that before we leave here, in consideration of the crisis that confronts many in the farm community, that we will consider that bill?

I yield to my friend.

I think the comments of the gentleman are interesting and I appreciate his comments.

We do have agreement in the Senate on a farm bill; they voted for it with 64 votes--almost two-thirds of the Senate. We may not have agreement, but we had a bill that came out of the Republican-led committee, your committee, with over a two-thirds vote, and neither one of those have been brought to the floor? So we're arguing on something that we had pretty significant disagreement on--yes, there were some Democrats that voted for the drought relief, particularly from farm country. I can understand their view. But the farm community is opposed to the drought relief bill--not unanimously, but in significant part.

So the gentleman points out that we ought to pass that on which we have agreement. Let me suggest to him that 98 percent of Americans and 97 percent of small business people agree on not having a tax increase. The gentleman is worried about those people who are making about $20,000 a month. Some of them don't feel well off, I understand that; but I'm worried about the people who are making $2,000 a month, very frankly. I'm worried about the people who are getting by and who are having trouble. We need to give them assurance.

The gentleman just said that we ought to be able to act on that on which we agree. Maybe I'm incorrect, but I would tell the gentleman on this side of the aisle, we will produce the overwhelming majority of votes on our side of the aisle for a bill that ensures that there will be no tax increase on those who are making, either individually under $200,000 a year, or as a husband and wife $250,000 a year. I assure the gentleman that I will produce and we will produce on this side well over 180 votes for that proposition. So I tell my friend all he has to do is produce 40 votes, but I think he will produce many more than that. Because unless he says I'm wrong, I think when you say nobody ought to get a tax increase, we have agreement--and that's just what the gentleman is talking about, where we have an agreement--we have an agreement that nobody under $250,000, couple, $200,000, individual, should get a tax increase on January 1 of this year.

We could pass that bill, in my opinion, next week. We could pass it under the suspension calendar, in my opinion. We could send it to the Senate. They've already passed a bill. They've already passed a bill through the Senate which adopted that proposition. So we have the majority votes in the Senate, and I would hope we would have almost unanimity in the Senate on that proposition. But I think what I hear the gentleman saying is, unless we have agreement on 100 percent, the fact that we agree on 98 percent and 97 percent, we're not going to move the bill.

Now, I agree with the gentleman, if we have agreement, that's something central that we have agreement on, I would hope we could move it.

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for his response--I don't think it answered my question.

We understand that you want to see no tax increases, no additional contributions from people making $1 million net taxable income or more, or $10 million taxable income. We understand you don't want to do it. We don't agree on that. You're correct. But we do agree on the fact that 98 percent of Americans who make less than $200,000 individually, less than $250,000 as a couple, those 98 percent of Americans and 97 percent of small businesses ought not to get a tax increase on January 1. Very frankly, you didn't respond to me; I presume you agree with that.

What you don't agree with is that, if we don't do it all on something we disagree with--that's what's causing gridlock in Congress. That's what's causing this Congress to be the least productive Congress in which I have served in 32 years. That's what's causing us to not listen to one another, talk by one another, and not agree. That's why the farm bill hasn't been passed; that's why the Violence Against Women bill has not been passed; that's why the postal reform has not been passed; that's why middle class tax cuts have not been passed; because if you don't get it all, you don't want to do any of it.

I say respectfully to the majority leader, we agree that 98 percent of

Americans ought not to get a tax increase. We do disagree on whether or not those who are better off can make a contribution to bringing this deficit down and dealing with our debt. What the gentleman responded was, unless we're for 100 percent, we're not going to be for any. That's what I hear you saying.

I yield to my friend.

I said we agreed on 98 percent. The gentleman has not said we don't agree on 98 percent.

He brought up a lot of stuff on the farm bill and other pieces of legislation. The farm bill, you're not bringing your own bill to the floor. Forget about what we think on this side. You reported out a farm bill. You reported out a farm bill some 4 or 5 months ago--I'm not sure exactly when, but it's been months ago--and you haven't brought it to the floor. It's not a question of whether we agree or not; your own bill you haven't brought to the floor.

Now, in terms of the Violence Against Women Act, you knew that the Senate wouldn't do that and the President said he was going to veto it. You didn't sit down with the President to do it because you wanted to exclude some people. You wanted to exclude some people who were subject to domestic violence in this country when all the experts say if you exclude people, we don't get reports, we can't get domestic abusers out of circulation, if you will. So I think the gentleman's characterization is not accurate, I would say with all due respect.

Which is not true? I said a number of things.

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his observations. We have a difference of opinion on whether or not they want to exclude people, because the Senate bill was inclusive, and every woman Member, Republican, of the United States Senate voted for it. Every one. That was the difference between the two bills, those who were included, and a more specific group that are now included, which we think they ought to be. But we also think there aren't people who were included who need to be, and that was the difference between the two bills.

So, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I think my characterization was absolutely accurate. But it's interesting, Mr. Speaker, that we still haven't answered the question. We tend to want to talk about other things.

Ninety-eight percent of Americans should not get a tax increase on January 1 who are making less than $200,000 individually, or $250,000 as a family. I think we agree on that, Mr. Speaker. Now, I haven't heard that we don't agree on that. But we agree on that, which means that there are 2 percent on which we do not agree, and that bill has not been brought to the floor, that passed the United States Senate, dealing with that 98 percent or 97 percent of small businesses.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me if we have agreement on 98 percent, and the President of the United States will sign that bill, the majority leader knows that, I know it and the American people know it. He will sign that bill.

That bill has not moved, not because of the 98 percent, but because of the 2 percent. That's my contention, Mr. Speaker. I believe that is accurate because the Senate has passed a bill that deals with the 98 percent.

We ought to pass that bill. We ought to pass it before we leave here next week, which will be the last few days of this session before the election. And the American people at least ought to have that on the floor.

And, yes, if you want to assert that we want to raise additional revenues to meet our debt so that our children are not put deeply into debt; and, yes, those of us who are doing better can pay a little more to make sure that our children aren't in debt when they get to be adults; yes, we can have that debate.

Bring the bill to the floor, and let us pass the Senate bill. And I would hope our Republican colleagues would join us and say, at least we're going to take care of the 98 percent, and then we'll argue about the 2 percent. We'll argue about whether or not that's good policy or bad policy, whether it hurts the economy or grows the economy.

Very frankly, I tell my friend, the majority leader, I was here in 1993, and the gentleman was not, I believe. But I was here in 1993 when we raised revenues on the upper 1\1/2\ percent, 1\3/4\ percent of the American taxpayers. Your side said, as that study which we think is a flawed study said, that it would hurt the economy, it would increase the deficit, and it would increase unemployment. And as the gentleman well knows, it did exactly the opposite, in conjunction with an extraordinary growth in the private sector, which your party said would be hurt by the action in 1993, which your party unanimously opposed.

You're taking the same contention now, and that study took the same proposition. It was wrong then; it is wrong now.

I would hope, very sincerely, that we could agree on that on which we agree, because we agree on 98 percent, and let that move and not hold it hostage to the 2 percent on which we do not agree.

I yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time, just so we're accurate, but not 53 percent of small businesses, and the gentleman knows that. It's a misleading figure, because 53 percent of the income comes from a very small percentage of so-called small businesses that are not, in our opinion, small businesses at all.

The gentleman can correct me if he believes that 53 percent of small businesses, because it is our contention that 97 percent of small businesses, really small businesses, people who are working hard making it from day to day and trying to grow businesses and create jobs, 97 percent of small businesses will not be affected by our proposal.

If the gentleman thinks I'm incorrect, I'll be glad to hear that.

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, it is an absurd assertion that people I don't like. I would hope the gentleman would retract that. It has nothing to do with people we like or don't like.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest challenges to growing our economy is our debt and deficit and the uncertainty of the tax policy. That is one. Every economist will tell you that; and certainly every businessperson will tell you that, large, medium or small.

And none of us on this side of the aisle have used pejorative--I have not used pejorative terms with respect to large, medium or small businesses. That's not an issue at all.

It is an issue as to whether or not we're going to continue to explode this deficit and debt, Mr. Speaker, or whether we're going to ask some of us to contribute, some of us, i.e., perhaps Members of this floor, to pay a little more so our children don't confront large deficits and debt.

We heard a lot about personal responsibility in the Republican convention; we ought to take personal responsibility.

And the gentleman continues to talk about job creation. We want job creation. We have a Make It in America agenda that, unfortunately, hasn't moved. We have a jobs bill that was offered by this President that economists say would have created a million more jobs. It lays, still, on a desk somewhere, untended to, unconsidered and unpassed by this House--notwithstanding the fact that the leader and I have discussed that, moving that bill to the floor on numerous occasions.

I lament the fact when we talk about this again, he has not said once that we don't agree on the 98 percent, that we don't agree on the 97 percent. I think the reason he hasn't said we don't agree on it is because we do agree on it. He said he doesn't want anybody to get a tax increase.

And by the way, that tax increase, as the gentleman well knows, will result as a result of the 2001 and 2003 tax bills passed by the Republicans in this House and in the Senate and signed by George Bush. That's why those taxes are going up on January 1, because you sunsetted that tax increase. You didn't make it permanent.

Why did you do that?

For scoring purposes, because you knew that it would score great deficits.

I want to tell the gentleman, additionally, Mr. Speaker, that unemployment was 7 percent. The reason Bill Clinton won the election was because the economy was going downhill. That's the same reason Barack Obama won the election.

And he talks about jobs. A policy that was unanimously opposed, Mr. Speaker, by the Republican side of the aisle in the House and in the Senate created 22 million private sector jobs. We know something about creating private sector jobs.

Notwithstanding the fact your contention on your side of the aisle, not yours personally, Mr. Leader, was that if we adopted that program, you took the same argument you're taking right now, right now, that raising additional revenues to bring our deficit and debt down would undermine the creation of jobs.

In 1993, you were demonstrably wrong. I don't mean you personally. Mr. Speaker, I'm simply referring to the Republican Party's position on that. They were demonstrably wrong--22 million new jobs. In '01 and '03, you argued that if we bring taxes down on the people you're talking about and everybody else that we would explode the creation of jobs.

You lost jobs in the private sector over those 8 years, Mr. Leader-- I'm sure you know that--about 600,000 net. You lost 4 million jobs in 2008, in the last year of the Bush administration. You lost 818,000 jobs in the last month; 818,000 jobs were lost in the last month of the Bush administration and under these policies, which we apparently have to pass again, or we won't take care of the 98 percent of Americans who are hoping that they will be assured that they will not get a tax increase as of January 1 and the 97 percent of small businesses that will be assured that they will not get a tax increase, which will stabilize our consumers, stabilize our small businesses, and help our economy.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that we, perhaps, have exhausted this conversation--I understand that--but it is lamentable that this is another instance when we continue to talk about bills for message purposes that we know the President won't sign--that he said he won't sign--and that we know the Senate won't pass; and we allow those 98 percent of Americans to twist in the wind because we will not deal with the other 2 percent. We are prepared to debate that, of course, and discuss it and vote on it; but I am very sorry that we, apparently, will not see in the next 2\1/2\ days remaining before the election that we address the middle class tax cuts.

I yield to the gentleman if he wants to say anything further. I have one more subject I want to cover.

Mr. Speaker, I hear the gentleman. I presume he refers to the Ryan budget as the plan to do that. Of course, the Ryan budget does not balance the budget in a quarter of a century. The gentleman knows that. The Ryan budget, of course, undermines the security of Medicare for people.

The majority leader mentions Federal employees. The fact of the matter is--and this is my position, Mr. Speaker, and is the subject I wanted to talk about--we need to get America on a fiscally sustainable, credible path. That is the single most important objective that this Congress ought to be addressing. Very frankly, it was addressed in a plan called the Simpson-Bowles plan. Perfectly? No. Would we all agree on every aspect? No, but it was a plan that said we have to have a balanced approach to doing this. We had to deal with entitlements; we had to deal with revenues, and we are now collecting 14.8 percent of revenues. That's lower than at any point in time in the last 70 years.

We have underpriced our product; and if we were a business, we would have been bankrupt a long time ago. We have deep pockets, and we can keep borrowing so that we can keep spending without putting in a PAYGO discipline that we had in the nineties that helped balance the budget 4 years in a row--the only administration in the lifetime of anybody hearing, seeing, or knowing that we are here, but that has been done. It was done because we paid for what we bought.

Mr. Speaker, we are going to have an opportunity--not in the next 2 days of this session before the election--but we are going to have a lame duck. We are going to have to come back here, and we are going to have to do some serious things. We need to as Americans--not as Democrats, not as Republicans--have a conviction that we need to come back here and not walk away from our responsibilities.

Very frankly, with the Bowles-Simpson, every Republican member of that group from the House walked away from it--voted ``no'' and said, No, we will not agree. So it didn't get the 14 votes that it needed to be brought to this floor. I think that's a sad fact. That should have had a robust debate and perhaps a modification, but it was a plan that said to all Americans that we're all going to have to be in this together--a balanced plan, Mr. Speaker, to get a handle on the debt and deficit that confronts this country that is hurting our economy, hurting our people, hurting our credibility.

The S&P downgraded us not because we didn't have the resources to solve our problems. Standard & Poor's downgraded the United States of America for the first time in the lifetime of anybody I know--and perhaps in history--because they didn't know whether we had the political will and courage to address this debt and deficit that confronts and puts our country in danger.

Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, when asked what was the biggest security problem confronting America, didn't respond, Iraq, Iran. He didn't respond, terrorists. He didn't respond, other enemies around the world. He said the biggest security concern that he had--the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--was the fiscal challenge that was not being addressed in America. Mr. Speaker, we need to address it.

My friend the majority leader, he and I have worked together on a number of things. We've worked on a number of things this session that we've passed in a bipartisan fashion. I would hope that he and I would both commit ourselves to, during the lame duck session, doing our responsibility to America and to our constituents in reaching a Bowles- Simpson, Domenici-Rivlin, Gang of Six. Almost every economist who has spoken to this issue has said you need a balanced plan. If we simply have sold our souls to Grover Norquist on asking people to help bring this debt and deficit down, we will not succeed; but if we summon the courage and the will to solve this problem, we can do it.

I am hopeful that my friend the majority leader and I will work together over the next number of weeks, between now and November 6, to establish the preface for acting in the lame duck session in a responsible, cooperative, consensus-seeking fashion to get this country on a fiscally sustainable, credible path. If we do that, we could redeem this Congress' performance, and I hope we will do that.

I don't know whether the majority leader wants to make a comment on that.

I look forward to working with him as well, Mr. Speaker, because there is a no more important issue that confronts us as a Congress or us as a people, and no act that we could do would give more confidence, not only to our own people, but to people around the world, that America has got its financial house in order. We need to do that. We can argue the specifics one way or the other, but, Mr. Speaker, we do have a difference.

We had that difference in 1993, and we argued about it. We won that argument on the vote, and we won it, in my opinion, on performance. We argued again on it in 2001 and 2003, and we believe we

lost on that argument, which is why we were in the deepest recession at the end of the last administration that this country has been in my lifetime, and I'm not one of the younger Members of this body.

I am, with the majority leader, hopeful that we can work together and come to agreement on that on which we agree and move forward. The American people, I think, hope that as well, Mr. Speaker.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 788 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the point of order and in favor of the consideration of the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, the question before the House is: Should the House consider H. Res. 788? While the resolution waives all points of order against the consideration of H.J. Res. 118 and H.R. 3409, the committee is not aware of any points of order, and the waiver is basically prophylactic in nature.

We heard a lot of emotional and interesting points as to the basis of the bill that could be debated if, indeed, this rule were to be passed. I don't think it is actually the time right now in a point of order to go over the benefits of the bill or the detriments of whatever may happen if the bill, itself, is actually debated. There is time for that.

We do know that the number of individuals receiving welfare has dropped by 57 percent, that poverty amongst all single mothers has fallen by 30 percent, that the poverty amongst black children has dropped to its lowest level since 2001, and that employment and earnings amongst single mothers have increased significantly.

But that's all debate to the bill, which still has to go through the rule debate, and we're not talking about that. This is a procedural issue.

We could talk about the fact that in '93 the Ways and Means Committee did say that waivers granted after the date of enactment may not override provisions in the TANF law that concern further mandatory work retirements. But, once again, that would be the kinds of things that we should be talking about in the debate of the bill, which will come after the debate on the rule, which will come after our discussion of this procedural point of order.

So, actually, the merits of what the bill is is not the same thing as the purpose of the procedural point of order. The procedural point of order still has to be based on the idea of unfunded mandates within the rule.

The Congressional Budget Office believes that H.R. 3409 would impose an intergovernmental mandate as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. However, based on the information for EPA and a small number of public entities would be required to comply with the bill's requirement, the CBO estimates that the cost of those entities to comply would fall below the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act's annual threshold for intergovernmental mandates. It's a threshold that is set and adjusted for inflation.

So the Congressional Budget Office states that H.J. Res. 118 also contains no intergovernmental or private sector mandates as defined by the Mandates Reform Act. That is the basis of the point of order. The bottom line is there is no violation of both an unfunded mandate within the rule or in the bills themselves.

The rest of the discussion is actually to the merits of the legislation and is appropriate at the time as we are debating that legislation.

So, Mr. Speaker, although I really have this great desire to use the full 10 minutes of discussion here, the bottom line still----

No, thank you.

I appreciate the honor. Will the gentlewoman from Wisconsin let me finish the statement?

I appreciate the interruption, but let me finish here. And probably not. Let's get on with the issue at hand here.

The point of order basically, Mr. Speaker, is still specious. It is in order to allow the House to continue its scheduled business for the day because the issue of the point of order is the unfunded mandate, not the other merits towards the legislation.

So I do urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration. We will have an additional hour to discuss anything you wish to on the rule debate, as well as a whole lot of time on the merits of the bill when we debate the bill itself.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days during which they may revise and extend their remarks.

This resolution provides for a closed rule for the consideration of H.J. Res. 118, the congressional disapproval waiver of work requirements, and provides 1 hour of general debate, with 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means and 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

This rule also provides for a structured debate for consideration of H.R. 3409, the Coal Miner Employment and Domestic Energy Infrastructure Protection Act, and provides for 1 hour of general debate, with 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources, 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Finally, this rule makes in order a number of important amendments on both sides of the aisle. If staff doesn't change my mind, I believe there are 13--7 Republican and 6 Democrat--amendments which is as close as you can get with an uneven number to a fair rule. So it is a fair rule.

Mr. Speaker, now speaking towards the merits of this particular resolution, I would like to make special mention of Congressman Johnson, who is the base sponsor of H.R. 3409, the Coal Miner Employment and Domestic Energy Infrastructure Protection Act. He definitely has been one of the leaders in this entire area of the issue of coal as it is used in energy. Not only is it important to his constituents, but this is an important issue for the entire country. And I want to recognize Mr. Johnson as having been tireless in committee, asking questions that go to the core of this particular issue, providing amendments, and then finally culminating with his bill which deals with how we actually can use coal to further our energy needs in this particular country. Representative Johnson is a freshman who has learned fast and is a true champion for inexpensive energy that will expand our economy and create jobs for American citizens.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope you will forgive me if I try to limit myself to what is actually in the resolutions and the bills that we are presenting today as far as the Rules Committee is concerned.

There is, though, a common thread that runs through the two resolutions that happen to be here and deals with the definition of what is administrative and what is legislative. Even if the current administration seems to have a problem in making that definition of what is administrative, we in Congress need to clearly understand what is our legislative responsibility.

Our good friend, Louie Gohmert of Texas, always says that he who learns the lessons of history will find some other way to screw it up. That's probably true. I don't want to sound like an old history teacher, but I am. I do want to say that there are some things that we in Congress should be doing to learn from our past history.

John Page, in 1771, a Congressman from Virginia, was on the House floor when it was determined while the House was debating whether they stuck around to actually determine where postal routes should be. People wanted to go, and, more importantly, the people trusted the President. The question was, Why don't we just let the President do it all?

It was John Page who stood up and said, and I move to adjourn and leave all objects of legislation to his, the President's, sole consideration and direction. He shamed Congress into doing their job of writing the legislation and not allowing the executive branch, the administration, simply to do everything by fiat. We sometimes have forgotten that.

In the TARP language, we put in language like, the Secretary of the Treasury will be able to purchase troubled assets on such terms and conditions as are determined by the Secretary; or authorize any purchase on which the Secretary determines, promotes financial market stability; or the Secretary is authorized to take such action as the Secretary deems necessary to carry out all authorities in this particular act.

That is legislative authority that we passed on to the executive branch. That was a tragic mistake. We should not incorporate that tragic mistake, wider now, by simply allowing the executive branch to take on responsibilities and authorities of their own free will and volition.

We have this same situation once again in the history of this country. We had a President of the United States who wrote a book about Congress without ever visiting Congress itself, who said what the Founding Fathers realized, in which their effort to have vertical separation of power between State and national government--what we call federalism--and horizontal separation of powers between the three branches, which we call the separation of powers--and every public school student is taught that--they were put in there so that individual liberty, which I always consider to be individual choices and options in running their lives, would be protected against the concentration of power in one branch or another.

Now, this former President of the United States called this separation of powers political witchcraft. He said it was wrong to try and separate powers perplexingly subdivided and distributed to be hunted down in out-of-the-way corners. An earlier President than him thought, you know, the President of the United States is elected by everybody, Congress by a few people, the courts by none. Therefore, ignore the courts, which has some appeal, but at the same time the President should speak for the government.

This other President, coming back later, built upon that so he increased the role and power of the executive branch under the concept the President is the President of the whole people and, therefore, he has the ability to transcend separation of powers.

His effort to improve democracy was to eliminate democracy and instead ensure that the decisions were not made by the people or the voice or representatives of the people, but by experts, experts who were serving in the administrative branches. We, if you like that concept, call it the administrative state. If you don't, we call it ``nanny government.'' Nonetheless, that was the concept.

One of the other Presidents that came shortly before him said there will be little permanent good that can be done by any party if we fail to regard the States as anything other than a convenient unit for local government. He said there is no harm by concentrating power in the hands of one individual. He also said that he would not be content with keeping his talents undamaged in a napkin. That's perhaps why the Speaker of the House at the time said he had no more use for the Constitution than a tomcat has for a marriage license.

The bottom line of what happened in the history is that all of a sudden we found that the Founding Fathers who believed in people and believed in the legislative branch, listening to John Locke, who said you cannot transfer the power of the legislature to another branch, those type of people decided at that time that the people should not be running their own affairs, that government experts should be making that policy.

To be honest, when we're talking about the first resolution that deals with TANF, the welfare issue, I don't care if the waiver is the greatest thing since sliced bread, it is still extra-constitutional and it should not be used and Congress should not allow it to take away what is the role of Congress, and only Congress, to establish these issues and set these boundaries.

In the other bill that we're talking about, we're talking about prohibiting future actions by entities, in this case, specifically the EPA, which would destroy jobs, increase the cost of our utilities that would cause greater costs of lighting homes and heating homes, especially for those who have the least ability to do so.

Congressmen and Congresswomen must stand up and insist that Congress create these standards and create these options, not being made by executive

fiat. That is the very purpose of why we are here.

The first President, to whom I referred, ended up with a legacy of many programs implemented which we still today find controversial. He was labeled by historians as an arrogant President at that time who refused to talk to Congress. Because of that, he lost some of his last, most precious programs in an effort to try and go around Congress rather than working with Congress.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that's why this resolution is before us and why these two separate bills are here. Both of them attempt to set the record straight and show that it is Congress' responsibility to set the rules and the guidelines. It is not an administrative prerogative. And we as Congress need to step forward and say we are the ones who do this. We should not allow it to be done by anyone else, regardless of why it's being done or the merits of why it's being done. It's our job.

We should learn from history. We should be more like John Page and try and make sure the Congress does these types of issues and makes these types of decisions and less like Presidents later on who thought the President speaks for everybody and the President has every right to transcend separation of powers and do it for himself. That's the basis of these two bills. That's the important issue. We should learn the lesson of history.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

With gratitude for the last speech, which was such a stirring support of fracking, which has made gas so plentiful and useful in this country, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Science Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).

Mr. Speaker, I have some empathy for the gentleman from Iowa, but I will have to say that one of the reasons that those amendments were not made in order was, quite frankly, because both of them were nongermane to the base bill, and that becomes a concept.

One of the reasons that Ms. Slaughter speaks on wishing to stay here until we pass middle class tax cuts--and I think I can approve of that because, actually, when we considered H.R. 8, the Rules Committee took an extraordinary step of waiving the rules of the House--including CutGo and other budget-related points of order--so an amendment could be given by Mr. Levin, and he could have an opportunity to present that amendment. That amendment was debated, and it was rejected on a bipartisan vote of the House in August.

Unlike the amendment, then H.R. 8 passed the House with a bipartisan vote, which means the House has voted for a middle class tax cut. We have done our duty. It is one of the myriad of bills that is sitting over on the Senate side waiting for them to do something so that we can proceed to a conference committee.

So I actually approve of what the gentlelady from New York is saying because basically we've done it, and we did it on August 1.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I actually don't think I have any other speakers. I may be surprised in the next few minutes, as will be the case.

It happens, yes.

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

In our discussion of this particular rule today, we have, as oftentimes is the case, wandered far and wide.

I would point out to one of the speakers who was just up there saying that we should stay here doing the sequestration act, dealing with the sequestration issue, the House did. On May 10, we passed the Sequestration Replacement Act. Once again, it's sitting over in the Senate. To wait here until we do the middle class tax cuts, we did that in August. It's waiting over on the Senate to do something.

We have issues that are significant in the two that are before us. If we're talking about welfare in some particular way, whether the rule that was made coming out of the executive branch was appropriate or not, we could go back and say why it was done. It is true the President, in 1997 and once again in 1998, said he would not have supported the legislation that created the system that we have. It's also true that in The Washington Post editorial, they made comments that said the Obama administration is waiving the Federal requirement that ensures a portion of able-bodied TANF recipients must engage in work activities. If this is not getting welfare reform, it's difficult to imagine what would be.

But even if the substance of that was inaccurate, the fact that it was done by regulation, by rulemaking coming from the administrative branch, puts us in suspect category. Rules should not be establishing what is our priority; it should be laws made on this body. If you want to change it, if you want to do waivers, it should be coming from this particular body.

The other half of it deals with coal. This is a Nation with the largest coal reserves in the world. We have 500 years of potential electricity at cheap rates coming from coal. A coal plant today is as much as 99 percent cleaner than one built 40 years ago, and yet rules and regulations that have been promulgated or are being threatened to promulgate are one of those that impede the ability of building new plants.

There is no valid reason why the American coal industry should be suffering at the hands of overzealous Washington regulators or why workers are being laid off in the Midwest, in Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, and other places; although, today, it was again announced that there will be 1,200 coal mining jobs that will be eliminated across central Appalachia by a company, one company.

And once again, there is the kind of unfair regulations that are taking place. It is true that H.R. 3409 is cobbled together with other bills that have passed this body, but I would remind you that each of those four that have already passed this body were passed on a bipartisan vote, with anywhere between 16 and 37 Democrats, depending on the bill, joining with Republicans to pass those. And, when put together in a package with H.R. 3409, presents a good package to make sure that we are in favor of cheap energy, energy that will drive and build our economy and provide jobs for those who need those particular jobs.

I went historically in a while earlier because I wanted to say that we have faced these types of situations in the past, where the question was: Should the President make the rules or regulations or should Congress actually pass legislation?

The President to whom I referred ended his tenure in a somewhat bitter way, refusing to work with Congress, instead, trying to go around Congress, which produced, at that time, a historic deadlock between the Presidency and the Congress.

This is a Nation of laws. Laws are made here. It's not a Nation of rules. And if the rules and regulations are going to have the effect on the future and are going to have an effect on the American people, they should not be done by executive fiat. Whether you like them or not, they should not be done in that manner. It should be done here legislatively.

That's the purpose of both of these issues that are tied together in this rule; that's the thread that comes together--whether or not we actually believe Congress should be doing the job of creating the standards and the rules, or we're willing to simply abrogate our responsibility, our power, our options to some other body.

And I would hope that as Congress we would be very careful and considerate about what our responsibility is, and we would take very seriously any encroachment on the role of law that is given to us by the Constitution. It was the vision of the Founding Fathers that this should be the body that makes those decisions, not the executive branch.

This is a good bill, these are good bills, and this is a fair rule.

We haven't even talked about the amendments that were made in order, but they do cover, in fact, we did have one statement about the amendment that was not made in order, and I half wish--the Member is no longer here, but his issue of concern is covered in another amendment that is made in order and will be discussed on this floor.

So it is a fair rule. It will have a vigorous debate. And there are two good bills that would be brought before this body that I hope sincerely pass. I do urge their adoption, and I sincerely urge the adoption of this rule that will move us forward.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday and Tuesday, no votes are expected in the House. On Wednesday, the House will meet at noon for morning-hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour and noon for legislative business. On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a number of bills under suspension of the rules next week, including a prioritization of visas for foreign graduates of American universities in the STEM fields, an issue being championed by Chairman Lamar Smith, the gentleman from Texas, as well as Bob Goodlatte from Virginia and Raul Labrador from Idaho. A complete list of suspensions will be announced by the close of business today.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, the House will consider H.J. Res. 118, sponsored by Chairman Dave Camp, which provides for congressional disapproval of the rules submitted by the Department of Health and Human Services relating to waivers of work requirements with respect to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.

The House will also consider H.R. 3409, the Stop the War on Coal Act, sponsored by Bill Johnson of Ohio, which is a package of bills to expand domestic energy production and help create American jobs.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, Members are advised that with the Senate's expected passage of the continuing resolution, we no longer anticipate votes in the House during the week of October 1. This is a change from the original House calendar.

I thank the gentleman.

Before I get to the farm bill, I would just like to respond to the initial statements about the House's work in terms of jobs and taxes.

The gentleman well knows that we have sent to the Senate well over 30 measures that are job-creating bills that will help improve the environment for small business men and women to actually begin to invest and create jobs again.

We've also, as the gentleman knows, passed H.R. 8, the Job Protection and Recession Prevention Act. We did that on August 1. It was a bipartisan vote, including 19 House Democrats. This followed up on over 20 hearings on tax reform in this Congress. What we did in that bill, Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman recalls, is we made sure that taxes are not going to go up on anybody right now because of the economic situation that exists throughout this country. We don't believe that it is a desirable outcome to see taxes go up on anyone and to take more of their money right now while they're having a difficult time getting through the month.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, we continue to stand on the side of the hardworking taxpayers, and we ask the gentleman to please, when he cites the fact that we didn't pass his job bill, we passed a jobs bill. We passed numerous jobs bills--in fact, over 30 jobs bills--sitting in the Senate. The inaction has been on the Senate.

So, Mr. Speaker, with the gentleman's question about the farm bill, I, in fact, just came out of a meeting with one of his members to talk about the farm bill. We're trying to look for ways forward. Yes, there can be a possibility that we act again on the issue of the disaster of the drought. As the gentleman rightly said, we passed a drought relief bill on the livestock issue. It's sitting over in the Senate. Again, inaction.

The gentleman indicates the reason for opposition to that bill. There is nothing in the bill that is controversial. It's a fact that some who insist on having something else in the bill didn't have it. Well, one thing we know in common is we're all for allowing the relief on the livestock issue for the farmers.

Why can't we get that done? Why can't we just finally decide to say, You know what? There are some areas of disagreement, and we realize that, reasonable people do, and certainly in election season it sort of emphasizes that, unfortunately. But we also know there are things in common. Addressing the livestock drought issue is something we do have in common. We passed that out of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman any indication that he could give that perhaps there would be some movement on that would be, I think, a positive thing for the farmers. We continue to work on how to go forward, and, yes, there could be a possibility there is some action next week on the issue of the farm bill, looking to find ways that we can work together on issues that we all support, not issues that divide us.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would say that there is not agreement right now that we ought to raise taxes in this economy. The reason is, Mr. Speaker, that we are concerned about those individuals that the gentleman speaks about that perhaps may be out of work, or underemployed, or trying to make it and having a real difficult time. We're concerned about those people, and the best thing we can do is create a job and see them go back to work.

We saw that this summer Ernst & Young put out a study demonstrating that his tax policy--the gentleman's tax policy, the President's plan to raise taxes--is going to destroy 710,000 jobs, slash $200 billion from the economy, and lower wages for all working Americans by 1.8 percent. That's what that study said.

So, no, there's not agreement that we should raise taxes like that because if you raise taxes, there are going to be less jobs, there is going to be less growth. We're trying to focus on those people who need to get back to work, who want to get back to work. That's where the agreement is--that we all want to help people. We just don't believe that you help people right now by laying down a tax increase, putting more money into the government that can't seem to figure out a way to fix the problem once and for all. That's what we want to do, fix that problem, help those people.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Again, no, that's not why these bills haven't passed. First of all, the Violence Against Women Act passed out of this House. It's sitting over in the Senate because the Senate's got its own bill that has a blue slip problem. Let the legislative process work over there, send us a bill, and we'll get something done. The gentleman did not, on his side, overwhelmingly join us in the VAWA bill. Okay. So the fact that the minority didn't get their way, they wouldn't join us on the bill. We went and did our work.

And I'll say more to the gentleman, Mr. Speaker. The postal reform bill, the fact of the matter is his side, Mr. Speaker, the minority will not agree to reforms. Everyone knows the post office needs reforms. Everyone knows the debt that that organization continues to incur and lays on the U.S. taxpayers. We're trying to fix that problem. But because the gentleman and his colleagues refuse to go along with reforms like a 5-day delivery--this is something that the President supports. But because his side refuses to go along with trying to reform that organization, we can't move. Again, it's this insistence: We can't do that. We all know that's common sense. Common sense is reforming the postal service--something everyone knows needs reform. That's why that bill didn't pass, Mr. Speaker.

We've got another issue on the farm bill. There are issues of policy differences. And the gentleman knows throughout last year we went through a lot of these policy differences in the SNAP program and the rest. We have GAO recommendations year in and year out about that program, but unwillingness on the part of the minority to ever engage in a discussion of real reform in those programs.

Again, let's remember what we're talking about in a farm bill. Most of it by far are not farm programs, they're food programs. Again, raising the question of how it is we're going to go forward, we need to understand the specifics and know there are real policy differences. Yes, we're all willing to work together--or at least we are on this side. So I really take exception with the gentleman's assertions that somehow we're sitting here demanding everything. No. We want to work together and set aside differences and agree on things we can find in common. That's how anybody in everyday life tries to run their business or run their family. It's not all or nothing. It's not black or white.

Would the gentleman yield for that fact? Because that's not true, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, it's not true. We don't want to exclude anybody from the benefits under VAWA, and he knows that. It was simply a matter of new language inserted by the Senate that, really, we don't want to deny those benefits to anyone. We want everyone to have the benefits and not exclude some by specifically identifying others, and the gentleman knows that. It's unfair to characterize anything we're trying to do to exclude people from benefits when they are subject to domestic abuse. All of us care about those victims.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding again.

First of all I'd ask, was there over 8 percent unemployment then? That's the first thing, Mr. Speaker.

We are about trying to do something to get people back to work. And if you're worried about the 98 percent, which we all are, the best thing we can do is to make sure there are more jobs. And so our objection to the gentleman's proposal to raise taxes is the fact that that tax hike that he's advocating is going to affect 53 percent of all small business income. The Joint Committee on Tax says that.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, the point is about jobs. Okay?

And the jobs come from the small businesses who are generating income. If you want to help people who are creating jobs, don't raise their taxes, especially when unemployment is over 8 percent.

It's about jobs. I mean, that's the thing, Mr. Speaker. We always hear somehow that we're favoring some big bad business. No, we're about the businesses who create jobs. Small businesses, according to the Small Business Administration definition, create jobs.

So, Mr. Speaker, just because, in the gentleman's mind, somehow somebody he doesn't like because they're so successful gets a benefit, the overwhelming majority of the people who will not get a tax hike under our plan will go out and create a job.

I absolutely retract that, Mr. Speaker. I absolutely retract that. But the gentleman continues to malign people who he feels don't deserve the same treatment on taxes. And what we're saying, if they're successful, that means they're creating jobs. That's the prescription we need right now is more jobs.

Our policy is about helping those small businessmen and women who are creating jobs so we can finally do something to bring this unemployment down and get people back to work. That's all.

Mr. Speaker, I think the differences are very plain. The gentleman has a way of simplifying things. According to what I took from what the gentleman just said, if we'd just raised taxes, all those jobs wouldn't have been lost, and everything would have been fine. Again, our proposition is completely the opposite.

We believe that we've got a real spending problem here, Mr. Speaker. We've got a problem with an unwillingness to reform some programs. The gentleman talks about Members having to pay more when, in fact, it was our side that put forward the proposal that we should actually allow and require Members as well as Federal employees to pay more towards their retirements. The gentleman wasn't supportive of that. We've got some serious unfunded obligations at the Federal level. The

American people know that. We are trying to solve problems. The problems are not solved by raising taxes.

Now, if the gentleman is so intent on raising taxes--again, because there is a 2 percent that he just wants to pay more--I ask the gentleman to join us in actually fixing the problem that all experts say you can't tax your way out of and you can't grow your way out of.

You've got to reform the programs. Mr. Speaker, we've been the only ones to put forward a plan that even begins to solve the problem--the President has not; the Senate has not; and the gentleman has not.

It's about solving problems, producing results for the hardworking taxpayers of this country who so desperately want to see us go forward, reclaim America in its true aspirational sense and be that place of opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

I'm going to try and make sure that I don't bring on even more because I know our colleagues are waiting to speak.

I would say to the gentleman there is not unanimity on his side, as he knows, on Bowles-Simpson. In fact, the minority leader rejected Bowles-Simpson and the President has not endorsed Bowles-Simpson, which is part of the issue that the gentleman seeks some clarification on, which is: Where is the plan to get us out of this? The President was unwilling to even adopt that.

The gentleman I think knows the reason why our side rejects Bowles- Simpson. We believe there are some good things in Bowles-Simpson, and I do look forward to working with the gentleman to see if we can work together in a cooperative fashion to get some results and resolve this cloud hanging over the economy. I'm looking forward to that.

But Bowles-Simpson, number one, is not this so-called balanced approach, unless you say $1.22 in new taxes with $1 in cuts is balanced. We don't believe so, because we believe it has a detrimental impact on the growth of the economy.

We also believe that the Bowles-Simpson revenue target of 21 percent of GDP is the highest target and something that exceeds that which we've been at pretty much over the last 70-something years, save for 3 years. We believe that that is too much of a revenue flow into Washington for Washington to make the decisions.

We've got an issue there about the amount of taxes and the size of government. Yes, it's a totally legitimate discussion point, but it's an issue. It's not just rejection out of hand like the minority leader and the President have said. They reject that. We say this is why, and then we also say the disproportionate driver of the deficit is health care entitlements. The gentleman and I both agree upon that. How are we going to deal with it?

Bowles-Simpson leaves in place the structural nature of those programs now and doesn't address this fundamental problem of growing unfunded liabilities. We want to solve that so that the safety net programs are there for the future and save them. That's our position.

So I do look forward to working with the gentleman. There are some great things about tax reform in Bowles-Simpson. I want to work with the gentleman on that, and, if we can, have a conversation about resolving the deficit and the spending.

Again, I'm trying not to invoke any more time, Mr. Speaker.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Graves).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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.)

I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

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. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.