Welfare Integrity and Data Improvement Act

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3659.

This bill was taken out of the 360-page tax extenders bill, and essentially the authors of this bill have brought it up so that they could just have another kick at poor people. The bill sort of suggests that people who are poor are of very low moral character and that they can't be trusted to use their EBT cards in liquor stores or casinos, so therefore we need to make some restrictions on how they can use EBT cards.

But before we start kicking poor people yet another time, I just want to remind everyone of data that were just released today which indicate that one half of all Americans are poor and that these people may find themselves eligible for benefits under this Electronic Benefit Transfer card.

Earlier this week, Congressman John Lewis and I tried to strike this language from the bill--with no success.

The provision that blocks EBT cards from being used in liquor stores, casinos and strip clubs doesn't consider a couple of things. It doesn't consider the tremendous cost that this will have on financial institutions, which will have to reconfigure their cards. It also

doesn't consider the distance for many Americans. There are 23 million Americans who live in so-called ``food deserts'' where there is not access to a grocery store or to an EBT machine within walking distance.

Before I close, I would just like to mention one personal experience that I had just this last week.

After having suffered an aneurysm, one of my sisters was on her way back to the hospital this morning. Because I didn't have access to a vehicle, I went and purchased the last meal that I gave her before I journeyed back to Washington, D.C. I bought her 100 percent orange juice from a liquor store that was within walking distance of my home.

So it may be an unintended consequence, but this is just a mean- spirited effort to, one more time, kick the poor people who are now half of all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, here we are once again. Like a broken record the Republican leadership continues to play the same sad song. One that claims to help the poor and middle class but in the end will only exacerbate our already weak economy.

As always, the devil is in the details. This so called Welfare Integrity and Data Improvement Act will only help to make an already broken program worse while also restricting access for our most vulnerable families.

But be careful.

New Census data released today reveals that 1 in 2 Americans have fallen into poverty. One half of all Americans are now either poor or low-income!!!

The rate at which women and children are being thrown under the bus is a strong indication that TANF has systematically failed to close the expanding poverty gap, build pathways to sustainable employment, and has done little to alleviate the problem of growing chronic poverty.

Now, as we go into TANF's third extension, Republicans want to impose additional barriers on families to further hinder their ability to access much needed benefits in these tough economic times.

This bill includes a harmful provision that blocks EBT cards from being used at liquor stores, casinos and strip clubs.

Mr. Speaker, this is an issue of access. In many neighborhoods, the closest ATM is located in a nearby liquor store.

We don't want to encourage people to go to liquor stores or casinos but what are low-income families supposed to do when they can't even access benefits to feed their families in their own neighborhoods?

There has been no consideration of the cost associated with implementing this policy, or to the kinds of burdens that it will undoubtedly place on states and financial institutions who will have to reconfigure thousands of ATMs.

Earlier this week, Congressman John Lewis and I attempted to strike this language from the tax extenders bill, but Republicans refused to consider any amendments both on the floor and in the Rules Committee.

Here we are. Up against many deadlines and someone took the time to pull this language out of a 370 page bill so that they could kick people who are down with further restrictions.

I hope that the American people can see that Republicans are simply playing political theater, trying to further humiliate and marginalize poor people while stonewalling any and all efforts for Democrats to pass meaningful legislation that will truly provide opportunities for all people.

[From the Economic Research Service, June 2009]

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food

Measuring and Understanding Food Deserts and Their Consequences

Report to Congress

Increases in obesity and diet-related diseases are major

public health problems. These problems may be worse in some

U.S. communities because access to affordable and nutritious

foods is difficult. Previous studies suggest that some areas

and households have easier access to fast food restaurants

and convenience stores but limited access to supermarkets.

Limited access to nutritious food and relatively easier

access to less nutritious food may be linked to poor diets

and, ultimately, to obesity and diet-related diseases.

Congress, in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008,

directed the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to conduct

a 1-year study to assess the extent of the problem of limited

access, identify characteristics and causes, consider the

effects of limited access on local populations, and outline

recommendations to address the problem.

This report presents the findings of the study, which

include results from two conferences of national and

international authorities on food deserts and a set of

commissioned research studies done in cooperation with the

National Poverty Center at the University of Michigan. It

also includes reviews of existing literature, a national-

level assessment of access to supermarkets and large grocery

stores, analysis of the economic and public health effects of

limited access, and a discussion of existing policy

interventions. A variety of analytical methods and data are

used to assess the extent of limited access to affordable and

nutritious food and characteristics of areas with limited

access.

Findings

Access to a supermarket or large grocery store is a problem

for a small percentage of households. Results indicate that

some consumers are constrained in their ability to access

affordable nutritious food because they live far from a

supermarket or large grocery store and do not have easy

access to transportation. Three pieces of evidence

corroborate this conclusion:

Of all U.S. households, 2.3 million, or 2.2 percent, live

more than a mile from a supermarket and do not have access to

a vehicle. An additional 3.4 million households, or 3.2

percent of all households, live between one-half to 1 mile

and do not have access to a vehicle.

Area-based measures of access show that 23.5 million people

live in low-income areas (areas where more than 40 percent of

the population has income at or below 200 percent of Federal

poverty thresholds) that are more than 1 mile from a

supermarket or large grocery store. However, not all of these

23.5 million people have low income. If estimates are

restricted to consider only low-income people in low-income

areas, then 11.5 million people, or 4.1 percent of the total

U.S. population, live in low-income areas more than 1 mile

from a supermarket.

Data on time use and travel mode show that people living in

low-income areas with limited access spend significantly more

time (19.5 minutes) traveling to a grocery store than the

national average (15 minutes). However, 93 percent of those

who live in low-income areas with limited access traveled to

the grocery store in a vehicle they or another household

member drove.

These distance and time-based measures are national

estimates that do not consider differences between rural and

urban areas in terms of distance, travel patterns, and retail

market coverage.

Urban core areas with limited food access are characterized

by higher levels of racial segregation and greater income

inequality. In small-town and rural areas with limited food

access, the lack of transportation infrastructure is the most

defining characteristic.

These area- or distance-based results are in line with a

nationally representative survey of U.S. households conducted

in 2001. Responses to direct questions about food access show

that nearly 6 percent of all U.S. households did not always

have the food they wanted or needed because of access-related

problems. More than half of these households also lacked

enough money for food. It is unclear whether food access or

income constraints were relatively greater barriers for these

households.

Supermarkets and large grocery stores have lower prices

than smaller stores. A key concern for people who live in

areas with limited access is that they rely on small grocery

or convenience stores that may not carry all the foods needed

for a healthy diet and that may offer these foods and other

food at higher prices. This report examines whether prices of

similar foods vary across retail outlet types and whether the

prices actually paid by consumers vary across income levels.

These analyses use proprietary household-level data that

contain information on food items purchased by approximately

40,000 demographically representative households across the

United States. Results from these analyses show that when

consumers shop at convenience stores, prices paid for similar

goods are, on average, higher than at supermarkets.

Low-income households shop where food prices are lower,

when they can. Findings also show that food purchases at

convenience stores make up a small portion of total food

expenditures (2 to 3 percent) for low-income consumers. Low-

and middle-income households are more likely to purchase food

at supercenters, where prices are lower. Administrative data

on SNAP benefit redemptions from 2008 show that 86 percent of

SNAP benefits were redeemed at supermarkets or large grocery

stores. Research that considers the prices paid for the same

food across household income levels indicates that while some

of the very poorest households--those earning less than

$8,000 per year--may pay between 0.5 percent and 1.3 percent

more for their groceries than households earning slightly

more, households earning between $8,000 and $30,000 tend to

pay the lowest prices for groceries, whereas higher income

households pay significantly higher prices.

The study also examined food shopping behavior and the

types of food purchased for SNAP participants and other low-

income households. Data from the 1996/1997 NFSPS show that

SNAP participants were, on average, 1.8 miles from the

nearest supermarket. However, the average number of miles

both SNAP participants and eligible nonparticipants traveled

to the store most often used was 4.9 miles. These same data

show that SNAP participants who did not shop at supermarkets

purchased less noncanned fruit, noncanned vegetables, and

milk than SNAP participants who shopped frequently at a

supermarket.

Easy access to all food, rather than lack of access to

specific healthy foods, may be a

more important factor in explaining increases in obesity.

Many studies find a correlation between limited food access

and lower intake of nutritious foods. Data and methods used

in these studies, however, are not sufficiently robust to

establish a causal link between access and nutritional

outcomes. That is, other explanations cannot be eliminated as

the cause of lower intake. A few studies have examined food

intake before and after healthy food options become available

(either within existing stores or because new stores opened).

The findings are mixed--some show a small but positive

increase in consumption of fruits and vegetables, while

others show no effect.

The causal pathways linking limited access to nutritious

food to measures of overweight like Body Mass Index (BMI) and

obesity are not well understood. Several studies find that

proximity of fast food restaurants and supermarkets are

correlated with BMI and obesity. But increased consumption of

such healthy foods as fruits and vegetables, low-fat milk, or

whole grains does not necessarily lead to lower BMI.

Consumers may not substitute away from less healthy foods

when they increase their consumption of healthy foods. Easy

access to all food, rather than lack of access to specific

healthy foods, may be a more important factor in explaining

increases in BMI and obesity.

Understanding the market conditions that contribute to

differences in access to food is critical to the design of

policy interventions that may be effective in reducing access

limitations. Access to affordable and nutritious food depends

on supply (availability) and consumer demand. Consumer

behavior, preferences, and other factors related to the

demand for some foods may account for differences in the

types of foods offered across different areas. Food retailer

behavior and supply-side issues such as higher costs to

developing stores in underserved areas may also explain

variation across areas in which foods are offered and what

stores offer them.

If high development costs serve as a barrier to entry for

supermarkets in some areas with low access, then subsidy

programs or restructured zoning policies may be effective

solutions. If consumer demand factors, such as inadequate

knowledge of the nutritional benefits of specific foods,

contribute to differences in access by reducing demand, then

a public health campaign may be a preferred strategy. Several

local and State-level efforts are underway that could provide

the basis for a better understanding of the types of

interventions that may work best.

Food has been used as a tool for community development.

Projects such as farmers' markets, community gardens,

promotion of culturally specific foods for ethnic minorities

and Native Americans, local food production and promotion,

youth agricultural and culinary training programs, and many

other types of programs have all been implemented in a

variety of settings, both urban and rural. USDA's Community

Food Projects Competitive Grant program has much experience

in funding and nurturing such programs.

The current state of research is insufficient to

conclusively determine whether some areas with limited access

have inadequate access. Future research should consider

improved methods to measure access levels, availability, and

prices of foods faced by individuals and areas. More research

is needed to understand how access, availability and price

affect the shopping and consumption behaviors of consumers.

Data linking information on the types of foods consumers

purchase and eat with measures of consumers' levels of access

and the prices they face could help explain the economic

consequences of food access. Studies that use improved

methods and data to determine how food access affects diet,

obesity, and other health outcomes are also needed to help

explain the health consequences of food access.

Methods

To conduct the analysis of the extent of food deserts, a

comprehensive database was developed that identified the

location of supermarkets and large grocery stores within the

continental United States. Food access was estimated as the

distance to the nearest supermarket or large grocery store.

The analysis was refined by examining households without

vehicles and specific socio-demographic subpopulations drawn

from the 2000 Census. Multivariate statistical analysis was

applied to identify the key determinants of areas with low

access to supermarkets and large grocery stores.

Research also examined national-level data on questions of

household food adequacy and access from the 2001 Current

Population Survey. This information was complemented with

national-level data on time spent traveling to grocery stores

from the 2003-07 American Time Use Survey. To consider the

economic consequences of limited access, ERS also analyzed

demand for certain nutritious foods for a sample of

participants in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

(SNAP, formerly the Food Stamp Program), using data from the

National Food Stamp Program Survey (NFSPS) of 1996/1997.

Variation in prices for similar foods purchased at different

store types, as indicated by hedonic models and data from the

2006 Nielsen Homescan panel, was also estimated.

ERS collaborated with other agencies and institutions to

complete this study. USDA's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS)

compiled information on an extensive body of work examining

food access for SNAP and other low-income households. USDA's

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

(CSREES) provided information on the Community Foods Projects

and lessons learned in the administration of the projects.

The national-level food desert analysis was complemented by

a review of existing literature and the commissioning of

additional studies by experts in the field. A workshop held

in October 2008 convened leading experts in the study of

retail food and grocery store access, key stakeholders from

community development organizations, grocery retailer

organizations, other government agencies, congressional

members and staff, and related public interest groups. The

workshop included presentations and panel discussions of such

topics as defining and describing dimensions of food deserts,

implications of low access for food and nutrition assistance

programs, consequences of food deserts, and programs and

policies to mitigate the adverse effects of food deserts.

USDA, in cooperation with the National Poverty Center at

the University of Michigan, commissioned several studies by

experts in food access to better understand concepts of low

access to affordable and nutritious foods and the degree to

which access varies across different types of areas. The

intent of these papers was to describe characteristics of the

food environment and the demographic, economic, and health

conditions that typify areas with low food access and to

complement the national-level findings with more detailed and

local-level information. Results from studies were presented

in a conference.

USDA, in cooperation with the Institute of Medicine of the

National Academies, conducted a 2-day workshop in January

2009 on the public health implications of food deserts.

Workshop presentations covered methods for assessing and

research findings on the impacts of food deserts on such

outcomes as diet (including examination of specific foods,

such as fruit and vegetable consumption and intake of high-

energy, low-nutrient foods), prevalence of obesity and

overweight; and diseases associated with poor diets. In

addition, presentations covered promising strategies for

mitigating the impacts of food deserts that have been

suggested, implemented, or are in the planning stages. The

workshop provided the basis for the review of the public

health literature.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3567) to amend title IV of the Social Security Act to require States to implement policies to prevent assistance under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program from being used in strip clubs, casinos, and liquor stores, as amended.

Madam 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 the subject of the bill under consideration.

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

I rise today, Madam Speaker, in support of H.R. 3567, a bill to ensure taxpayer dollars in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program are used as intended, and that is to provide support for low- income families and children and to help them move from welfare to work.

The TANF program was created in 1996, replacing the prior welfare program with one focused on work, providing short-term help, child care, and other work supports to get people back on their feet and earning a paycheck. In the years following, TANF was lauded as one of the most effective reforms in our social welfare system in American history. Employment rates of those on welfare surged, caseloads plummeted, child poverty rates fell, and taxpayers were confident they were actually helping poor families, knowing that they were providing them with a hand up and not a handout.

Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, an issue has arisen in TANF that is eroding public confidence in the program. This is the issue of TANF funds, money meant to help poor children and their families, being accessed and used in liquor stores, strip clubs, and casinos. What started less than 2 years ago as research by one reporter in Los Angeles has grown into dozens of investigations across the country, with each new investigation adding to the story of how millions of dollars in TANF funds have been accessed in these locations.

Let me just mention some of what has been uncovered:

An Arizona investigation found welfare funds were accessed in liquor stores over 100 times in just 3 months;

A California reporter uncovered that welfare recipients cashed out over $4.8 million in TANF funds in casinos over a 3-year period;

A Colorado news organization found cash was being withdrawn in strip clubs, casinos, and liquor stores, despite a State law on the books prohibiting such transactions;

An investigative report in Georgia revealed $150,000 in TANF money was withdrawn in liquor stores, bars, and nightclubs;

KING 5 News in Seattle found 13,000 TANF recipients who had collectively withdrawn approximately $2 million from casinos in 2010.

Madam Speaker, this is unacceptable. This is unacceptable to the American people.

When the L.A. Times revealed their shocking statistics on the millions in welfare that had been accessed in casinos, liquor stores, and strip clubs, the Governor of California took action to block these transactions immediately. Washington and New Mexico have prohibited access to welfare benefits in casinos. Texas prohibits the use of welfare benefit cards in liquor stores and casinos as well.

The legislation before us today would ensure that taxpayer dollars in the TANF program are being used as intended, and that is to assist poor families with their basic needs and to support them in their efforts to become self-sufficient. Under this bill, States would be required to block welfare benefit card transactions in casinos, liquor stores, and strip clubs and would be penalized if they do not implement such policies within 2 years of this bill becoming law.

This bill will also help restore the public's trust in the integrity of the program while ensuring families across the country continue to receive the assistance they need to move from government dependence to independence.

The bill we're considering today simply consists of one of the TANF provisions in H.R. 3659, the Welfare Integrity and Data Improvement Act that

was unanimously passed in the House in December. A provision closing what has been called the ``strip club loophole'' was also included in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act that also passed the House in December and is now in conference with the Senate.

With the exception of several technical changes suggested by the Department of Health and Human Services, it is also identical to bipartisan legislation introduced in the Senate last year by Senator Hatch and cosponsored by Senator Baucus, the ranking member and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, respectively. I thank them for their hard work on this bill as well.

Passing this bill today will send three clear messages:

First, the House is serious about this bipartisan, bicameral reform becoming law, ensuring welfare funds are spent on families and children as intended;

Second, conferees on the yearlong payroll tax, UI and TANF extenders bill, should include this bipartisan provision in their conference agreement;

Third, if those conference discussions break down, the Senate will be able to join us in quickly passing this important bipartisan reform and getting it to the President's desk.

I urge all my colleagues to support this important legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources on the House Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman Geoff Davis from the great State of Kentucky, the author of the TANF reauthorization, who cares deeply about the integrity of this program.

I want to thank the gentlewoman for raising the concern about ensuring that TANF recipients have adequate access to their benefits in a variety of locations. That's a very important consideration.

This bill requires States to block access to welfare benefits in casinos, liquor stores, and strip clubs. However, we know some grocery stores, convenience stores, and local markets may sell groceries but also sell alcohol and that some States may have gambling machines there as well. Because of this, the bill allows States to make accommodations for such stores so that they would not have to block transactions in places that sell groceries but that also sell alcohol. If a grocery store happens to have a gaming machine or if it's located in the same building or complex as a casino, there are provisions made in this.

So I thank the gentlewoman for raising this issue, but I'm glad that we can ensure the integrity of this program. I would submit the most important thing we can do is to ensure the integrity of the program so that it is there for the children and families that need it. Yet we want to ensure that there is not an overt abuse of these funds in strip clubs, casinos, and liquor stores while allowing for reasonable exceptions.

Also, I thank the gentlelady and the ranking member from Texas for raising the concern as to the issue of implementation cost, and I want to address that as well.

Some States have expressed that we have a loophole that could potentially be too costly or too difficult to close. However, I want to point out that these difficulties have been overstated. Washington State said the same thing when it was told $2 million in TANF funds were being withdrawn in casinos in 1 year.

Madam Speaker, I submit for the Record an article from KING 5 News in

Seattle, Washington, that speaks directly to this issue. It talks about the surprising number of TANF withdrawals in casinos in the State, and it reports the State said the same things that we're hearing today in that it may be hard to close this loophole or that it would be too expensive to stop.

This article goes on to read:

``It turns out the fix wasn't difficult or expensive. For the Iron Horse Casino, it took about 4 minutes on the phone. Kealy,'' the casino owner, ``says, in minutes and at no cost, his ATM vendor blocked EBT cards . . . Kealy and many other casino owners didn't wait for orders from the State. They already reprogrammed their ATMs . . . He's a board member of the Washington Restaurant Association, which he says is preparing to ask bars and taverns--businesses that are more alcohol than food oriented--to block EBT access to their cash machines. Kealy says that would mean another 2,000 ATMs couldn't be accessed for welfare cash benefits.''

So I appreciate the concerns about the cost, but I believe closing this loophole simply won't be as difficult as some are making it out to be.

[From KING5.com, Sept. 23, 2010]

More Businesses May Pull Plug on Welfare Cash Cards

(By Chris Ingalls)

Many casinos in the state have taken steps to cut off the

flow of cash to welfare recipients. This follows a KING 5

Investigation that showed millions of tax dollars being

dispensed through casino cash machines.

Now we've learned thousands more ATMs could be blocked at

other businesses where welfare dollars may not belong. Bars

and taverns in Washington may follow the lead of casinos,

which have already started reprogramming their ATMs so they

won't dispense cash from EBT cards that are distributed to

welfare recipients.

State records show the two ATMs at the Iron Horse Casino in

Auburn dispensed $780 in welfare in the month of July alone.

``Whew! It's unbelievable,'' said Iron Horse customer Louie

Vaccaro. ``We have so many problems in this state. To hear

something like that is mind boggling.''

``I was surprised by that,'' says the casino's owner Chris

Kealy. ``I did not know those cards could be used at these

machines.''

Kealy saw our stories last week that showed more than $2

million in welfare cash withdrawn from ATMs in and around

casinos in the last year. Initially the Department of Social

and Health Services, DSHS, said putting a stop to those

questionable withdrawals might be too difficult or costly.

``If we find that this is a small incidence that's

happening, it might not justify the expense that it would try

to prevent that activity,'' said Deputy DSHS secretary Troy

Hutson in a story we aired last week.

It turns out the fix wasn't difficult or expensive. For the

Iron Horse Casino, it took about four minutes on the phone.

Kealy says in minutes, and at no cost, his ATM vendor blocked

EBT cards--debit-type cards which DSHS uses to distribute

cash benefits to 68,000 of the state's most needy residents.

Organizations representing both tribal and non-tribal

gambling establishments in Washington pledged their full

support when DSHS's secretary made an announcement two days

after KING 5 Investigation aired.

``I want to shut down every ATM in gambling establishments

that has EBT access,'' said Susan N. Dreyfus.

Kealy and many other casino owners didn't wait for orders

from the state. They already re-programmed their ATMs. And

Kealy isn't stopping with his own casino. He's a board member

of the Washington Restaurant Association, which he says is

preparing to ask bars and taverns--businesses that are more

alcohol than food oriented--to block EBT access to their cash

machines. Kealy says that would mean another 2,000 ATMs

couldn't be accessed for welfare cash benefits.

``The taxes you are paying are supposed to help fund basic

needs, human services,'' Kealy says. ``We're all in this

together. I'm supportive of that. But I'm not supportive of

those dollars being used in facilities like this.''

Gambling is one of the few restrictions on the use of

welfare cash. It is illegal. Welfare cheats can still get

their money at other ATMs, but casinos hope to stack the deck

against them and send the message that welfare dollars aren't

welcome on gaming floors.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the Human Resources Subcommittee, Mr. Davis.

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

I thought I made it clear, and I think Chairman Davis did also, earlier, that there are provisions to allow for exceptions as long as the facility serves food. We're talking about stores that purely sell liquor. So I think the gentlelady's concerns are addressed with the bill as written.

Furthermore, I would just say that on this side of the aisle, we care very deeply about this program. There's

broad agreement it's a valuable program. It's worked.

If you care about children and you care about needy families in this country, then you should care about ensuring the integrity of the program and making sure that the dollars that taxpayers put forth for these needy families, these needy children, actually go to those families and not buying liquor and patronizing strip clubs and going to casinos.

That's what this bill intends to address. That's what it does address. It creates the proper flexibilities for the concern that the gentlelady has and others on the other side of the aisle have about access. If food is sold, access will not be denied.

I reserve the balance of my time.

If food products are sold at a store?

If any type of food product, including milk, is sold at a store, States can except those from the provisions in this bill.

Would the gentlewoman yield?

The definition is staple foods, which include milk.

Madam Speaker, I would ask if the gentleman has yielded back all of his time?

I am pleased to yield the remaining time to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis), the chairman of the subcommittee, a gentleman who has diligently worked in good faith with the ranking member to reauthorize a TANF program with integrity that ensures that children and needy families get the assistance that they need.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

This bill closes a loophole that, if left uncorrected, would continue to allow millions in welfare funds to be distributed in liquor stores, casinos, and strip clubs.

Now that this issue has been highlighted by news organizations across the country, we must stop this abuse of taxpayer funds and ensure this money is used as it should be--to help poor children and families make ends meet.

A number of States have already closed this loophole, but this bill will help restore the public's confidence in the program and ensure that States work together to end this abuse once and for all.

I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this measure, as they have done previously, so that we can ensure taxpayer dollars are used as they should be.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to take a moment before speaking on this measure to respond to the gentleman's remark, my friend, the distinguished gentleman from Texas and ranking member on the subcommittee.

We've worked very hard over the last year on the issue of data standardization, correcting flaws in the system, got the first data standardization language in the history of the country, an act that would begin to address issues like this. I beg to respectfully disagree with the position that the ranking member took on this, talking about the idea of convenience with the casino or adult establishments.

As somebody who grew up in interesting circumstances and has done a lot of volunteer work over the last 30 years with folks with challenges, the

first question that I would ask if somebody is in need of assistance is, what in the world are they doing using a card to get cash inside of a casino. I'm not impugning anybody's integrity, but as somebody who can look across the river from where I live where there are several casinos, there are more than enough establishments, and I think the deeper question that we have to address is how our funds are going to be used when we help those who are in need. There are legitimate needs that these people have, and we've got to make sure that this program is tight, that it has the integrity to function so that every dollar is going to meeting those basic needs. I think it's a very small thing to bring this type of integrity to the program.

I rise in support of H.R. 3567, the Welfare Integrity Now for Children and Families Act of 2011, introduced by my close friend from Louisiana, Congressman Charles Boustany.

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, is a program that provides support for low-income families and children that helps them to move from welfare to work. It was a successful reform since it replaced the New Deal-era welfare programs in 1996, and TANF has been successful at cutting welfare dependence by 57 percent.

Are there opportunities to improve the program, to strengthen the program? Absolutely. There are a variety of issues and core processes that need to be addressed to bring more private sector practices into the management and administration of the program, like the data standardization that I talked about earlier, to allow us to understand how funds are being used and how better to serve those who are being helped by providing information to those on the front line.

Even more importantly, though, by promoting work among single parents, who are the most common welfare recipients, it helps significantly reduce child poverty in female-headed families over time. Even at today's elevated unemployment rates, TANF continues to promote more work and earnings and less poverty.

Despite this overall progress, TANF can and should be strengthened. Recently, concern has been raised about TANF benefits being withdrawn and used at strip clubs, liquor stores, and casinos. This is inappropriate as a use of taxpayer dollars and an outright abuse of taxpayer trust. Indeed, as my colleague from Louisiana highlighted, many local news investigations and exposes have verified this unfortunate abuse of a well-intended program.

One of the most shocking reports to me was from King 5 News in Seattle, Washington. They discovered through an investigation that 13,000 TANF recipients withdrew approximately $2 million at casinos just in 2010.

I think it's very reasonable from an oversight position to ask the question, why are they in the casino in the first place? The use of these dollars can't possibly be meeting basic grocery needs and things like that in an establishment like that or any other type of adult establishment.

Luckily, some States like Washington, New Mexico, and Texas have begun to take action on a local basis, but I believe this is one issue that we need to address at the Federal level, at the core, first by stopping this problem as a symptom and then dealing with the deeper systemic and process issues that we can establish through data standardization and simple controls so these cards will not even work in such an establishment.

H.R. 3567 would close the so-called ``strip club'' loophole within 2 years of enactment. The States would be required to block welfare benefit card transactions in casinos, liquor stores, and strip clubs. In plain language, welfare benefits could no longer be accessed at any of these facilities.

The same provision was included in H.R. 3630, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act, as well as H.R. 3659, a standalone TANF extension bill introduced by Congressman Erik Paulsen, both of which passed the House in December. This bipartisan, bicameral program integrity provision will safeguard taxpayer funds from abuse and ensure that TANF benefits will continue to provide a helping hand to families that are in need.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3567.

I do feel compelled to respond since Martin Niemoller--the famous German Christian pastor who was quoted after World War II when talking about inaction--was dealing with the issue of the Holocaust, the scale of which was so unbelievably beyond the pale of a small technical fix

that we're talking about here that, I believe, the gentleman diminished the value of whatever argument he was making by even quoting him.

If I seem to recall my history correctly when I was running a business in 1996, during the welfare debate, Martin Niemoller was resurrected from the dead again, using the same quote that somehow, if we just touch anything that will provide integrity to our programs with which we want to help the poor, that, in fact, this is the march down the slippery slope to the complete takeover and removal of civil rights.

Come on, folks. This is a technical business discussion. If we were running a business together--and I believe the government should be run that way--I think we'd be sitting around a table in the operations room while planning ways to legitimately cut costs to more efficiently help our customers and to eliminate waste.

In using the gentleman's own argument that he brought up, this is the question again: If the vast majority--and I happen to agree with him-- don't go in those places in the first place, why would we not want to put in a simple program control for that small percentage that does to prevent them from wasting taxpayer dollars?

From the casinos that we have across the river, from some of the economic hardship that comes from that and from my constituents who have families who have been damaged by this, I know, in walking inside any number of the casinos on the Ohio River, that I'm not seeing grocery stores, that I'm not seeing provisions for food. What I'm seeing are ATMs and access to free chips and for gambling--not to eat.

I think this begs the deeper question: To the average man or woman on the street, if we ask the question ``Is it reasonable?'' absolutely.

I want to bring us back to the central point here as to what this does. First is the idea that it costs too much, and I'll speak for my other life as a systems professional. The gentleman from Louisiana rightly pointed out that the fixing of the system is actually an easy thing to do, and we will find ready participation and cooperation from those who are involved because they understand the stakes in this. The goal of their businesses is not a further recycling of poverty. The goal of their businesses is to make sure, to some degree, that money is not used in a manner that reflects poor stewardship. I think, ultimately, this is a backstop to assure that money that belongs to the United States taxpayer that's being given to them as assistance is going to be used in a proper manner.

At the end of the day, that refutes the baseline of these arguments-- again, going back to the great success that our staffs have had and that the gentleman from Texas and I have had over the course of the last year to really begin to move serious, nonpartisan process reforms that will help to fix deficiencies in the system which are not Democrat or Republican at their root but are addressing real questions of broken processes.

If we were sitting there among ourselves in a business together that we were running or if we were sitting with our families and if we noticed that there were an issue, hey, we could put a stop to that and we could fix that. Why don't we do the same thing here? It's not an unreasonable request to look at that.

Again, some of the speakers are not on our subcommittee, and I think we've had great success in keeping the tone of the debate focused on the core process problems, not on extremely energetic and emotional rhetoric that really doesn't address this root issue. That would be my request as we move forward. This is a good fix. It is a cheap way to save taxpayer money to legitimately help those in need.

Madam Speaker, again I remind all of my colleagues that when we talk about such matters, it's helpful to focus on tone. The one thing I'm going to respond to, when the comment was made ``that you people shredded,'' I would have to remind all Members in the Chamber and the Speaker that, in fact, that was passed in a Democratic House when the Speaker was Ms. Pelosi and the leader of the Senate was Senator Reid.

We have worked in good faith through this process. And what I would remind folks about the fundamental question as we look at this, the real issue here--and I grew up in a dysfunctional family. I know what it means to see dysfunctional alcoholism with a stepfather leaving and spending the money in places that were inappropriate; and I think it's a fair question, as someone who has lived that as a little boy, to say, wait a minute, if Dad wants to run off with the EBT card and go to one of the boats over in Indiana, we as a body have a responsibility, Democrat and Republican, who care very deeply for this country and for our citizens, to say wait a minute, that's not an appropriate use.

The businesses themselves will cooperate. There's a contextual issue to allow the States to deal with the specific uniqueness of providers of foodstuffs. But at the same time, I think that if an EBT card is being used in a place that may have a drink rack inside of it and pole dancers on the other end, that is not, under any standard of morality, a place where the EBT card should be used.

I can think of no mother who would want the money spent there. I can think of no circumstance that would justify it. And, frankly, having my own stepfather come home drunk and beat up me and my mother after running around out in town with what money she basically earned, I would say in this case it's unacceptable.

Let's come back to the real world, and I'm not going to yield my time. Let's come back to the real world and look at the reality of this. What is being asked is a procedural and a process change to give better stewardship to a program on which we agree about the fundamentals, specifically, the data standardization and control. There's virtually no cost to this.

I understand we have honest differences of opinion here; but I would appreciate that the rhetoric be toned down and we focus on the reality of this. If we ask any mom or dad or recipient or taxpayer out on the street this fundamental question, I think overwhelmingly, when they heard it in the context of reality and not sometimes the things that happen in the Chamber here, they would look at it from a different perspective. That's what we're asking.

With that, I ask all Members to support this very reasonable, very measured, very balanced way to fix a flaw in a program that can be made better as a result of that, be better stewards of our taxpayer dollars. And with that, I urge passage.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I'm against fraud. I think everyone here is against it. I'm for what's in this bill. That's why I voted for it back in December, and I'll vote for it next month, too, if that will make for more cooperation here in the House. I think, in a way, this is this election year's ``welfare Cadillac.'' And I was against welfare Cadillacs, if there ever were any of those, too.

This year, we have the ``strip club loophole'' that has been defined as a political term to suggest that we have a lot of problems with poor people abusing their benefits. And to the extent that any poor person abuses even a dollar of these benefits and keeps those benefits out of the mouths of hungry children, providing the clothes those kids need to go to school, I'm against that, and I plan to vote against it today.

I favor comprehensive legislation against fraud in public assistance. It concerns me when a pharmaceutical company ends up having to settle for $158 million in my home State of Texas because they allegedly lied about drug safety and bribed officials. It concerns me when a pharmaceutical company in the State of Texas has an $84 million Medicaid fraud case brought against it. I think we need to be concerned about fraud in all of its aspects.

I'd feel better about this bill, however--because I think repassing it will accomplish practically nothing, I'd feel much better about this legislative effort if there were just an ounce of the concern that is voiced about the very few people who abuse these benefits, if the same level of concern were expressed about the many who are there who are counting on the safety net, as flawed and frayed as it is, who were concerned about them and their families and their struggle to share in the American Dream and were doing something to get that approved.

Yes, we approved this piece of legislation as part of a broader extension of the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program in December. And why hasn't that become law?

It is separate legislation pending in the Senate. It is also part of the broader legislation extending the provisions on unemployment, on payroll tax relief. It ought to become law because we need to be concerned about those families that are playing by the rules as well as the very few who are not playing by the rules.

Now, the gentleman has said that in some States action has already been taken--California, notably--to deal with the few who might be cashing their benefits at a casino or a liquor store or whatever. Texas, my home State, was cited as one of those States that has already taken action. I think that's great. There's not anything to keep the States from taking action on this already, if this is a serious problem.

Now, some of them have not acted, not because of a lack of concern about fraud but because the mechanics of correcting these electronic benefit cards may actually be more expensive than the cost that is being experienced by the small number of people that might abuse the card.

You take Arizona, for example. Governor Brewer has plenty of time to shake her finger in the face of the President of the United States, to support legislation to discriminate against Hispanic families, who have been in that State for longer than she and her family have been in the State. If she thinks this is a serious problem, why doesn't she act at the State level, as Texas and California and some other States have done, to address this problem?

I would submit, while I don't object to this legislation in and of itself, that the bigger problem that we face is that the number of poor American families has surged over the last 4 years, up 27 percent. Ten million people are below what is officially agreed on as being the poverty line. And this Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program provides a few of those families a little bit of assistance, to have a chance to turn their lives around until they can find longer term employment to provide for their families.

How much money are we talking about that might be abused or wasted at one of these facilities, which might just happen to be the maintenance crew at the casino that use their benefits there. Or it might just happen to be the only store convenient in a poor neighborhood is one that's mostly selling alcoholic beverages, that they choose to do that. How much might they be abusing?

Let me tell you in my home State of Texas the median benefit for a single parent with two children is $244 for an entire month to take care of those two children, 16 percent of the poverty level.

I want to be concerned, yes, about a dollar that is wasted. These are hard-earned tax dollars that go into these programs. We need to be concerned about every cent of abuse. But we also need to be concerned about the many who stand to benefit, who stand to have hope taken away if they don't see these benefits extended.

My concern about that is not merely academic because of what happened last year, the bipartisan agreement that had extended through many years called the supplemental program, which was really a survival program for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families in poorer States like Texas. The Republicans chose to discontinue that program even though it had enjoyed bipartisan support and had received support letters from a number of Republican officials in our area. They chose to not continue that, and that has severely weakened the safety net in our State. That's not being continued.

Whether they intend to abandon the entire Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program or cut it back substantially, it's hard to tell, given the fact that they're going only with the very modest provisions of this bill and not pushing to provide assistance to all of those who need that help.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I commend the gentleman for his service as our subcommittee chair and on the data issue that will be important in reducing any kind of abuse of public assistance.

I now yield 2 minutes to my colleague from the Budget Committee and someone who's very knowledgeable about this, Ms. Moore from Wisconsin.

I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.

I yield myself 30 seconds to place into the Record a letter from the National Conference of State Legislatures as well as a letter from the American Public Human Services Association and the National Association of State TANF Administrators.

The gentleman may be right. He clearly lacks confidence in States' rights in these areas. The letter from the National Conference of State Legislatures points out that there is a financial burden that would be imposed on the States and that ``the States have existing contracts with vendors that may have to be changed at a significant cost to the States.'' Let us hope that does not happen.

They come out firmly in opposition to this bill. I do not share that opposition, but I think they raise a legitimate concern about the added cost as well as the lack of confidence of my Republican colleagues in the ability of the States to police their own programs.

National Conference of

State Legislatures,

January 30, 2012.

Hon. John Boehner,

Speaker of the House,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Minority Leader,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader Pelosi: On behalf

of the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), we

write in opposition to H.R. 3567, the ``Welfare Integrity for

Children and Families Act of 2011,'' which is scheduled for a

vote on the Floor under Suspension of the Rules on Wednesday,

February 1. States share your concern about the inappropriate

use of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)

benefits; however, NCSL strongly believes that these

decisions are appropriately made at the state level.

When Welfare Reform was enacted in 1996 (P.L. 104-193),

state and federal policymakers agreed to forgo the open-ended

entitlement of AFDC for the flexibility afforded in the fixed

TANF block grant. In this agreement, policy decision making

authority was left up to the states including state

legislatures. Mandating states to limit Electronic Benefit

Transfer (EBT) transactions preempts state authority over the

TANF block grant and undermines the strong state-federal

partnership undertaken in 1996. Additionally, NCSL is

concerned about the financial burden this mandate would

impose on states, many of whose fiscal situation is still

perilous. States have existing contracts with EBT vendors

that might need to be changed at significant cost to the

state if this bill becomes law.

States are addressing the issues raised in H.R. 3567. To

date, California and Washington have limited the use of EBT

cards and addressed the complex implementation process of

limiting EBT card usage. Many additional states are looking

at similar EBT limitations and other ways to combat fraud and

abuse in their current sessions.

If you have any questions regarding what states are doing

to address the concerns of H.R. 3567 or to discuss the bill,

please do not hesitate to contact Sheri Steisel

([email protected]) or Emily Wengrovius

([email protected]).

Sincerely,

The Honorable Tom Hansen,

South Dakota Senate, Chair NCSL Human Services & Welfare

Committee.

The Honorable Barbara W. Ballard,

Kansas House of Representatives, Chair NCSL Human Services

& Welfare Committee.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Well, I couldn't agree with the gentleman more about the importance of preserving, in his words, ``the integrity of this program.'' That means that none of the public funds are wasted or used in an improper way, but it also means that the program's integrity is preserved to deliver the assistance that is needed for the many, many families that are playing by the rules and need a helping hand. And that's the only area we have difference in this regard as far as I personally am concerned.

The House has already spoken on this electronic benefits issue. I don't see any harm in the House speaking again this week or next week or next month--I don't see a great deal of gain from repassing it, but why not? But what I do see harm in is if the many, many people that are playing by the rules and need this assistance see their safety net shredded the way these same folks shredded the safety net last year when they did not renew the bipartisan TANF supplemental program that has been so important in poor States with large populations of poor people, like Texas.

There are families there, there are State programs there that are harmed by the unjustified refusal to extend that program. At least with what's left in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, which we passed here as a freestanding bill in December with this provision in it, let's pass that entire bill. Hopefully, this message says little more than say that the House still feels today the same way that it felt 6 weeks ago.

That's fine, but let's get this entire Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program approved and in place so the States and the families that depend upon it will have it there.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise in reluctant support of this measure, asking for its approval, because without approval, Federal funding for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families will expire on New Year's Eve. My reluctance centers on the incomplete nature of this extension.

It's incomplete, first, in terms of time. In September, Republicans declined to extend this necessary funding for more than 3 months. Now they extend it only for another 9 months, assuring that during the height of the 2012 campaign season next year they'll have an opportunity to blame the poor for whatever questionable anecdote arises in the meantime.

This type of short-term extension at a time of a budgetary crisis in many of our States reduces the ability to plan and to reform. It assures that direct assistance to our most vulnerable neighbors will just barely hang on. It postpones any meaningful action on responding to the Census Bureau report that more Americans were poor in 2010 than at any recent time.

In my home county in the capital of the State of Texas, the percentage of children living in poverty grew from 18.3 percent in 2007 to 24.5 in 2010--almost one in every four children, in our area, impoverished.

And today's bill is incomplete in terms of coverage. An important part of the 1996 reform of the welfare law, a reform that I personally supported, an important part is omitted today, the TANF supplemental grants. These are funds that are allocated to help those States like Texas that were negatively affected by the Federal formula in place at the time.

Without any good explanation or justification, Republicans allowed this initiative to expire last summer, and they continue to do so today. This means that a State government in Texas that is largely indifferent to the needs of its poor citizens has even less capacity to respond to those needs. Because of this deliberate and unjustified omission, Texas loses $500 million; and together with 16 other States, they lose a total of $3 billion over the next decade. This is money that will not be there to assist struggling families and to promote work. Termination of these grants is really a breach of the agreement of 15 years ago as a part of welfare reform.

But as we pass this bill, a few points need to be noted that are positive in nature.

First is the one my colleague refers to as bipartisan legislation that I have worked on with Chairman Geoff Davis. It is designed to assure that Health and Human Services does have common data points so that we ferret out any waste and abuse among various programs and, at the same time, help eligible Americans to receive the assistance to which they are entitled. This has already been incorporated into the child welfare legislation that was also approved by our subcommittee on a bipartisan basis and has been signed into law.

A second provision that is described as ``program integrity'' certainly does sound good in speeches, and it probably does address a problem in Las Vegas and a few other areas that for speech purposes has been described as the so-called ``strip club loophole.'' I'm in favor of closing every loophole that takes public money that needs to go to needy children and diverts it for some other purpose, whether it's at a strip club or it is a pharmaceutical manufacturer who has milked Medicaid and Medicare for millions of dollars.

Earlier this week, we heard from TANF administrators across the country, Republicans and Democrats, questioning this provision, and we know that it is also the subject of a study by the Government Accountability Office. I think that we need to ensure no dollars are wasted here, and I certainly wouldn't let this newly added provision slow up a must-pass piece of legislation to assure that the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program is continued to next September.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished member of this subcommittee and the full committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

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

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

I may have one additional speaker if the gentlelady makes it in time, but let me close on this note:

Mr. Speaker, at this time of year, we have largely a Norman Rockwell picture of American families gathered around the Christmas tables, with their turkeys and their gifts, and their Christmas trees are lit. That is the story of millions of American families, but it's not the story of many as well.

I've seen those families firsthand. I see them two doors down from my house in East Austin when they line up on a Saturday morning, in need of help, at the Olivet Baptist Helping Hand. I saw it last Saturday at the recreation center in southeast Austin, in Dove Springs, where parents were lined up for blocks to get their children one toy for Christmas. I've also seen it across the south and west sides of San Antonio--good families, hardworking people caught up in the worst recession since the Great Depression. They face great challenges, and our safety net in this country remains in tatters.

My concern is that this bill today does so little to address that tattered safety net, which is increasingly more hole than net. We see the statistics of homelessness for these families: 38 percent growth over 3 years of the recession. We see it in threadbare cupboards and church pantries and in food centers across the country. Yesterday we saw in a report in The New York Times that in 37 States families are worse off in terms of child care.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), to discuss the challenges that are faced by some of our most vulnerable neighbors. I know she shares many of these concerns about the unmet needs of those families who won't be fortunate enough to look like a Norman Rockwell painting this Christmas.

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

While I think it would have been better to await the full report from the Government Accountability Office, I support those program integrity provisions.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would just yield myself such time as I may consume to say that I am pleased that we are moving forward to extend this program, at least until the end of next September. But there remains much work to do.

Many of our neighbors are in great need at the present time. Many are supported by churches, community nonprofits, and the like. It is a valuable service at a time of charity at Christmas when we all care about those who are the least among us.

But just caring in that fashion is not sufficient, given the extent of the problem. We need a stronger safety net with reference to health care, child care, the support that is offered through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, and to help those--yes, pull them up by their

boots; but for those who lack bootstraps, assist them as well. That should be the goal of our vision as we address the needs of the many impoverished people in this country.

Unfortunately, poor people have the least voice in this Congress. Their voice is not heard to the extent that some of those who have vested interests here in limousines and lobbyists are heard. But we need to speak up for them. And this is one of those rare opportunities to be able to do so and to say that this Congress has acted; but it's acted in a modest, limited, incomplete, and inadequate way. We would not hold up that little bit of help, but there is so much more that needs to be done.

I yield back the balance of my time.