Preserving the Welfare Work Requirement and TANF Extension Act of 2013

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would tell my colleagues that this is not a good rule. It is a closed rule, and there's no need for it.

This prevents Members of the House of both parties from coming to the floor with ideas or ways to amend this legislation. Because of the rule, they're prevented from doing so. I think that is an unfortunate fact. We should have deliberation on this House floor. Given the fact that we're not doing much of anything, we certainly have the time to deliberate, and I would hope that in the future that we would see more flexibility on the rules and less closed rules. So I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule because of that.

Mr. Speaker, once again the Republican majority in the House is proving that they never let facts get in the way of a good press release.

Today's bill takes a sensible, bipartisan piece of legislation and tacks on a partisan political ploy that was used in the last Congress to try to embarrass President Obama.

Instead of bringing a simple, clean extension of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, the Republican majority is continuing a political attack from the last election. And like many of the other political attacks lobbed against President Obama in that campaign, this attack is simply untrue and destined for failure.

Over the last 2 years, members of the majority have charged that actions taken by the Department of Health and Human Services to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the TANF program are an attempt to ``let people sit at home and collect welfare checks.''

Such charges have been declared false by numerous fact check organizations, including Factcheck.org, PolitiFact, and The Fact Checker at The Washington Post.

Furthermore, Ron Haskins, the former Republican staff director of the Ways and Means Human Resources Subcommittee and one of the chief architects of the 1996 welfare reform law, said the reforms similar to the ones being made by HHS are justified. And he added:

I do not think it ends welfare reform or strongly

undermines welfare reform. Each State has to say what they

will do and how that reform will either increase employment

or lead to better employment.

That's Ron Haskins, the former Republican staff director of the Ways and Means Human Resources Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, the merits of the changes implemented by HHS strengthen Federal efforts to move Americans from welfare to work. In allowing States the flexibility from rigid TANF requirements, the administration requires that any changes provide a more efficient or effective means to promote employment. In explaining the policy changes, HHS Secretary Sebelius stated:

Governors must commit that their proposals will move at

least 20 percent more people from welfare to work compared to

the State's past performance.

Under such requirements, it is impossible to assert that these changes will weaken the Federal efforts to move citizens from welfare to work. In fact, in looking at the actual rules even briefly, it is clear that these changes strengthen our Federal efforts by allowing for more effective and more efficient programs by giving them room to operate at the State level.

Mr. Speaker, it may be surprising to some watching today's proceedings that the majority disapproves of the administration's programmatic changes. The underlying principle of the changes is the belief that States should have flexibility to implement proven and effective methods for moving Americans from welfare to work.

Yet today, a Republican majority that often boasts of its commitment to States' rights now stands in fierce opposition to that very principle. They find themselves demanding that even when more effective methods for putting Americans to work are available, Federal standards dictated from Washington must rule the day.

And the real irony in their argument against the administration's action is that the request for flexibility came from a Governor, a Republican Governor. And it was not just a Republican Governor from a blue State like New Jersey or a purple State like Virginia. No, Mr. Speaker, the Governor of Utah--one of the reddest States in the Nation--is the one that has requested this waiver.

I've seen some interesting legislative jujitsu on this House floor. One day they're adhering to the Hastert rule, and the next day the Boehner rule applies. This Republican majority legislates by lurching from one issue to another issue trying to find something that works.

So I can't say that I'm surprised that they're declaring themselves against increasing work requirements for TANF recipients as requested by a Republican Governor. The only thing I can chalk it up to is politics. You'd think that at some point the Republican majority would rather legislate instead of fighting a political battle that was decided 4 months ago, a political battle that they lost badly. Sadly, that day is not today.

If this majority were truly serious about work and employment, about actually reducing the number of people on TANF, then we would be voting on a bill to repeal the sequester and we would be voting on a bill to save the 750,000 jobs that will be lost this year because of these arbitrary, mindless, senseless, and thoughtless cuts.

The reauthorization of TANF in and of itself is not controversial. We can move that bill on suspension. What appears to be controversial to this Republican leadership is putting people back to work. What appears to be controversial to this Republican leadership is saving our economy from the devastating sequester cuts. What appears to be controversial to this Republican leadership is responsible governing.

In contrast, Mr. Speaker, House Democrats have a plan that House Republicans block time after time after time to avoid sequester.

Congressman Van Hollen has a balanced sequester replacement, one that will get rid of the arbitrary cuts and replace them with a balanced mix of cuts and revenues, revenues that come from closing tax loopholes that even Republicans like Mitt Romney thought we should eliminate.

Congressman Van Hollen has come to the Rules Committee four times this year alone in the hope that this Republican leadership, the ones who promised an open House and an open legislative process, would make his amendment in order. And four times now, the Republican leadership in this House has refused to make that amendment in order.

Why, Mr. Speaker? Why? Why not allow the Van Hollen sequester replacement bill to come to the floor for a vote? Didn't Speaker Boehner promise a more open House? Didn't he say that the House should work its will?

Mr. Speaker, this is not a way to run a democracy. This is not an open and fair process.

That's because this Republican leadership is not about openness. They're not about legislating responsibly. They're about desperate attempts to score cheap political points. That's what they're doing with the sequester. And that's what they're doing with this TANF reauthorization--something that should be totally noncontroversial, something that should be approved with an overwhelming bipartisan vote.

Mr. Speaker, we should defeat this closed rule, an unnecessarily closed rule, and defeat this bill. It is time we put partisan politics aside, at least until the next election season begins, and start working for the American people.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

First of all, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma, for his improved pronunciation. I appreciate that. And I also appreciate the spirit of bipartisanship that he has displayed on a number of issues, most recently on the Violence Against Women Act.

I kind of wish that that same spirit was brought to this bill here today, this TANF bill, because it would pass overwhelmingly.

Just so that there's no confusion about what HHS is trying to do, I would like to insert into the Record a letter that Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, sent to the Honorable Dave Camp, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, which explains how the administration views this flexibility that they might at some point utilize. But basically it is not to weaken the work requirement; it is to support States that have better ideas to improve the results to get more people to work.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, I would say is that, again, it's ironic that my friends on the other side have kind of chosen to put a little bit of politics into this debate given the fact that a Republican Governor from a red State, Utah, suggests to the administration that he might have a better idea on how his State might get better results in putting more people to work, getting people off of public assistance and into the workforce.

I think that's a good thing. I think what all of us believe is whatever it takes to get more people into the workforce is a good thing.

I would also say to my friend--he mentioned that the Republicans have had proposals to deal with the sequester. Not in this session they haven't. Not a single time in this current Congress have my Republican friends brought an alternative to the floor to avoid sequester--these arbitrary, mindless, senseless cuts that go across the board.

If you had a line item in the budget that said ``fraud, waste, and abuse,'' under the sequester that would be treated the same way as a line item for medical research or for education or for transportation and infrastructure. This is not a way to deal with our budgetary challenges.

The reason why I bring up sequester today is because I wish there were a greater sense of urgency in this House of Representatives to deal with it. We're all talking about welfare-to-work right now. But by allowing the sequester to continue to go into place, CBO tells us that we're going to risk 750,000 jobs; 750,000 of our fellow citizens will be out of work because of the inaction of this Congress.

I find that unacceptable. We ought to be preserving jobs, we ought to be expanding jobs, we ought to be doing everything we can to get people back to work because that's the surest way to reduce our deficit. The more people working, the more revenues, the more we can pay down our deficit.

We should be talking about trying to get our budgetary House in order without diminishing the quality of life and the standard of living for people in this country.

The Secretary of Health

and Human Services,

Washington, DC, July 18, 2012.

Hon. Dave Camp,

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Camp: Thank you for your interest in the

guidance we have released to states concerning the Temporary

Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.

The 1996 welfare reform legislation established work

requirements which have been critical to moving people off

welfare and into jobs. The proposal we have outlined

strengthens the law's purpose to move people off of welfare

and into jobs by utilizing state-based innovation. Our goal

is to accelerate job placement by moving more Americans from

welfare to work, and no policy which undercuts that goal or

waters down work requirements will be considered or approved

by the Department.

For years, Republican and Democratic Governors have

requested more flexibility in implementing welfare reform so

they can meet their states' specific needs. In 2005, 29

Republican Governors requested ``[i]ncreased waiver

authority, allowable work activities, availability of partial

work credit'' so they might more ``effectively serve low-

income'' Americans. Certain elements of the proposal endorsed

by the 2005 Republican Governors were very far-reaching and

would not be approved under the Department's proposed

waivers. More recently, Utah and Nevada requested waiver

opportunities. While it appears some of the policies

enumerated in the letters would not be eligible for waivers

under our policy, we look forward to receiving and being able

to consider a formal application from these and other states.

The Department is providing a very limited waiver opportunity

for states that develop a plan to measurably increase the

number of beneficiaries who find and hold down a job.

Specifically, Governors must commit that their proposals will

move at least 20% more people from welfare to work compared

to the state's past performance. States must also demonstrate

clear progress toward that goal no later than one year after

their programs take effect. If they fail, their waiver will

be rescinded. And if a Governor proposes a plan that

undercuts the work requirements established in welfare

reform, that plan will be rejected.

We will follow our initial guidance to states with further

information detailing metrics and accountability measures.

The policy we have outlined is designed to accelerate job

placement rates for those on welfare, not address other

aspects of their lives. No plan that undercuts the goal of

moving people from welfare to work will be considered or

approved. For example, the Department will not approve a

waiver that changes the definition of work requirements to

include any of the activities outlined in a 2005 GAO report

on TANF such as personal care activities, massage, and

journaling. We will continue to hold states accountable for

moving people from welfare to work.

Strengthening Welfare Reform Through State-based Innovation

For states, welfare can too often be a maze of red tape and

nonsensical rules. For example, states can get more credit

for assigning people to do job search than for placing them

into paying, private-sector jobs. The rules not only place an

administrative burden on states, but make searching for a job

and securing employment more difficult for families. The

proposal we have outlined gives states flexibility to cut red

tape and get people back to work.

As noted earlier, when Congress considered legislation

reauthorizing the TANF program in 2005, Governors from across

the country also expressed their support for more flexibility

for states in the TANF program. In a letter to Congress, the

following Governors specifically endorsed Senate legislation,

which would have allowed many states to receive waivers far

broader than we are allowing now--including, for example,

waivers of the time limits in the 1996 welfare reform law.

Governors signing this letter included:

Bob Riley, Alabama; Frank H. Murkowski, Alaska; Mike

Huckabee, Arkansas; Arnold Schwarzenegger, California; Bill

Owens, Colorado; M. Jodi Rell, Connecticut; Jeb Bush,

Florida; Sonny Perdue, Georgia; Linda Lingle, Hawaii; Dirk

Kempthorne, Idaho; Mitch Daniels, Indiana; Ernie Fletcher,

Kentucky; Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr., Maryland; Mitt Romney,

Massachusetts.

Tim Pawlenty, Minnesota; Haley Barbour, Mississippi; Matt

Blunt, Missouri; Dave Heineman, Nebraska; George E. Pataki,

New York; Kenny C. Guinn, Nevada; John Hoeven, North Dakota;

Bob Taft, Ohio; Donald L. Carcieri, Rhode Island; Mark

Sanford, South Carolina; M. Michael Rounds, South Dakota;

Rick Perry, Texas; Jon Huntsman, Jr., Utah; James Douglas,

Vermont.

As also noted previously, we do not go as far as these

Governors in supporting state flexibility. Within limits,

however, we agree with their letter that states should have

``the flexibility to manage their TANF programs and

effectively serve low-income populations.'' If a Governor

commits to a plan to strengthen work requirements that moves

more people from welfare to work, we welcome the opportunity

to review that proposal. On the other hand, if a Governor is

satisfied with the status quo, the state will not be required

to submit a waiver request and can continue to operate under

the current welfare system.

We do not have to choose between providing temporary

assistance to families who fall on hard times and putting

people back to work. We can do both by strengthening work

requirements so more people move from welfare to work and

giving states flexibility to tailor their welfare reforms to

their specific needs. But while we continue to explore new

ways to strengthen work requirements, we will not accept any

changes that undercut employment-focused welfare reforms that

were signed into law fifteen years ago.

As we have relayed to your staff, we would welcome the

opportunity to brief them on the legal and programmatic

issues related to this policy and to discuss the feedback we

have received from states about the challenges that the

current requirements present to creating jobs. Attached is a

more detailed description of HHS' waiver authority under

current law. I will also provide this response to Senator

Hatch.

Sincerely,

Kathleen Sebelius.

Enclosure.

ATTACHMENT--Legal Basis for Utilizing Waiver Authority in TANF

The exercise of waiver authority contemplated in the July

12 Information Memorandum is clearly authorized by section

1115(a)(1) of the Social Security Act. Section 1115(a)(1)

allows the Secretary to ``waive compliance with any of the

requirements of section . . . 402 [of the Act] . . . to the

extent and for the period [s]he finds necessary to enable [a]

State . . . to carry out'' an approved experimental, pilot,

or demonstration project that will assist in promoting the

objectives of the TANF program. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1315(a)(1). As

the Information Memorandum explains, section 402 sets forth

state plan requirements for the TANF program, including the

requirement that a plan ``[e]nsure that parents and

caretakers receiving assistance under the program engage in

work activities in accordance with section 407.'' Id.

Sec. 602(a)(1)(A)(iii). By authorizing the Secretary to

``waive compliance with any of the requirements of section .

. . 402,'' therefore, section 1115 permits the Secretary to

waive the requirements of section 407 when she determines

that a waiver would promote the objectives of the TANF

program and satisfy the other prerequisites for a waiver.

Your letter maintains that the Secretary's section 1115

waiver authority does not extend to the requirements

described in the Information Memorandum because those

requirements are set forth in section 407 rather than section

402. But, as explained above, the plain text of section 402

incorporates the requirements of section 407 by reference.

Moreover, the Department has long interpreted its authority

to waive state plan requirements under section 1115 to extend

to requirements set forth in other statutory provisions that

are referenced in the provisions governing state plans. This

interpretation has been consistently applied throughout the

history of section 1115, including in the context of the

Medicaid, child support, and former Aid to Families with

Dependent Children (AFDC) programs. For example, in

Wisconsin's well-known ``Work Not Welfare'' demonstration

implemented in 1995, the state received a waiver of rules

related to the distribution of child support. While section

1115 references the child support state plan provisions in

section 454, the child support rules waived in the Wisconsin

waiver are in section 457, but included by reference in the

state plan in section 454(11). (Additional examples can be

provided upon request.) If Congress had intended to restrict

the Secretary's waiver authority when it replaced the AFDC

program with the TANF program in 1996, it could have deleted

section 1115's reference to section 402 or otherwise

indicated its intent to depart from past practice. Congress

did not do so and the Department is adhering to its

longstanding interpretation that section 1115 waiver

authority extends to requirements incorporated by reference

into the state plan sections of programs, including Medicaid,

child support, and TANF.

Your letter also claims that section 415(a)(2)(B) of the

Act precludes the Secretary from waiving section 407's

requirements. But section 415(a)(2)(B) has no application

here because it is a transitional provision applicable only

to waivers under the former AFDC program, which was replaced

by the TANF program in 1996. Indeed, the plain language of

section 415(a)(2)(B) makes clear that it is limited to

waivers that related to ``a State program funded under this

part (as in effect on September 30, 1996)''--that is, under

the former AFDC program. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 615(a)(2)(B)

(emphasis added). That provision thus does nothing to

restrict the Secretary's waiver authority with respect to the

current TANF program.

So having said that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes at this time to the gentleman from Puerto Rico, my good friend, Mr. Pierluisi.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to address a couple of points of my colleague from Oklahoma, whom I have a great deal of respect for.

First of all, if we had an open rule, Mr. Pierluisi could have had a chance to offer his amendment, and we could get a judgment from the Parliamentarian then. Secondly, also the Rules Committee could have waived the germaneness rule to allow Mr. Pierluisi to have his amendment made in order. So the Rules Committee could have done that, and chose instead to report a closed rule here so that nobody can offer anything. It is completely closed, a closed process.

Secondly, with regard to sequestration again, I point out that the President of the United States did offer a grand bargain. My Republican friends said no to that. He put a lot of different things on the table trying to come up with a grand bargain to deal with our deficit but also not undercut our economy. It was a balance of cuts and revenue, but my Republican friends said no to that.

And I would repeat again, in this Congress, the House Republicans have done nothing, have proposed zero to be able to avoid the sequester. There have been no alternatives brought before the Rules Committee, nothing brought to the floor.

Mr. Van Hollen has, on four different occasions, tried to avoid sequester with a very balanced approach, and it would save 750,000 jobs. If there's anything that's urgent in this Chamber, it should be to preserve and protect the 750,000 jobs that will be lost because of these sequester cuts.

I would finally say that the United States Senate, far from a perfect branch of government in my opinion, but nonetheless, the Senate Majority Leader had an alternative to sequester that got 51 votes. That's a majority. But, unfortunately, under the Senate rules and with Republican insistence that they needed 60 votes, it didn't make it. But 51 Senators voted for an alternative.

So there are alternatives out there; and the notion that we should kind of sit back, lay back, and maybe something will emerge miraculously to deal with this issue I don't think is the proper role of the House of Representatives. We ought to be deliberating and debating and finding ways to protect those 750,000 jobs.

We talk about welfare to work here. And again, the irony is we're trying to prevent the administration from being able to have the flexibility to be able to work with States who want to get better results, to get more people off of welfare to work. But when you talk about getting people to work, we ought to also be talking about preserving the 750,000 jobs that will be lost because of our inaction on sequester.

Mr. Speaker, at this point I'd like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), the ranking member of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources.

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire of the gentleman from Oklahoma whether he has any additional speakers.

I thank the gentleman, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this closed rule. Again, I regret very much that something that really should be truly bipartisan and totally bipartisan and totally noncontroversial has now become politicized so that there's division.

Again, I wish that we had followed the same path we did with the Violence Against Women Act, when a more controversial and divisive attempt on that bill was put aside for something that was more of a consensus and had broad bipartisan support. We could do the same thing here, and I wish we would.

There is no need for this bill to become politicized; and my guess is that when it comes back to the House, the controversial provisions that we are complaining about right now will probably be gone.

Mr. Speaker, we just had a long discussion about work requirements; but, ironically, the bill that we're going to deal with tomorrow cuts this program called the SNAP Employment and Training Funding. This is a program that helps low-income individuals get training for proper employment, training for jobs that could help those individuals lift themselves out of poverty and off public assistance.

It is my understanding that my friends are going to bring a bill that guts that particular program. I find that puzzling because the whole point of that program is to give people the training they need so they are qualified for some of the jobs that are open out there, and yet we're going to eliminate that.

My friends have routinely gone after the SNAP, or food stamp program, again, helping low-income families get by during difficult times while they find employment. Sadly, there are a lot of people who are working who earn so little that they still qualify for SNAP. We ought to have a greater discussion on poverty and how to deal with some of these big issues like hunger and food insecurity, and I hope at some point we can have that discussion.

But, today, what I wish we were doing, in addition to passing a noncontroversial TANF bill, I wish we were on the floor debating an alternative to the sequester--750,000 jobs are about to be lost, 750,000 jobs. If we are truly interested in work, we ought to protect those jobs.

Mr. Van Hollen of Maryland had an alternative that four times he's brought to the Rules Committee. Four times the leadership here has said, no, you can't bring it to the floor, you can't debate it, you can't deliberate on it.

And my friends on the other side of the aisle in this Congress have offered zero. They're totally content to let the sequester go into play--750,000 jobs at stake.

I think that's what we should be doing here, Mr. Speaker.

As I yield back the balance of my time, I would urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to suspend politics for just a little while so we can get a few major things done. We can do the politics next year when it's campaign time, but now's the time to achieve results.

We can come together on a lot of these issues. I hope that that happens; but if this is any indication of how we're going to proceed, it makes me less hopeful.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 107, I call up the bill (H.R. 890) to prohibit waivers relating to compliance with the work requirements for the program of block grants to States for temporary assistance for needy families, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 890.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 890, Preserving the Welfare Work Requirement and TANF Extension Act of 2013.

In July of last year, the Obama administration's Department of Health and Human Services issued an information memorandum saying they would accept and approve applications from States seeking to waive the requirement that 50 percent of their welfare caseload be engaged in or preparing for work.

This work requirement was a critical part of the 1996 welfare reforms that created the current Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, cash welfare program. Those reforms also led to more work, more earnings, less welfare dependence, and less poverty among families headed by low-income single mothers.

Yet, without any thought of consulting Congress, as is required by law, the administration saw fit to unilaterally waive the work requirements and risk the progress that has been made in the last 16 years. And that's why we are considering this legislation here on the floor today.

Simply put, this bill would block waivers, so HHS can't allow States to bypass the work requirements and financial penalties Congress put in place in 1996 for failing to engage welfare recipients in work.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will argue that Republicans are making a big deal out of nothing and that we're responding to a problem

that doesn't exist since no States have applied for waivers--yet. But the American people have made their views clear. A survey last year revealed 83 percent support a work requirement as a condition for receiving welfare.

Clearly, the best way out of poverty is a job, and it's critical that our laws both foster job creation as well as ensure welfare is always a pathway to work. That's what this legislation is about: ensuring that work and other productive activities remain a central part of the TANF cash welfare program, as the 1996 reforms intended.

Setting aside the success of the work requirement in moving low- income individuals from welfare to work and the overwhelming support the policy enjoys among the American people, current law prohibits the administration from waiving the welfare work requirement. Waivers of certain State report requirements are permitted under the TANF program, but the work requirement may not be waived.

A summary of the 1996 reforms prepared by Ways and Means Committee staff immediately following the law's enactment could not be clearer on this point. It plainly states:

Waivers granted after the date of enactment may not

override provisions of the TANF law that concern mandatory

work requirements.

As a Member of Congress who helped write the welfare reform law and served as a conferee on the bill, the statement in this report actually captures the correct intent of Congress.

Historical precedent is not on the Obama administration's side, either. No prior administration, Republican or Democrat, has ever attempted to waive the work requirements in the 16 years between the law's enactment and the July 2012 information memorandum.

Following the July 2012 action, the Government Accountability Office looked into this and ``did not find any evidence that HHS stated it has authority to issue waivers related to TANF work requirements.'' In short, no administration attempted to waive the work requirements because they knew it was illegal to do so.

Finally, if we need more evidence that, despite their promises to the contrary, the administration's policy would weaken the work requirement, we need look no further than the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. This legislation saves $61 million over 10 years because CBO recognizes the administration's waivers will allow some States that may otherwise pay penalties for failing to meet the work requirement to avoid such penalties through a waiver.

In addition to preventing the administration from waiving the work requirement, the legislation before us extends the TANF program's authorization at current funding levels through the remainder of this calendar year.

The TANF program provides helpful assistance to individuals most in need of a safety net as they look and prepare for work. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Committee on Education

and the Workforce,

Washington, DC, March 8, 2013.

Hon. Dave Camp,

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to confirm our mutual

understanding with respect to the consideration of H.R. 890,

the Preserving Work Requirements for Welfare Programs Act of

2013. Thank you for consulting with the Committee on

Education and the Workforce with regard to H.R. 890 on those

matters within the committee's jurisdiction.

In the interest of expediting the House's consideration of

H.R. 890, the Committee on Education and the Workforce will

forgo further consideration on this bill. However, I do so

with the understanding that this procedural route will not be

construed to prejudice the committee's jurisdictional

interest and prerogatives on this bill or any other similar

legislation and will not be considered as precedent for

consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to my

committee in the future.

I respectfully request your support for the appointment of

outside conferees from the Committee on Education and the

Workforce should this bill or a similar bill be considered in

a conference with the Senate. I also request that you include

our exchange of letters on this matter in the Congressional

Record during consideration of this bill on the House floor.

Thank you for your attention to these matters.

Sincerely,

John Kline,

Chairman.

I would just say, Mr. Speaker, for 5 seconds that in the Statement of Administration Policy we got yesterday, they say that no States formally applied for State waivers.

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Human Resources Subcommittee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert).

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Griffin).

Mr. Speaker, I would just say that waiving the work requirement isn't going to get more people into work.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young), a distinguished 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 Florida (Mr. Southerland), a cosponsor of the underlying bill.

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

At this time I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. Roe.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).

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

I would just say--as other speakers have mentioned--the 1996 welfare reform law has been tremendously successful. It has lowered welfare roles, it has lifted people out of poverty, it has reduced poverty for single mothers, and reduced poverty for children. And before that, before we had the 1996 welfare reform law, whether times were good or bad, welfare rolls only increased.

Clearly, the welfare reform law has been successful. Frankly, we need to protect the law from this administration, because what this administration wants to do is undermine the work requirement in welfare.

And what are we talking about here? The work requirement is really that only half of the welfare caseload has to be in work. That means for the other half, States have ultimate flexibility to determine how to move those people into job readiness and to work. For the half of the people that need to be in some form of work requirement there are 12 definitions of what is work in the law. Let me just list those off:

Subsidized private employment, subsidized government employment, job search, community service. You can be in community service and that qualifies for work.

Work experience, on-the-job training. If you're getting training related to your job, that counts as work.

Vocational education. So you can be training in a vocational discipline and still have that qualify for work.

Caring for the child of a TANF recipient in community service. So you can care for somebody else's child and that counts as work. And we're only talking about half of the welfare caseload.

Job skills training, education related to employment, completion of secondary school. That all counts as work.

Let's look at the Statement of Administration Policy. They say that no States have formally applied for waivers. No States are asking for this because they already have tremendous flexibility.

But let me just say, if you're going to change the law--and what this administration is trying to do is change the law--you don't just send a letter, or what they're calling an information memorandum. What is that?

Frankly, when the Government Accountability Office looked at this, they said they can't do business this way. This is a rule. And to follow a rule they need to follow the Congressional Review Act, they need to follow the law. And the law says they need to notify Congress, which they did not do. This is something they did on their own.

So on many levels we need to turn this around. They've entered into a gray murky area that we really don't know what they're doing, whether it's legal or not, whether States will have authority to do this or not. Given that the law was explicit that there is no waiver of this work requirement, given that this work requirement was a condition for States getting a cash payment, a block sum amount in welfare, and given the flexibility that was written into the law, it's very important that we make this clear.

Frankly, I think my friends on the other side should be joining Republicans in protecting the constitutional authority of the Congress to make the laws, not the bureaucrats at the Department of Health and Human Services. So I would ask my friends, vote for this bill, support the work requirement, support the ability of the Congress to make the laws under the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

I have to say, Mr. Speaker, this is one of the most unnecessary and meaningless motions to recommit I've seen in my time in Congress. The definition of who's eligible for TANF is left to the States. So the idea that somehow this motion to recommit singles out unemployed parents, TANF applies to unemployed parents. TANF applies to people that are veterans. TANF applies to people who are grandparents. It's about getting the unemployed jobs.

So I have to say, I'm puzzled by this. It seems totally political and completely unnecessary. None of these groups mentioned in this motion to recommit are excluded from receiving TANF benefits.

What this is about is not weakening the work requirement. I understand why the administration may want to weaken the work requirement since their record on job creation is so atrocious. But the fact is that States have tremendous flexibility here. Half of the caseload doesn't have to meet the work requirement. They can be engaging in whatever activity or no activity the State determines. The other half has 12 different categories, including vocational training and other job readiness activities, that will qualify as work.

This is a straight extension of current law. This is an extension of current law that has proven extremely successful. Let's not weaken the requirement. Let's extend the welfare program, the TANF program, at current levels, and let's get people back to work.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 107 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Worcester (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, Mr. Speaker, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 890, the Preserving Work Requirements for Welfare Programs Act of 2013.

The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided between the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

It was not the intention of the Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker, to have a closed rule. However, the committee received only four amendments, one of which was withdrawn. The remaining three amendments were all subject to points of order for germaneness and other violations of the rules of the House. Unfortunately, we are left with little choice but to propose a closed rule.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 890 would prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Services from issuing waivers relating to compliance with the work requirements for welfare recipients, which were created under the historic 1996 welfare reform law. These work requirements have led to more work, more earning, less welfare dependence, and less poverty among low-income Americans.

Additionally, H.R. 890 incorporates the text of H.R. 987. H.R. 987 extends the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families programs, also known as TANF, which is due to expire on March 27, through the end of 2013.

Mr. Speaker, the Welfare and Medicaid Reform Act of 1996 made historic changes in the way our country treats its most impoverished citizens. Generally, the reforms offered States new flexibility in designing welfare programs. However, in exchange for that flexibility, strong new Federal work requirements were put in place. These requirements specified the minimum number of hours per week an individual must engage in either work or work-related activities and penalties for failure to comply.

What were the results of the 1996 reforms? Well, let me just go over a few. America saw the greatest reduction in poverty among children since the 1960s. The employment rate for single mothers in 2010 is higher than it was in 1996, even though the unemployment rate itself has almost doubled during that period of time. Poverty among single mothers has fallen by 30 percent. The list of successes associated with the law, which I must stress was bipartisan and worked upon by both parties both in this Chamber and obviously by President Clinton, goes on and on.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, the Welfare Reform Act specifically prohibited waivers of the new TANF work requirements. Under both Republican and Democratic administrations, it's been assumed that these requirements could not be waived. However, the current administration, through a so-called ``informational memorandum''--I'm frankly not quite sure what that is--has decided it does have the authority to waive these work requirements.

Mr. Speaker, the bipartisan compromise that was drafted in 1996 has done a good job in reducing poverty in this country and improving the lives and the prospects of those mired in very difficult circumstances. We should not allow the administration to undo, by an informational memorandum, what the Congress and Presidents in the past have been able to accomplish by statute.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill and a good rule. I urge the support of the rule and the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

It was once famously observed that the inhabitants of the United Kingdom and the United States were two people divided by the same language. Evidently, that applies to the people of Massachusetts and the people of Oklahoma.

I want to thank my good friend, who kindly sent me a note. I had mentioned if you're from Oklahoma, we would say he's from Worcester, but he said it's ``Worcest-ah.'' So I want to get that right, and I want to thank my friend for correcting me. That's probably the only place my friend and I will agree, and I'll agree that it was appropriate to correct me.

Let me just make a couple of simple responses to what my friend had to say. I don't want to re-debate sequester. He and I had an opportunity to do that in the context of the continuing resolution last week. But the idea that that was somehow partisan, when over 50 of my friends' colleagues voted for it on final passage, strikes me as odd. It was, actually, quite bipartisan, and we began a process in that that is going to result in saving the American people $1.2 trillion.

We think we made initial steps in improving the bill. It appears to us as if that same process is working now on the other side of the rotunda amongst our friends in the Senate, and so we're working our way towards a responsible piece of legislation, operating through regular order and trying to find common ground.

We're not happy with the sequester. We tried to fix it a couple of times, as my friend recalls. Neither the Senate nor the President ever took us up on that offer, so we worked hard. Now we found another route. Perhaps we can keep working and find some common ground in some other areas.

As to this bill itself, let's just go back to the specifics. All we're doing is making sure that the work requirement stays in place. I'll make a rather bold prediction and say after the rule vote is over, probably a lot of Democrats will vote for that legislation.

They'll vote for it for two reasons:

First, it reauthorizes TANF, which is a good thing. We agree on that. It's a good piece of legislation. And certainly we should provide the neediest of our people certainty through the end of the fiscal year, as opposed to the end of March. So I think that's an effort by both sides to do the right thing.

But second, if there's a misunderstanding here and we misinterpreted the administration, fair enough. I don't think we did, but regardless, let's just make absolutely sure and pass this legislation. If we both agree on it, it shouldn't be a point of a great deal of contention.

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

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

I just want to quickly respond to my friend's point on sequester again. A little bit like Lucy and the football, we've tried this twice, and the idea that we should now have to tee it up a third time before the President rouses himself--or the Senate--to action, strikes me as a little bit extreme. Again, we've tried to do it. We're now moving through another process. It seems to be working. Regular order seems to actually be working around here, and I'm hopeful we'll get to, before the end of the month, a resolution that will be considerably better than the CR, that will frankly have folded a lot of the work of the Appropriations Committee into what is effectively the fiscal year 2013 budget.

To my friend from Puerto Rico, it is my understanding--and I'm not a parliamentarian--that the amendment was not germane or was ruled out of order to the bill. Again, I'm not and don't pretend to be an expert on that, but I think he makes an excellent point, and it is certainly a matter worthy of consideration at some appropriate time.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, we don't have a great deal of disagreement here. Let's just make sure that the work requirement is there. There is considerable debate as to who asked for waivers, whether they were asked for, and whether it was reform. I've seen a lot of back-and-forth on this, and I don't pretend to know; but I think it's the clear intent of this Chamber, and always has been since the legislation was passed, that the work requirements remain intact. So just reiterating that point I think makes it crystal clear to everyone and perhaps eliminates the confusion.

Again, I think the reauthorization of the underlying legislation is something that both parties want to accomplish and want to provide certainty for people that are in very difficult circumstances that they're not going to be at risk financially if for some reason, which I don't anticipate, we actually don't get our work done by March 27 and avoid some sort of catastrophic government shutdown. Again, something that I know the President wants to do and something that my friends on the other side of the aisle want to do and something I think our colleagues in the United States Senate want to do.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I'm prepared to close whenever my friend is.

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

I want to take a moment and respond to some of my friend's concerns and points. First, simply on sequester, with all due respect, I'm glad there's an interest now. There wasn't an interest last May when this House passed legislation. The Senate never picked it up; the President never offered a counter. There wasn't an interest last December. There seems to only be an interest here in the final, waning days.

Now, we actually think we're proceeding in the continuing resolution, perhaps in the upcoming budget debates, and perhaps later on in ways where we can come back and work in a bipartisan fashion. But our efforts to do that were twice rebuffed, and now we're beaten up for not doing it a third time. I think two chances is about as many as you get. And, again, we'll try to find another way to work with our friends on this thing.

As for the job loss, I couldn't agree more with my friend. This is a tremendously bad thing for the economy. This is not the right way to do things. We would have preferred to have done it differently.

Now, you can always arrive at some interesting figures on job loss. According to the CBO, the Affordable Care Act will cost 800,000 jobs. I doubt my friends would work with us to repeal that and save those 800,000 jobs. They've got other objectives there.

Our objective in the entire sequester effort is simply to begin to lower the

long-term debt for this country, a debt that is going to undermine the economy and destroy many, many, many tens of thousands of jobs in the coming years unless we deal with it. We're making that effort today in the Ryan budget, in the Budget Committee. That will be on the floor next week.

I know my friends will have an alternative for that. I welcome that. I'm glad they're doing that. They did not do that when they were in the majority.

The Senate finally, for the first time in 4 years, looks like it's going to put out a budget. It's not a budget that I would like, but they're going to put one out; and I think that's a very good thing.

So, again, I see some little gleams and glistenings of progress around here. And I do want to thank my friend because we have worked together in the last 70 or 80 days on some significant things. I worked with my friend on the fiscal cliff. I worked with my friend on Hurricane Sandy relief, worked with my friend on violence against women; and I very much appreciate his kind words about that.

So I actually see opportunities in front of us, as well as obvious differences and debates that we're surely going to have.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I believe that the underlying bill provides additional certainty for those currently on the TANF program and ensures that their benefits will not lapse at the end of the month, something I know that my friends are concerned about, just as we are, and want to ensure that that doesn't happen.

In addition, it maintains the bipartisan work requirements that this administration professes to support, but has clearly created some doubt about. So let's give them the opportunity, through this legislation, just to make sure that there's no misunderstanding, that both parties and the administration want to maintain the work requirements.

In closing, I would urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I actually had been prepared to come to the floor of this House and say this was a refreshing moment, that this was going to be a moment of bipartisanship. I commend the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney) for finally offering a balanced plan to reduce our long-term deficit and a plan that will make sure our economy grows rather than offering a plan that results in over 750,000 fewer American jobs by the end of this year, and I hope that the gentleman will demonstrate his sincerity in the support of his own bill by voting for it. We will be able to tell whether this is simply some kind of stunt or a genuine effort.

Mr. Chairman, let me say, with respect to the comments about the President's budget, I think everyone in this country knows that this Congress was here until January 2 of this year, trying to work out a compromise to avoid going over the fiscal cliff, and until we'd resolved that, the President had no idea how much revenue would be available for the budget. I think most families recognize that you need to know how much revenue is available as you put together a budget, number one.

Number two, we've been lurching from one manufactured crisis to another. The sequester. You need to know how the sequester is going to turn out before you know how much money is going to be available for government agencies.

Finally, when the President has to put together a budget, it's not like the budgets Members of Congress put together in which you have one amount for all of defense or just one amount for the function for all of health care and all of education. The President actually has to allocate that money among different agencies. That's part of the process. So the President will be submitting a budget now that we know what the revenue stream is, now that we have some idea as to where we are in terms of those other issues.

I'm glad the gentleman brought forward this alternative, because it is the Senate Democratic proposal for the most part. Just for the record, he has left some stuff out, but it's close enough for negotiation and discussion purposes here.

What this measure does is, number one, replaces the sequester. It replaces the sequester with a balanced approach to reducing our long- term deficit so that you avoid the job losses that will result from the sequester. Our referees, our umpires--the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office--has told us, if we allow that sequester to remain in place, you will have 750,000 fewer Americans working at the end of this year. We also know that you'll have 2 million fewer jobs next year.

So it's a good thing that the gentleman brought to the floor a proposal

to replace the sequester. After all, in comments last year, the Republican leader, Mr. Cantor, called for a plan to replace the sequester, so we support that.

The gentleman talks about the Senate proposal on taxes. What he doesn't tell you is what the Senate proposal does. Like the House Democratic proposal, it proposes to balance the budget through a combination of cuts but also cuts to tax expenditures. These are the special preferences and deductions in the Tax Code. We say, yes, we should eliminate some of those tax preferences for very high-income individuals. Our colleagues tell us there are about $4 trillion worth of those that mostly go to high-income individuals. We say, okay, let's close some of those tax breaks of about $1 trillion over 10 years to help reduce the deficit. What's different between the Republican plan and this plan that our colleague has brought up is that they propose to provide tax cuts for very wealthy people, financed by increasing the tax burden on middle-income people.

We put that question to the test in the Budget Committee just the other day. We said, if your plan doesn't propose to give folks at the top a big tax break--because you do in your budget drop it from 39 percent to 25 percent. So a millionaire sees more than a third cut in his rate right off the bat. So we said, well, if it's not your intention to finance that by increasing middle class taxes, you should support this amendment. It was called the Protect the American Middle Class from Tax Increases, and it was very simple. It said, as part of tax reform, don't raise taxes on middle-income people to finance your tax breaks for folks at the very top. Every Republican voted ``no.''

So, yes, this plan that the gentleman has brought forward today, apparently under sort of a mock bipartisanship, will reduce the deficit in a balanced way. It calls for shared responsibility, and it certainly does not give folks at the very top a tax break financed by middle- income taxpayers like the Republican proposal does.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the only comparison between these budgets we're debating and what's going on in Europe is that the Republican budget proposes the same European-style austerity approach that many European countries tried, and as a result, they've seen their economies slip back into recession. We want to avoid slowing down economic growth in this country, which is why we're really glad that the gentleman from South Carolina brought this particular budget proposal to the floor of the House, and we hope he will vote for it.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to a terrific member of the Budget Committee, the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Castor).

I yield an additional 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady.

Mr. Chairman, I will just ask our colleagues to take a look at the latest analysis put forward by our own Congressional Budget Office, the professionals, the referees here. What they tell us is that half of the deficit in this year is as a result of the fact that millions of Americans are still looking for work. Three-quarters of the projected deficit next year is for the very reason, which is why we get to the heart of the issue, by going after the jobs deficit and then reducing the deficit in a balanced manner over a long period of time.

The issue isn't whether we reduce our deficits dramatically; it is how we do it. We call for a balanced approach that, yes, asks the very wealthy people to get rid of some of their special interest tax breaks which our Republican colleagues concede they have, but get rid of them in part to reduce the deficit. Our colleagues refuse to take one penny from closing tax loopholes--not one--to help reduce the deficit. They'll only do that to help finance tax breaks for higher-income individuals.

So, Mr. Chairman, we focus right now on jobs, growing the economy, and a balanced approach to deficit reduction.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, we had a discussion yesterday and today about different approaches to the budget, and we've had a discussion about the Budget Committee budget, the Ryan budget, that was on the floor and will be voted on later.

That budget, of course, is an uncompromising budget. If you look at this budget, it's even worse. And on top of that, this budget has even more gimmicks than the earlier budget that we talked about.

So what are those gimmicks? Well, first of all, this budget says it comes into balance in 4 years. Look, if you want a race to a fake balance, obviously you should vote for this one over the Republican caucus budget. But the reality is, it gets to that balance by keeping the savings from ObamaCare, which our Republican colleagues say they want to eliminate, that they want to repeal.

You don't have to take my word for it. The Heritage Foundation did a quick action alert on this budget. Here is what they say: ``Another failing of this RSC budget is that, like the committee budget''--in other words like the principal Republican budget--``it keeps revenues near the levels reached with ObamaCare tax hikes even though it repeals the health care bill's spending provisions.''

So let's just be really clear what that means for the American people. They are repealing the spending provisions. That means they are getting rid of all the benefits in the Affordable Care Act, including the provision to make sure that your child can stay on your insurance policy until they are age 26 so a family is not bankrupted by an accident or some disease that their child gets. It means the provisions that make sure people can't get denied coverage because of preexisting conditions, that is gone. So they get rid of all that, but they keep the ObamaCare taxes. That is what the Heritage Foundation says.

Guess what? They also keep the savings from the Affordable Care Act in the Medicare area that we achieve by ending the overpayments to some of the insurance companies and other changes in the incentive structure. We did it without hitting beneficiaries. They have railed against that in the past, but it is right here in their budget.

And here is the catch: they say their budget gets a surplus in just 4 years. Well, the surplus is $22 billion, they claim. But here is how much of it comes from the Affordable Care Act, from ObamaCare. They have got a little under $100 billion in revenue that year coming in, and then they have got Medicare savings. So not close to balance in 4 years without those provisions, which, as the Heritage Foundation points out, are in there.

And do you know what? Even at the 10-year window, even at the end of the 10-year window, they claim to have a $246 billion surplus, and yet they wouldn't get there without the savings from the Affordable Care Act, from ObamaCare.

That's a hoax. To come to the floor and say you will have a balanced budget in 4 years or 10 years, but guess what, you are going to repeal ObamaCare, your budget doesn't work when you do that. That just doesn't add up.

Now, they have another big sort of gimmick in this one that is not in the other Republican budget that has to do with taxes. So the problem with the main Republican budget is that it will provide tax breaks to very wealthy people and help finance those tax breaks by bringing down those rates by raising the tax burden on middle-income people.

As we discussed earlier, we actually put that question to the test in the Budget Committee. We offered an amendment that says: Well, when you do tax reform, don't make it a Trojan horse for raising middle class taxes to finance tax breaks for the wealthy. Protect the American middle class from tax increases. A simple amendment. Every Republican on the committee voted ``no.'' So that is their problem with the main Republican budget.

This one has another problem. It creates two tax systems and says: Taxpayer, you get to choose. And then it assumes that they are going to choose the one that is worst for them. Because if they choose the one that is better for the taxpayer, from the taxpayer's perspective they don't have enough revenue in their budget to come to balance.

Now, look, the American people are smart. If you give them two choices, obviously people are going to add them up, and they are going to pick the tax return where they pay less. And if the American people are as smart as I think they are, they will blow another hole in this RSC budget.

So I am not even beginning to talk about the fact that they, once again, more than double the sequester cuts to places like NIH and places where we do scientific research, that they slash our investment in infrastructure. They do all that. They do even more of that than the other Republican budget, but it has the same fundamental gimmick with respect to ObamaCare. And then on top of that, it has this other tax gimmick in it.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, our budget focuses first and foremost on jobs and getting the economy growing. It does balance in the same time that the Republican budget last year balanced. And unlike the Republican budget, the main one, we do not give tax breaks to the folks at the very top financed by increasing taxes on middle class taxpayers.

I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cardenas), a great new member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 1 minute to a distinguished new Member from Florida (Ms. Frankel).

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

I thank the CBC for actually coming to the floor with a budget, something that the President of the United States has not been able to do four out of five times, even though it is the law of the land that he is required to do so. So I commend them for doing so.

We should look to see what is it that we agree with in this and what do we disagree with. We do agree on several points, such as that we want to have a just and fair Tax Code. We do agree, as we have in our budget, to make sure that we address the most vulnerable, those people who are out of work, the poor in the country, those who are trying hard to make ends meet, to try to end poverty as well, to try to make sure that there is health care in this country. But where we differ from the CBC is the impact that their budget would have on each and every one of these.

Their budget would have a devastating impact on those who are out of work, those who are trying to not just get a handout, but get a hand up; those who are looking for health care and not being able to afford it; those who are looking for health care from the Federal Government and realizing that within a short period of time, over the next decade, we will see, actually, the money in the Federal Government for the health care that they're receiving right now basically run out.

So that is why I applaud their attempt to come to the floor with a budget. But I ask them to take a look at what the impact of their budget will do as opposed to what the Republican budget will do. We will actually be able to create jobs in this country. We did so before in something called the JOBS Act, which we passed in a bipartisan manner.

We are going to take the next step to make sure that there is a level playing field in this country versus other countries, to bring back those jobs that have been lost to other foreign nations and bring them back into this country as well. We will be able to reform the system with regard to the poor. We will be able to provide for a system that provides for the American family in a fair and just Tax Code.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today, as they say, in opposition to the Progressive Caucus substitute. While my friends across the aisle are motivated by good intentions, I believe that their substitute is, frankly, a blueprint for fiscal disaster. Instead of restoring the certainty to the economy by promoting fairness and providing American families the opportunity for more prosperity, this budget is simply a black hole for American families.

I can at least give credit to both the Progressive Caucus and the Democrat Caucus for offering a budget because the President of the United States has failed to do so. As you are aware, on February 4, the President, as required by law, is to give us a budget. It's March 20 now; and the American people, well, we're still waiting. That is the fourth time in 5 years that President Obama has failed to submit a budget on time and failed to abide by the law.

The Senate Democrats, well, they're not much better. It has taken them almost 4 years to produce a budget that basically now increases government spending by $265 billion, taxes up by almost $1 trillion, and cuts health care providers by almost $300 billion. Over the period covered by the budget, deficits under the Senate plan are nearly $4 trillion larger than those under the House plan.

So, today, we have a Progressive substitute on the floor. This budget will do what? It will raise taxes by almost $6 trillion over the next 10 years, including a new tax on carbon. $5.7 trillion in new taxes necessarily means greater tax burdens on who? The American family. These tax cuts put job creators in the penalty box again, and that means more Americans will be where? Without jobs.

These tax policies are deceptively sold under, really, a warped notion of what ``fairness'' is. The reality is this ``fairness'' of theirs is merely a heavy-handed government taking from one pocket and putting in another pocket.

This budget's tax policy is based on the equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. When he's talking about equality, Milton Friedman once pointed out that a society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality, however, will get a high degree of both.

So true fairness is the freedom to manage and direct one's own life and one's own future. Those who take risks giving their all in the pursuit of the American Dream deserve to keep what they've earned. Those who work hard day in and day out, they deserve to keep what they've earned.

But the Progressive budget is nothing but regressive. There's nothing fair about this budget, especially to the risk-taker or to the hardworking American family. Their budget would spend nearly $9 trillion more than the Republican budget. Note, now, when I say those numbers--where does that money come from--that means from our children and our grandchildren. They ultimately will be the ones who will have to bear this burden.

This budget would also establish a government-run health insurance option under ObamaCare and let the government basically set price controls on drugs. What does that mean? That means for those who were around back in 1970s, I think that's most of us, price controls on gasoline. How did that work out for us? Not too long. Waiting lines for gas is one thing. Waiting lines, however, for lifesaving medicine is a whole other story.

This budget would also expand the current, broken, and failed Federal job-training program without any reform whatsoever. This budget calls for even more money for the bureaucrats in Washington with regard to education, and this budget calls for even more

money into the broken-down highway transit system that we have in this country.

And this budget even fails in the government's first responsibility-- providing for the common defense. This budget further goes and guts the Defense Department by calling for almost $700 billion in cuts to the Pentagon compared to our budget.

This Progressive substitute then would put this country basically on the wrong path. For that reason, I urge a ``no'' vote on this budget.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, at this point, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma, a member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Lankford.

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman who played a critical role in fashioning the budget that is before us, the Republican budget, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita).

In recognizing that we can create the jobs and the prosperity by not raising taxes at the same time, I yield now 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).

I would ask the Chair how much time remains on both sides.

That being the case, I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

And just to take a word from the gentlelady from California, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams), who has actually walked the walk and created jobs to create more American prosperity.

Mr. Chairman, so here we are at the end of the debate, and where are we?

The Progressive substitute, what would it do? It would raise taxes on the American family. It would increase spending throughout the country. It would put programs such as Medicare, to allow them to go bankrupt, if you will, within the decade, in 2023. It would do all this and put the burden on our children and never, ever balance.

In contrast, before us is the House Republican's Path to Prosperity. What does it do? It takes the first step. It takes the very first step toward reversing this trend, this path to debt and decline that the President and his fellow Democrats on that side of the aisle, and the Senate Democrats as well, have laid out for the American people. See, the Republican budget stops spending money that we do not have. The Republican budget simply does the right things in this area.

The Republican budget fixes our broken Tax Code. It does away with all of those unfair corporate deductions and the like that we've talked about. There is some commonality there. So it fixes our broken Tax Code, and it does so in a way at the end of the day creates jobs, increases wages, and helps the American family. The Republican budget will protect and strengthen important priorities like Medicare and national security, not allowed by the other side of the aisle. The Republican budget will also reform our welfare programs, such as Medicaid, so they can actually deliver on their promise and not go bankrupt.

Every American family, every family in this country understands the necessity of having a balanced budget. The President and the Democrats could surely learn by talking to them across the country. Budgets are more than numbers. Budgets basically come here to Congress and set priorities, if you will; and beyond that, they have real impact on human beings.

Unlike the Progressive substitute that's before us right now, the Path to Prosperity will provide real economic security for workers, for parents. It will ensure security retirement for the elderly and our seniors. It will expand opportunity for the young. For that reason, I urge this Chamber to vote on the side of freedom and opportunity and reject the Progressive Caucus budget substitute.

I yield back the balance of my time.