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, 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. Speaker, as we continue very important efforts to strengthen the middle class in America, I think it's important to recognize that there are millions of Americans who would like to be part of it, who are struggling at the bottom rungs of the economic ladder hoping to work their way into the middle class. I think

that's where our focus should be, because in recent decades, we've seen growing economic inequality in this country where a few have so much and many have so very little.

One of the goals of the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, or TANF, initiative back in 1996 was to help those who wanted to climb the economic ladder. In hopes of accomplishing that, and valuing personally the importance of work, I voted for welfare reform. And if you evaluate it based on how many poor people it's denied assistance to, it's a great success. If, on the other hand, you evaluate it based on how many poor people it has helped to secure good, livable wages in long-term jobs, its success, at best, is very spotty.

Today's debate ought to be about how do we strengthen the effectiveness of TANF and related programs to assist more people in working their way into the middle class. But instead of focusing on lifting people up, like the previous temporary extension of TANF, this Republican effort is really about putting them down. It's about suggesting that the stereotype of the welfare Cadillac, of the aimless and the shiftless who don't want to work is real. Instead of a vision about an effective, long-term reauthorization of welfare to work, this bill represents the third time that Republicans have insisted on just a temporary, short-term extension of the same old programs.

The last time that we did this, Republicans included a firm prohibition and strong rhetoric about denying anyone using their electronic benefits at strip clubs or casinos. Who could object to that? But it's hardly central to how we advance these individuals who want to work.

This time it's the leftover Presidential campaign ploy arguing that the administration wanted to encourage more welfare loafing and idleness by weakening work requirements. Neither this bill nor its predecessors were truly about helping more people to secure jobs. They're about reinforcing the prejudice that many poor people are takers, not makers; that they're just eager to take somebody else's tax money and loaf.

Well, I believe that today's attempt to restrict State authority to strengthen welfare-to-work initiatives also totally contradicts what is happening at this very moment with a blockheaded Republican budget that would block-grant almost unbridled authority to the States to weaken health care. Because of the way that the TANF program is currently structured, whether this rule and this bill are approved is largely irrelevant to 99 percent of the working-age poor people in America today who are not currently participating in any of the TANF work activities.

I think we should do better by these folks. They want to become part of the middle class, but they find themselves in no job or a dead-end job. Instead of focusing on denying assistance to as many people as possible, we ought to be engaging in constructive, bipartisan discussion about what are the best ways to make the program effective to lift people up. Instead of focusing on waivers and simply waving good-bye to the many people in America who are economically disadvantaged and want a better opportunity, who want some hope to get out of poverty, let's try to do more to assist those people in more productive, long-term programs.

Mr. Speaker, although I strongly support the TANF program, which provides payments to low-income families with children, I rise in opposition to the rule and to the underlying bill. Yesterday, I filed the budget-neutral amendment to H.R. 890. However, the Rules Committee reported a closed rule, thereby foreclosing debate, and a vote, on my amendment.

My amendment sought to eliminate disparities that the territories face under TANF. Under current law, the territories are not eligible for TANF supplemental grants, contingency funds, and mandatory child care funds.

Moreover, Federal law imposes an annual cap on the overall funding that each of the territories can receive under a variety of public assistance programs, including TANF. I have introduced legislation to repeal this funding cap, which has not been increased since 1996, and to make the territories eligible for TANF grants they do not presently receive. The amendment I filed yesterday was rooted in this legislation but modified to comply with PAYGO rules.

Those who seek evidence of how Puerto Rico is hurt by its territory status need look no further than the unequal treatment my constituents receive under TANF and other safety-net programs. These programs are designed to help our Nation's most vulnerable residents, none of whom-- I must emphasize--earn enough to pay Federal income taxes.

This treatment would be unprincipled under any circumstances, but it is particularly unfair when one considers that, last November, voters in Puerto Rico rejected the current status and expressed a desire for statehood, a status that would entitle them to equal treatment under all Federal laws. If Congress elects to undertake a comprehensive reauthorization of the TANF program, I hope my colleagues will work with me to eliminate the disparities that Puerto Rico faces under current law, especially in light of the fact that my constituents have rejected the political status that allows for such unequal treatment.