The short answer to your question is yes, but I would like to give a longer answer, if I could, and give you my perspective of TANF. TANF is an acronym for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program, which was created almost 23…
The short answer to your question is yes, but I would like to give a longer answer, if I could, and give you my perspective of TANF.
TANF is an acronym for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program, which was created almost 23 years ago to provide help to low- income families with children in order to promote work and to strengthen families.
The creation of TANF sent a very clear message: People receiving help from the taxpayers should be expected to work, to prepare for work, or to take steps to become more self-reliant in exchange for having the taxpayers help you through difficult times in your life. TANF also sent another message, this one to our 50 States: In exchange for this funding, States must help people find work, prepare for jobs, or do other things that will help families get back on their feet.
Besides Senator Daines' mentioning Montana, I presume that of the 49 States, many are not meeting the requirements of TANF. Obviously, it does not make much sense for us to have standards if we don't enforce those standards.
There have been many proposals in recent years to improve the program, but, unfortunately, none have become law. That is why I am grateful to be here with Senator Daines, who effectively represents Montana. I know Senator Daines has been working on fixing problems with TANF and getting more people from welfare to work.
Other than these statements he is making here, this year, as evidence of his work, Senator Daines introduced a bill with Ranking Member Brady, of Texas, of the House Ways and Means Committee, that seeks to help more people find jobs and escape poverty.
Senator Daines and I have agreed to work together, along with our other colleagues on the Finance Committee, to find ways to get something done on TANF as it has been too many years since any changes have been made to the program. I am grateful for his commitment to work with me to update this program, and I do look forward to working with the Senator and the other members of the Finance Committee to see what we can agree to, for reforms are needed more now than ever.
To my colleagues and people in the Senate who feel this way or to people outside the Senate who feel this way with regard to any talk of reforming TANF as being needlessly harmful to the people whom Senator Daines and I want to help, I say what is really harmful to people is, if there are incentives to stay on government programs, because being on government programs guarantees a life of living in poverty.
What our goal should be for everything is to help people get out of poverty, and the way to get out of poverty is to be in the world of work if you have the capacity to work. Maybe some people who have certain physical conditions aren't able to work, and we have to help those people. Yet, for people who have the capability of improving themselves, they ought to be incentivized to improve themselves. Not only that, but it would work well for the needs of our labor market's requirements right now, and the Senator gave the statistics that there are more job openings than there are people for those jobs.
In the final analysis, if we want to get people in the workplace, we ought to have programs that incentivize people to go to work, and our reforming of TANF takes care of some of that. We also have to get rid of this cliff we have; that being, when people make $1 more than what they get from the government programs, they lose everything. I can give you an example.
When I went to a factory in Northwest Iowa, I asked: Have you ever thought about encouraging people who are on welfare to come to work?
He said: We have one. He works until he makes about $800. He quits for the rest of the month and then comes back at the beginning of the month because he knows he is going to lose all of those benefits.
It seems to me we ought to do away with that cliff and that we ought to encourage people to get jobs. If they make more money, they shouldn't lose everything all at once. Then, as they work their way up the ladder and improve themselves, maybe they will be off of the programs entirely.
In being a humanitarian, that is the way I see it. You are not a humanitarian if you give a person a life in poverty, which is what life is if you are just on government programs. In most cases, you have to be in poverty to qualify for the programs. Yet a few working people qualify for some. In helping to be humane to people, we provide a process for them to be in the world of work and improve themselves. So I look forward to working with the Senator.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.