Providing for Consideration of House Joint Resolution 118, Disapproving Rule Relating to Waiver and Expenditure Authority with Respect to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program; Providing for Consideration of H.R. 3409, Stop the War on Coal Act of 2012; and Providing for Proceedings During the Period from September 22, 2012, Through November 12, 2012

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully raise a point of order against H. Res. 788 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act.

The resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against consideration of the bill, which includes a waiver of section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act which causes a violation of section 426(a).

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Wisconsin makes a point of order that the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

The gentlewoman has met the threshold burden under the rule, and the gentlewoman from Wisconsin and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes of debate on the question of consideration. Following debate, the Chair will put the question of consideration as the statutory means of disposing of the point of order.

The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.

Ms. MOORE. I thank you so much, Mr. Speaker.

I raise this point of order, not necessarily out of concern for unfunded mandates, although there are some in the underlying bills under consideration here today, H.J. Res. 118 and H.R. 3409. Rather, I am here today because this is the only opportunity to voice my adamant opposition to the TANF-related resolution of disapproval, H.J. Res. 118, given the strict closed terms of our debate today.

My goal here today, Mr. Speaker, is to be a voice of reason, and certainly a voice of truth in this debate, because we are all undoubtedly about to hear an astonishing array of half truths and, Mr. Speaker, even lies about the Temporary Assistance For Needy Families program or TANF--the lie, for example, that the TANF program was this raving success that took people out of poverty, gave them dignity and put them in good jobs. Well, what it really did was to really kick poor people off the rolls.

You know, under President Clinton, 1996, when we passed the original TANF bill, it was a time of prosperity; and those people, primarily women, who would normally get off the rolls within 2 years, found jobs which were readily available. But even more, primarily women, just simply languished in poverty as a permanent underclass.

Despite the creation of the so-called ``safety net'' under TANF, many, many women have languished in poverty and are still in poverty today. We're not just talking about the poor. We're talking about deep poverty.

Mr. Speaker, did you know that between 1996 and 2011 the numbers of U.S. households living on less than $2 per person per day--the measure of extreme poverty as defined by the World Bank for developing nations--has more than doubled from 636,000 to 1.46--nearly 1.5--million people and that the number of children in extremely poor households has also doubled from 1.4 million up to 2.8 million children living in poverty--children, by the way, who cannot work? We are talking about the poorest of the poor. These numbers are startling given that we are talking about the United States of America, not some Third World country.

Now let's get to the big lie that these resolutions relate to. The Republicans claim that the work requirements have been gutted under the Health and Human Services' guidance. These lies have already been debunked by the
media, by Fact Check checkers, even by the original architects of TANF--for example, by Ron Haskins.

Apparently, our colleagues find it convenient to ignore the facts; but, of course, we have heard throughout this election cycle that the GOP is not going to be dictated by facts. Sadly, I'm not at all surprised that we are forced to engage in this TANF battle on the House floor. I knew that the GOP would challenge the administration's proposal at the earliest opportunity; but, frankly, House Republicans' timing on this could not be worse.

Do you think that the American people are demanding more attacks on the poor from your party this week or that doubling down on a strategy of vilifying the poor is a wise choice--trotting out the mythical, lazy welfare queen who doesn't want to take responsibility for her own life, who is part of the 47 percent who would rather have a so-called ``government handout'' than a job?

I think that the insistence on considering this bill at this moment in history when we should be considering critical issues like the farm bill for our drought-ridden States or the Violence Against Women Act--or how about this one, Mr. Speaker, the American Jobs Act?--rather than political message bills is remarkably tone deaf. TANF was written at a time when our labor market and our economy were radically different than they are today.

I didn't support TANF in 1996, but I certainly don't support it now that I have seen what it has done. It has become a hollow shell of a safety net program. It is not going to be allowed to evolve with the times, and it is now nothing short of completely broken. TANF recipients have been poorly served by the program, which too often locks people into a cycle of poverty through rigid guidelines and red tape while allowing them no access to real opportunity. In its current form, the program makes it extremely hard to move from welfare to work, which is supposedly the goal of the program, an honorable goal of the program.

Mr. Speaker, check this out: States can meet their work requirements even if none--zero--of their recipients find a job. States are only measured by whether or not recipients participate in certain activities for a set number of hours, like if they just job search and never find a job.

Not only are we not moving people from welfare to work in this program, but we are not allowing people any opportunity to get the education and training they might need to compete in the labor market or to learn valuable skills. We are trapping them in so-called ``job-search activities'' that are poorly designed and add up to nothing. TANF just does not provide real opportunities that could translate into better lives for beneficiaries. There are others who are unable to get help at all because the program is not designed to allow them in the door.

Shockingly, States are rewarded for simply lowering their caseloads rather than for moving people into jobs. There is, indeed, an incentive for States to create barriers that prevent the individuals and families with the highest need from even participating. We've heard the horror stories of people who have been kicked off TANF or who couldn't get in in the first place and of the desperate things they've had to do to feed and shelter and clothe their children.

By now, those of us who have been paying even the bare minimum of attention realize that the Republicans have been playing politics with the Obama administration's waiver program and have been playing fast and loose with reality. I would venture to guess that every Member in this Chamber knows the truth, that Republicans and Democratic Governors have been requesting increased flexibility in implementing the welfare reform for many years.

In fact, in 2005, no fewer than 29 Republican Governors asked for increased waiver authority, and given my limited time, I will only name a few of them. We have such socialist Governors like Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, Texas Governor Rick Perry. How about Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and none other than--drum roll, please--Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney?

Like these Governors, I wholeheartedly endorse the idea of allowing States the flexibility to craft welfare systems that meet the specific needs of their job markets and their participants. I know--and I know that many of you know, though you refuse to acknowledge it--that the waiver proposal from the Department of Health and Human Services would meaningfully strengthen our ability to move people from welfare to work.

May I inquire, Mr. Speaker, as to how much time I have remaining.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Wisconsin has 40 seconds remaining.

Ms. MOORE. I was once one of those 47 percent--a welfare recipient. I have seen firsthand the successes and failures of this safety net in my community and across the Nation. I support the administration's strategic efforts to guarantee that TANF is a more effective program. I encourage all of my colleagues to reject H.J. Res. 118, this resolution of disapproval, and to, instead, work together to build a strong workforce and economy.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source