Shelley Moore Capito on Welfare & Poverty Republican Representative (WV-2)

Voted YES on maintaining work requirement for welfare recipients.

• Prohibits any experimental pilot or demonstration project that: waives compliance with mandatory work requirements
• Rescinds and nullifies any such waiver granted before the enactment of this Act.

Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:

Rep. REICHERT: Congress must ensure that work continues to be the centerpiece of the TANF welfare program. We are here today debating the Obama administration's efforts to undermine work requirements. Bipartisan discussions were actually happening before the Obama administration announced they would waive work requirements for welfare recipients last summer. That announcement completely undermined bipartisan negotiations in our committee about ways to strengthen this program. Usually, if an administration wants to change the law, they must submit a legislative proposal for Congress to consider, but that's not what the Obama administration did with its proposal to waive the TANF work requirements.

Opponent's Argument for voting No:

• Rep. LEVIN: Last summer the administration proposed that states would be allowed to apply for waivers and have some flexibility in terms of the application of the work requirements--not the end of them or changing them, but the implementation of them. The idea that the administration is going to try to overturn welfare reform is ridiculous. States have to apply individually for waivers, and they have to explain in detail why the approach would lead to either more employment or better jobs for people who are trying to stay off welfare.
• Rep. NEAL: I chaired the Democratic position [on 1990s welfare reform]. One of the goals of welfare reform was to move unemployed Americans from welfare to work, and it did work. The legislation has been very successful in meeting that goal. Welfare reform put people back on the work rolls. Welfare rolls have dropped by half, & poverty amongst children has dropped as well. Reference: Preserving the Welfare Work Requirement & TANF Extension Act; Bill H.R.890 ; vote number 13-HV068 on Mar 13, 2013

  Voted YES on instituting National Service as a new social invention.

  Congressional Summary:Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education (GIVE) Act:
  Adds to National and Community Service Act of 1990 (NCSA) purposes:
  1. providing year-round opportunities in service-learning;
  2. involving program participants in emergency and disaster preparedness, relief, and recovery;
  3. increasing service opportunities for retiring professionals;
  4. encouraging service by individuals age 55 or older and continued service by national service alumni;
  5. focusing national service on the areas of national need.

  Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Sen. BARBARA MIKULSKI (D, MD): [In developing national service over many years] we were not in the business of creating another new social program. What we were in the business of was creating a new social invention. What do I mean by that? In our country, we are known for our technological inventions. But also often overlooked, and sometimes undervalued, is our social inventions.

  We created national service to let young people find opportunity to be of service and also to make an important contribution. But not all was rosy. In 2003, when I was the ranking member on the appropriations subcommittee funding national service, they created a debacle. One of their most colossal errors was that they enrolled over 20,000 volunteers and could not afford to pay for it. That is how sloppy they were in their accounting. I called them the "Enron of nonprofits."

  And they worked on it. But all that is history. We are going to expand AmeriCorps activity into specialized corps. One, an education corps; another, a health futures corps; another, a veterans corps; and another called opportunity corps. These are not outside of AmeriCorps. They will be subsets because we find this is where compelling human need is and at the same time offers great opportunity for volunteers to do it.

  Opponent's argument to vote No:No senators spoke against the amendment.

  Reference: Serve America Act/GIVE Act; Bill H.R. 1388 ; vote number 2009-H169 on Mar 31, 2009

  Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers.

  Voting YES on this amendment would add $70 million to the Section 8 housing voucher program, funding an additional 10,000 affordable housing vouchers.
  Proponents of the amendment say:
  • This amendment would enable an additional 10,000 low-income families to afford safe, decent housing.
  • To offset this increase, the amendment cuts a poorly managed computer upgrade program. The committee has been very ingenious in squirreling away money in different accounts and the bill would still provide $94 million in funds for IT projects.
  • We have a choice: Do we want to help thousands of families obtain affordable housing, or do we think it is more important to have a somewhat faster computer upgrade in HUD?
  • Our amendment does not seek to restore the amount to the amount that the President recommended, which is $144 million more than the committee recommends, it seeks merely to restore $70 million, or about half of what the difference is to what the President recommended.
  • This is less than the bare minimum of what is needed. We have hundreds of thousands of families on waiting lists, waiting up to 10 years for decent housing for Section 8 vouchers.
  Opponents say:
  • The existing bill fully funds the renewal of Section 8 vouchers. Additional funds are simply not necessary.
  • The cost of Section 8 vouchers are remaining constant and in some markets are actually decreasing. As such, this funding level will provide funds to restore vouchers that may have been lost in recent years.
  • The proposed reduction will cause delays in critically needed efforts to modernize antiquated legacy computer systems.
  Reference: Department of Housing and Urban Development appropriations; Bill HR 5576 Amendment 1015 ; vote number 2006-267 on Jun 13, 2006

  Voted YES on promoting work and marriage among TANF recipients.

  Welfare Reauthorization Bill: Vote to pass a bill that would approve $16.5 billion to renew the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant program through fiscal 2008 and call for new welfare aid conditions. The bill raises the work requirements for individuals getting assistance from 30 to 40 hours per week. States would be required to increase the number of recipient families working from the current level of 50 percent to 70 percent or more in 2008. The bill also provides an additional $1 billion in mandatory state child care grants and provides $200 million annually for marriage promotion programs. Reference: Bill sponsored by Pryce, R-OH; Bill HR 4 ; vote number 2003-30 on Feb 13, 2003

  Voted YES on treating religious organizations equally for tax breaks.

  Vote to pass a bill that would allow religious organizations to compete equally with other non-governmental groups for federal funds to provide social service, and provide $13.3 billion in tax breaks for charitable giving over 10 years. Bill HR 7 ; vote number 2001-254 on Jul 19, 2001

  Click here for definitions & background information on Welfare & Poverty. Click here for a Wikipedia profile of Shelley Moore Capito. Click here for a Ballotpedia profile of Shelley Moore Capito. Click here for SenateMatch quiz answers by Shelley Moore Capito. Click here for a summary of Shelley Moore Capito's positions on all issues. Click here for issue positions of other WV politicians. Click here for issue statements from WV primary archives. Click here for issue statements from WV secondary archives.
  Other candidates on Welfare & Poverty:		Shelley Moore Capito on other issues:
  WV Gubernatorial: Ben Salango Jim Justice Michael Folk Ron Stollings Stephen Noble Smith Woody Thrasher xEdwin Ray Vanover WV Senatorial: Carte Goodwin Don Blankenship Evan Jenkins Joe Manchin III John Raese Patrick Morrisey Paula Jean Swearengin Richard Ojeda WV politicians WV Archives	Senate races 2019-20: AK: Sullivan(R,incumbent) vs.Gross(I) vs.Blatchford(D) AL: Jones(D,incumbent) vs.Tuberville(R) vs.Sessions(R) vs.Moore(R) vs.Rogers(D) vs.Merrill(R) AR: Cotton(R,incumbent) vs.Harrington(L) vs.Whitfield(I) vs.Mahony(D) AZ: McSally(R,incumbent) vs.Kelly(D) CO: Gardner(R,incumbent) vs.Hickenlooper(D) vs.Madden(D) vs.Baer(D) vs.Walsh(D) vs.Johnston(D) vs.Romanoff(D) vs.Burnes(D) vs.Williams(D) DE: Coons(D,incumbent) vs.Scarane(D) vs.Witzke(R) vs.DeMartino(R) GA-2: Isakson(R,resigned) Loeffler(R,appointed) vs.Warnock(D) vs.Collins(R) vs.Tarver(D) vs.Carter(D) vs.Lieberman(D) vs.Grayson(R) vs.Stovall(I) vs.Buckley(L) GA-6: Perdue(R,incumbent) vs.Ossoff(D) vs.Hazel(L) vs.Tomlinson(D) vs.Terry(D) IA: Ernst(R,incumbent) vs.Greenfield(D) vs.Graham(D) vs.Mauro(D) vs.Franken(D) ID: Risch(R,incumbent) vs.Jordan(D) vs.Harris(D) IL: Durbin(D,incumbent) vs.Curran(R) vs.Stava-Murray(D) KS: Roberts(R,retiring) vs.Marshall(R) vs.Bollier(D) vs.LaTurner(R) vs.Wagle(R) vs.Kobach(R) vs.Lindstrom(R) vs.Grissom(D) KY: McConnell(R,incumbent) vs.McGrath(D) vs.Morgan(R) vs.Cox(D) vs.Tobin(D) vs.Booker(D) LA: Cassidy(R,incumbent) vs.Perkins(D) vs.Pierce(D)	MA: Markey(D,incumbent) vs.O`Connor(R) vs.Ayyadurai(R) vs.Kennedy(D) vs.Liss-Riordan(D) ME: Collins(R,incumbent) vs.Gideon(D) vs.Sweet(D) vs.Rice(D) MI: Peters(D,incumbent) vs.James(R) vs.Squier(G) MN: Smith(D,incumbent) vs.Lewis(R) vs.Overby(G) vs.Carlson(D) MS: Hyde-Smith(R,incumbent) vs.Espy(D) vs.Bohren(D) MT: Daines(R,incumbent) vs.Bullock(D) vs.Collins(D) vs.Driscoll(R) vs.Mues(D) vs.Geise(L) NC: Tillis(R,incumbent) vs.Cunningham(D) vs.E.Smith(D) vs.S.Smith(R) vs.Tucker(R) vs.Mansfield(D) NE: Sasse(R,incumbent) vs.Janicek(R) NH: Shaheen(D,incumbent) vs.Messner(R) vs.Martin(D) vs.Bolduc(R) vs.O'Brien(R) NJ: Booker(D,incumbent) vs.Mehta(R) vs.Singh(R) vs.Meissner(R) NM: Udall(D,retiring) vs.Lujan(D) vs.Ronchetti(R) vs.Walsh(L) vs.Clarkson(R) vs.Oliver(D) vs.Rich(R) OK: Inhofe(R,incumbent) vs.Broyles(D) vs.Workman(D) OR: Merkley(D,incumbent) vs.Perkins(R) vs.Romero(R) RI: Reed(D,incumbent) vs.Waters(R) SC: Graham(R,incumbent) vs.Harrison(D) vs.Tinubu(D) SD: Rounds(R,incumbent) vs.Ahlers(D) vs.Borglum(R) TN: Alexander(R,retiring) vs.Hagerty(R) vs.Bradshaw(D) vs.Sethi(R) vs.Mackler(D) vs.Crim(R) TX: Cornyn(R,incumbent) vs.Hegar(D) vs.Hernandez(D) vs.Bell(D) vs.Ramirez(D) vs.West(D) VA: Warner(D,incumbent) vs.Taylor(R) vs.Gade(R) WV: Capito(R,incumbent) vs.Swearengin(D) vs.Ojeda(D) WY: Enzi(R,retiring) vs.Lummis(R) vs.Ben-David(D) vs.Ludwig(D)	Abortion Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families Foreign Policy Free Trade Govt. Reform Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Jobs Principles Social Security Tax Reform Technology War/Peace Welfare Other Senators Senate Votes (analysis) Bill Sponsorships Affiliations Policy Reports Group Ratings
  Contact info: Email for constituents only Fax Number: 202-225-7856 Mailing Address: Rayburn HOB 2443, Washington, DC 20515 Official Website

  
  
  
  
  
  Page last updated: Nov 29, 2020