Susan Davis on Welfare & Poverty Democratic Representative (CA-53)

Voted NO 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 NO 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 NO 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

  Finish welfare reform by moving able recipients into jobs.

  Davis adopted the manifesto, "A New Agenda for the New Decade":

  Help Working Families Lift Themselves from Poverty
  In the 1990s, Americans resolved to end welfare dependency and forge a new social compact on the basis of work and reciprocal responsibility. The results so far are encouraging: The welfare rolls have been cut by more than half since 1992 without the social calamities predicted by defenders of the old welfare entitlement. People are more likely than ever to leave welfare for work, and even those still on welfare are four times more likely to be working. But the job of welfare reform will not be done until we help all who can

  work to find and keep jobs -- including absent fathers who must be held responsible for supporting their children.

  In the next decade, progressives should embrace an even more ambitious social goal -- helping every working family lift itself from poverty. Our new social compact must reinforce work, responsibility, and family. By expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit, increasing the supply of affordable child care, reforming tax policies that hurt working families, making sure absent parents live up to their financial obligations, promoting access to home ownership and other wealth-building assets, and refocusing other social policies on the new goal of rewarding work, we can create a new progressive guarantee: No American family with a full-time worker will live in poverty.

  Goals for 2010 Finish the job of welfare reform by moving all recipients who can work into jobs.
  • Cut the poverty rate in half.
  • Double child support collections and require every father who owes child support to go to work to pay it off.
  Source: The Hyde Park Declaration 00-DLC3 on Aug 1, 2000

  Sponsored maintaining SNAP nutrition assistance program.

  Davis co-sponsored House Resolution on SNAP
  • WHEREAS hunger is a serious threat to individual dignity, productivity, learning, economic prosperity, health, and development;
  • WHEREAS food insecurity means that people face an ongoing struggle against hunger;
  • WHEREAS 50.1 million people lived in food insecure households in 2011;
  • WHEREAS the supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP), established in the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, is the nation's first line of defense against hunger and food insecurity;
  • WHEREAS SNAP served more than 47.5 million individuals in October 2012;
  • WHEREAS the SNAP benefits average less than $1.50 per individual per meal;
  • WHEREAS SNAP participation rises when the economy is weak;
  • WHEREAS millions of Americans need to turn to SNAP as a way to feed themselves and their families;
  • Whereas SNAP is an efficient public-private partnership that runs on the regular channels of commerce--regular retail food stores and electronic benefit transfer (EBT) systems;
  • WHEREAS every dollar in new SNAP benefits generates up to $1.79 in economi Source: H.RES.90 13-HRes90 on Feb 28, 2013

    Click here for definitions & background information on Welfare & Poverty. Click here for HouseMatch answers by Susan Davis. Click here for a summary of Susan Davis's positions on all issues. Click here for a summary of Susan Davis's positions on the AmericansElect.org quiz. Click here for contact information for Susan Davis. Click here for a Wikipedia profile of Susan Davis. Click here for a Ballotpedia profile of Susan Davis. Click here for other CA politicians. Click here for CA primary archives. Click here for CA secondary archives.
    2017-18 Governor, House and Senate candidates on Welfare & Poverty:			Susan Davis on other issues:
    CA Gubernatorial: Antonio Villaraigosa Carly Fiorina David Hadley Delaine Eastin Doug Ose Eric Garcetti Eric Swalwell Gavin Newsom Hilda Solis Jerry Brown Jerry Sanders John Chiang John Cox Kamala Harris Neel Kashkari Travis Allen CA Senatorial: Dianne Feinstein Duf Sundheim Greg Brannon Kamala Harris Kevin de Leon Loretta Sanchez Michael Eisen Rocky Chavez Tom Del Beccaro Freshman class of 2019: "Freshman class" means "not in Congress in January 2017", with exceptions: * Special election, so sworn in other than Jan. 2019 ** Served in Congress in a previous term *** Lost recount or general election	Freshman class of January 2019 (Republicans): AZ-8*:Lesko CA-39***:Kim FL-6:Waltz ; FL-15:Spano ; FL-17:Steube GA-7:Woodall ID-1**:Fulcher IN-4:Baird IN-6:Pence KS-2:Watkins MN-1:Hagedorn ; MN-8:Stauber MS-3:Guest MT-0*:Gianforte NC-9***:Harris ND-a:Armstrong NM-2***:Herrell OH-12*:Balderson ; OH-16:Gonzalez OK-1:Hern PA-9:Meuser ; PA-11**:Smucker ; PA-12*:Keller ; PA-13:Joyce ; PA-14:Reschenthaler SC-4:Timmons SD-0:Johnson TN-2:Burchett ; TN-6:Rose ; TN-7:Green TX-2:Crenshaw ; TX-3:Taylor ; TX-5:Gooden ; TX-6:Wright ; TX-21:Roy ; TX-27*:Cloud VA-5:Riggleman ; VA-6:Cline WI-1:Steil WV-3:Miller	Freshman class of January 2019 (Democrats): AZ-2**:Kirkpatrick ; AZ-9:Stanton CA-49:Levin ; CA-10:Harder ; CA-21:Cox ; CA-25:Hill ; CA-39:Cisneros ; CA-45:Porter ; CA-48:Rouda CO-2:Neguse ; CO-6:Crow CT-5:Hayes FL-26:Mucarsel-Powell ; FL-27:Shalala GA-6:McBath HI-1**:Case IA-1:Finkenauer ; IA-3:Axne IL-4:Garcia ; IL-6:Casten ; IL-14:Underwood KS-3:Davids KY-6***:McGrath MA-3:Trahan ; MA-7:Pressley MD-6:Trone ME-2:Golden MI-8:Slotkin ; MI-9:Levin ; MI-13:Tlaib ; MI-13*:Jones ; MI-11:Stevens MN-2:Craig ; MN-3:Phillips ; MN-5:Omar NC-9***:McCready NH-1:Pappas NJ-2:Van Drew ; NJ-3:Kim ; NJ-7:Malinowski ; NJ-11:Sherrill NM-1:Haaland ; NM-2:Torres Small NV-3:Lee ; NV-4**:Horsford NY-14:Ocasio-Cortez ; NY-11:Rose ; NY-19:Delgado ; NY-22:Brindisi ; NY-25:Morelle OK-5:Horn PA-4:Dean ; PA-5:Scanlon ; PA-6:Houlahan ; PA-7:Wild ; PA-17*:Lamb SC-1:Cunningham TX-7:Fletcher ; TX-16:Escobar ; TX-29:Garcia ; TX-32:Allred UT-4:McAdams VA-2:Luria ; VA-7:Spanberger ; VA-10:Wexton WA-8:Schrier	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/Poverty Candidate Information: Main Page Profile CA politicians Contact info: Fax Number: 202-225-2948 Mailing Address: Longworth HOB 1526, Washington, DC 20515 Phone number: (202) 225-2040

    
    
    
    
    
    Page last updated: Jun 15, 2020