[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
WELFARE REFORM PROPOSALS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 15, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-HR06
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
___________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
21-285 WASHINGTON : 2016
_______________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin, Chairman
SAM JOHNSON, Texas SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan
KEVIN BRADY, Texas CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York
DEVIN NUNES, California JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington
PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio JOHN LEWIS, Georgia
DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts
CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana XAVIER BECERRA, California
PETER J. ROSKAM, Illinois LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
TOM PRICE, Georgia MIKE THOMPSON, California
VERN BUCHANAN, Florida JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
LYNN JENKINS, Kansas RON KIND, Wisconsin
ERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
DIANE BLACK, Tennessee DANNY DAVIS, Illinois
TOM REED, New York LINDA SANCHEZ, California
TODD YOUNG, Indiana
MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania
JIM RENACCI, Ohio
PAT MEEHAN, Pennsylvania
KRISTI NOEM, South Dakota
GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina
JASON SMITH, Missouri
ROBERT J. DOLD, Illinois
Joyce Myer, Staff Director
Janice Mays, Minority Chief Counsel and Staff Director
______
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana, Chairman
TODD YOUNG, Indiana LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
KRISTI NOEM, South Dakota JOHN LEWIS, Georgia
PAT MEEHAN, Pennsylvania JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina DANNY DAVIS, Illinois
JASON SMITH, Missouri
ROBERT J. DOLD, Illinois
C O N T E N T S
__________
Page
Advisory of July 15, 2015 announcing the hearing................. 2
WITNESSES
Boyd A. Brown, Jr., J.D., Area Director, Employment and Training,
Goodwill-Easter Seals Minnesota................................ 23
Grant E. Collins II, Senior Vice President, Fedcap Rehabilitation
Services, Incorporated, Workforce Development; and Executive
Director, WeCARE Region II, Fedcap............................. 44
Kristen Cox, Executive Director, Governor's Office of Management
and Budget, State of Utah...................................... 6
Lieutenant Colonel David Kelly, Program Secretary, The Salvation
Army National Headquarters..................................... 16
LaDonna Pavetti, Ph.D., Vice President for Family Income Support
Policy, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities................. 36
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
AEI.............................................................. 64
America Forward.................................................. 71
America Works.................................................... 75
APHSA............................................................ 77
Bishop Tribal Council............................................ 84
CCWRO............................................................ 86
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities........................... 114
CLASP............................................................ 124
CWLA............................................................. 134
Equifax.......................................................... 139
First Focus...................................................... 140
Healthy Relationships California................................. 144
Institute for Child Success...................................... 148
Massachusetts Law Reform Institute............................... 156
McDermott Center dba Haymarket Center............................ 163
National Fatherhood Leaders Group................................ 166
National Skills Coalition........................................ 172
Ohio Department of Job and Family Services....................... 177
ReadyNation...................................................... 185
Social Finance................................................... 188
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services..................... 190
Western Center on Law and Poverty................................ 372
Zeva Longley..................................................... 382
WELFARE REFORM PROPOSALS
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 15, 2015
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Subcommittee on Human Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:32 a.m., in
Room 1100, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Charles
Boustany [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[The advisory announcing the hearing follows:]
ADVISORY
FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
CONTACT: (202) 225-3625
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, July 8, 2015
No. HR-06
Chairman Boustany Announces Hearing on
Welfare Reform Proposals
Congressman Charles Boustany (R-LA), Chairman of the Subcommittee
on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced
that the Subcommittee will hold a hearing on welfare reform proposals,
specifically involving the reauthorization of the Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families (TANF) program. The hearing will take place on
Wednesday, July 15, 2015, in 1100 Longworth House Office Building,
beginning at 10:30 a.m.
In view of the limited time available to hear witnesses, oral
testimony at this hearing will be from invited witnesses only. However,
any individual or organization not scheduled for an oral appearance may
submit a written statement for consideration by the Committee and for
inclusion in the printed record of the hearing.
DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS:
Please Note: Any person(s) and/or organization(s) wishing to submit
for the hearing record must follow the appropriate link on the hearing
page of the Committee website and complete the informational forms.
From the Committee homepage, http://waysandmeans.house.gov, select
``Hearings.'' Select the hearing for which you would like to submit,
and click on the link entitled, ``Click here to provide a submission
for the record.'' Once you have followed the online instructions,
submit all requested information. ATTACH your submission as a Word
document, in compliance with the formatting requirements listed below,
by the close of business on Thursday, July 29, 2015. Finally, please
note that due to the change in House mail policy, the U.S. Capitol
Police will refuse sealed-package deliveries to all House Office
Buildings. For questions, or if you encounter technical problems,
please call (202) 225-1721 or (202) 225-3625.
FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS:
The Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the
official hearing record. As always, submissions will be included in the
record according to the discretion of the Committee. The Committee will
not alter the content of your submission, but we reserve the right to
format it according to our guidelines. Any submission provided to the
Committee by a witness, any supplementary materials submitted for the
printed record, and any written comments in response to a request for
written comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any
submission or supplementary item not in compliance with these
guidelines will not be printed, but will be maintained in the Committee
files for review and use by the Committee.
1. All submissions and supplementary materials must be provided in
Word format and MUST NOT exceed a total of 10 pages, including
attachments. Witnesses and submitters are advised that the Committee
relies on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing
record.
2. Copies of whole documents submitted as exhibit material will not
be accepted for printing. Instead, exhibit material should be
referenced and quoted or paraphrased. All exhibit materials not meeting
these specifications will be maintained in the Committee files for
review and use by the Committee.
3. All submissions must include a list of all clients, persons,
and/or organizations on whose behalf the witness appears. A
supplemental sheet must accompany each submission listing the name,
company, address, telephone, and fax numbers of each witness.
The Committee seeks to make its facilities accessible to persons
with disabilities. If you are in need of special accommodations, please
call 202-225-1721 or 202-226-3411 TDD/TTY in advance of the event (four
business days notice is requested). Questions with regard to special
accommodation needs in general (including availability of Committee
materials in alternative formats) may be directed to the Committee as
noted above.
Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available
online at http://www.waysandmeans.house.gov/.
-----
Chairman BOUSTANY. The Subcommittee will come to order. I
would like to welcome our Members, witnesses, and guests to
this morning's hearing on welfare reform re-authorization
proposals.
On April 30th, this Subcommittee held a hearing on ideas to
improve TANF to help more families find work and escape
poverty. We had an excellent panel of witnesses who shared
their ideas, and since that time Members and staff have been
discussing ways that we might work together to improve our
Nation's welfare system.
Today our hearing will focus on specific proposals to
improve the lives of families on welfare by better promoting
work and helping families in need move up the economic ladder.
Work is the only way for people to really escape from poverty
and achieve the American Dream, and we are eager to help more
families succeed at doing just that.
The Ways and Means Committee discussion draft released last
Friday is designed to focus on outcomes, helping people get
jobs and stay employed, and to help more people move from
welfare to self-sufficiency. In short, this discussion draft
revitalizes the work requirement for people collecting welfare
benefits; provides States more options to help people prepare
to leave welfare for employment; holds States accountable for
getting adults off welfare and into jobs; prevents the work
requirements from being waived; ends the TANF marriage penalty,
among other key reforms; and maintains funding for the TANF
program going forward.
I would like to thank Ranking Member Doggett and his staff
for working with us on this draft. We are doing this the right
way, holding constructive hearings, working in a bipartisan way
on draft legislation, and soliciting expert and public comment
as the work continues. So we will welcome our witnesses'
comments, and we will be working together to incorporate that
feedback as this legislation progresses.
I would also like to thank the many Members who have joined
me in introducing specific bills to improve how the TANF
program works. Whether it is ensuring more adults on welfare
are engaged in work and activities, providing additional
flexibility so these activities meet people's specific needs,
or just setting a goal of reducing poverty through more
employment, those bills are important markers of our path to
helping families find work, escape poverty, and achieve the
American Dream.
We are joined by several additional Members today,
including Congressman Paulsen and Congressman Renacci, who are
former Members of this Subcommittee, and we certainly welcome
them back. And I appreciate everyone's contributions to this
effort.
So, with that, I would like to now yield to the Ranking
Member of the Subcommittee, Mr. Doggett, for the purposes of an
opening statement.
Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We are
pleased today to get additional input on the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families program, and how it may be
reformed. This program has limped along over short periods of
time for a number of years. On Friday afternoon there was a
discussion draft issued, as the Chairman has indicated, and I
think that is what it is, a discussion draft that justifies
considerably more discussion to see how it might achieve the
objectives, many of which we share and some of which we still
have divergent opinions on.
I think there is a recognition that TANF is more hole than
safety net at present, and its flaws need to be mended. There
should be a recognition that, since the Welfare Reform Act of
the nineties that I voted in favor of, much of the objective of
that Act has not been fulfilled, and that a significant amount
of dollars have essentially been used by the States during the
ups and downs of the budget, and the economy, to simply use the
Federal dollars to supplant what the States were or should have
been doing, rather than to expand innovative programs and do
more to get people into the workforce.
I think that an objective of this bill is not just about
work, but about opportunity, especially an opportunity to work
into the middle class, and that the concept of just finding any
dead-end job for someone who is currently receiving temporary
assistance, rather than finding opportunity to work and advance
within our society, is not where we need to be going.
Of the provisions that I have reviewed in the discussion
draft, I think some of the most hopeful are those concerning
vocational education, secondary education, and job readiness
activities, which would all be permitted under the TANF work
requirements in the discussion draft. Those programs are
essential to be included, because they do help prepare people
for an opportunity up, rather than just a subsistence level of
participation.
On the average, the States are only spending about half of
the funds that they receive today in TANF on core purposes of
TANF, such as financial assistance, child care, and work
assistance. In many States, like Texas, that percentage is much
lower. While the inherently flawed nature of any block grant
program is what allows this situation to occur, I think we can
move TANF forward with stronger requirements to achieve more
targeted spending. States should be spending at least half of
their funds on these core purposes.
I do think that there are some reforms in the discussion
draft concerning State matching, and the State approach to
these funds that are constructive, that I support, and I would
only like to see them enhanced.
The maximum monthly benefit under the program for a family
of three now is only 28 percent of the poverty level. In Texas,
the benefits are less than 20 percent of the poverty level. As
children across the country face homelessness, not one State in
2014 provided a benefit amount equal to the fair market value
of rent in that State.
This is truly a temporary subsistence program. And with
these deficiencies in mind, I look forward to working with our
experts to further evaluate if a specific percentage of State
spending toward financial assistance alone should be required,
as well.
There are some ideas that we have explored in hearings over
the last year for innovation. One of those is social impact
partnership projects. I am pleased that we will be hearing
about--more about the experience of Utah, which has been a
leader on social impact partnerships. Any way that we can
constructively get the involvement of the private sector and of
foundations, and can focus on outcomes, I think is
constructive.
I certainly agree with Ms. Cox, in her testimony, that
these social impact partnerships, as they relate to the limited
amount of TANF funds, should only serve actual participants--
actual recipients of TANF funds. And I think we need to be
cautious in moving in this area to be sure that dollars that
are essential for providing services are not consumed in
consultant and lawyer fees to set up these new arrangements.
There is, in short, Mr. Chairman, much that we agree with
in the discussion draft, but much that remains to be discussed
and improved if we are to achieve genuine reform in the way
this system works. And I look forward to working with you on
it.
Chairman BOUSTANY. I thank the gentleman, and I would
agree. I think there is much fertile ground that we can cover
to get to good reforms, with the objective being moving people
up the opportunity ladder into the middle class. So I think--I
appreciate the spirit of cooperation.
We have a very distinguished panel here today. I would like
to introduce our panel, and I want to thank our panel for being
here today to provide expert testimony.
First, we have Kristen Cox, Executive Director, Governor's
Office of Management and Budget for the State of Utah. Second,
Lieutenant Colonel David Kelly, Program Secretary of The
Salvation Army National Headquarters. Third, at this time I
would now yield to the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Paulsen,
to introduce the next witness, Mr. Boyd Brown.
Mr. PAULSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank
you also for holding this important hearing, and letting me
introduce our next witness.
Boyd Brown has over 18 years of experience overseeing a
wide range of programs serving low-income families, individuals
with disabilities, and ex-offenders. Boyd has extensive program
management experience, including oversight of several large-
scale TANF employment programs in Minnesota's two largest
counties.
He is currently the Area Director of Employment and
Training at Goodwill-Easter Seals Minnesota, whose main
programs provide employment services specifically designed for
people with disabilities, disadvantages, and other barriers to
work. Last year, Goodwill-Easter Seals provided more than
63,000 services to more than 35,000 people, helping them find
employment and achieve independence.
Prior to joining Goodwill-Easter Seals in Minnesota, Boyd
worked for Dakota County and for the State of Minnesota's
ombudsman office for mental health and developmental
disabilities, coordinating several different initiatives that
led to public policy changes in the area of health care and
disabilities.
I think, Mr. Chairman, Boyd's experience and knowledge will
be a valuable perspective for this hearing, for the Committee,
as it looks at ways to reform and improve TANF. I thank Boyd
for being here, and sharing his perspective, his ideas, and his
experience with Members of the Committee, and I thank you.
Chairman BOUSTANY. I thank the gentleman. Next, we have
LaDonna Pavetti, Vice President for Family Income Support
Policy, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. And I am also
pleased to--I just found out there is a family connection to
Lake Arthur, Louisiana, a small town in my district. So glad
you are here.
And last, and certainly not least, Grant Collins, Senior
Vice President, Fedcap Rehabilitation Services, Incorporated,
Workforce Development, and Executive Director, WeCARE Region
II, Fedcap.
Thank you all for being here. We have your written
testimony. I would ask you to try to keep your oral remarks to
5 minutes, so we can move forward with the question period.
And with that, Ms. Cox, thank you. You may start with your
testimony.
Ms. COX. And will you give me the warning, because I am
blind?
Chairman BOUSTANY. I sure will.
Ms. COX. Okay, great.
Chairman BOUSTANY. I will give you a warning at 4 minutes,
and then you will have a minute to wrap up there.
Ms. COX. Perfect, thank you.
Chairman BOUSTANY. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF KRISTEN COX, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GOVERNOR'S OFFICE
OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, STATE OF UTAH
Ms. COX. So, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, and
Ranking Member Doggett, thanks for having me.
Utah has a big--a deep, rich history around TANF. And
before this job, I ran the Department of Workforce Services,
which administers TANF, as well as almost 100 other Federal and
State programs, safety net programs and workforce development
programs. So I think we have a very unique perspective on
integrating safety net programs, those challenges that are
inherent across safety net programs, as well as the importance
of work through the way our department is established.
Through that lens I want to talk about four issues that are
relevant to the discussion draft. One I will touch on lightly,
and, for me, it is the goal of aligning safety net programs
toward a common goal and objective. Ninety-nine percent of our
TANF recipients receiving Federal funds--I mean financial
assistance--are on other public assistance programs, primarily
Medicaid and SNAP, with different eligibility requirements,
different work requirements. Some can do transitional services,
some cannot. It is not very cost-efficient.
It is cumbersome for us, as a State. And it is, more
importantly, very cumbersome for our clients, who are trying to
navigate multiple safety net programs that don't seem to have a
cohesive strategy or goal. So, while I recognize the focus of
today is on TANF, which is fantastic, I hope it is part of a
broader discussion on overall reform.
My second point is on accountability. In Utah we are very
excited to see this going toward more of an outcome-driven
system. When I ran the Department of Workforce Services, there
was a time that I refused to even look at the participation
rate, because it was driving our systems more than employment
was, and put the whole focus on employment outcomes, instead.
We think it is a great direction to go.
But in the written testimony I have outlined a few areas
that I think still merit discussion and refinement, moving
forward in this direction. For example, we think cost per
service delivery should absolutely be fundamental to this
discussion. How do you include positive exits? For example, if
somebody exits for increased income due to marriage, as you are
trying to eliminate the marriage penalty, should that count as
a positive closure or not? Same thing with SSI or SSDI. Those
are topics that need discussion.
Some of the lag indicators that we are seeing in the
performance measures could take 14 to 17 months. It is
difficult to budget in that scenario. Do I budget a portion of
my funds ongoing at one time, not knowing if I am going to get
dinged on the performance measure?
A few other challenges: Should States be held accountable
if somebody exits for non-compliance and they are sanctioned?
How do we deal with the national new-hire directory, so that
States can get credit for people who get work out of State?
So, I have listed a number of areas that I think still
merit some consideration, but we think the direction is
absolutely going in the right direction.
The third point has to do with State flexibility. With the
increased accountability, which we think is fantastic, we think
States should have maximum flexibility. So we definitely
support eliminating the distinction between non-core and core
activities, and think that is the right thing to do for States.
I would suggest, though, that there are two areas that you
may want to tighten up, and that is if we are going to open up
more freedom for education and vocational training after 24
months, we think it should be training in jobs in demand, and
then should be a rigorous review for what kind of training
people enter into, and what taxpayers pay for, as well as when
we look at subsidized employment and some of those grants, that
we make sure that those are going into the private sector and
government entities are not benefitting from the subsidized
employment initiatives.
My final point, really, is around this evidence-based
evaluation.
Chairman BOUSTANY. We are at the 4-minute mark now.
Ms. COX. Okay, thank you. We totally support that. We are a
little concerned with a lot of language around the random
control trials. While that is the gold standard, they are not
always appropriate, and sometimes not even ethical in
government situations. So, having flexibility around the full
continuum of evidence-based interventions--exponential
research, propensity scoring, other options that are more
nimble and more operational--we want to make sure States have
that flexibility.
And going to the social impact bonds, as well, we have
listed comments on the pros and cons of social impact bonds.
They, from my perspective, are a great catalyst, but not
necessarily a panacea. They cost money and time and they are
hard to scale, but they can help reinforce the need for good
data decisions, and understanding the cost-to-value ratio in
our services.
I would add with this last point I am excited to see this
increased focus on the work. It is the way out for people. And,
personally, not--I am going to put my personal hat on for a
second. Being blind, for years I was on Social Security
disability in a time in life when I thought work would never be
a possibility for me. Work is the thing that brings dignity to
somebody's life. It brings responsibility, a sense of
contribution, and it is not a punishment when we ask people to
work and require that they work, it is a way to transform
lives. And I will be open for questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Cox follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
-------
Chairman BOUSTANY. Thank you very much, Ms. Cox.
Mr. Kelly, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT COLONEL DAVID KELLY, PROGRAM SECRETARY,
THE SALVATION ARMY NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS
Mr. KELLY. Thank you for the opportunity to share with you
today.
This year the Salvation Army is celebrating its 150th year
of ministry to the world, now serving in 126 countries. Our
mission remains to tell people of the love of God expressed
through Jesus, and to meet human needs in His name without
discrimination. While many probably only know us for Christmas
kettles, thrift stores, and rehab centers, each year we also
serve 30 million individuals and provide 50 million meals and
10 million nights of shelter.
I admit, though, that, despite this quantity of assistance,
in the past several years we have done some soul searching
about whether or not, in the midst of all of our efforts, we
are sufficiently focused on finding long-term solutions for
those who are coming to us for assistance.
The outcome of this self-evaluation is a renewed
determination to support life-transforming opportunities for
those who come for material assistance. That doesn't mean we
are going to abandon our efforts to feed and shelter, to
provide character-building programs for youth, daycare, summer
camps, or disaster assistance, but it does mean that we are
going to intentionally carve out resources, both personnel and
financial, to help families move out of poverty, to make the
transition from serving to solving.
This new initiative, piloted in some locations over the
past 3 years, and now being rolled out nationally, is called
Pathway of Hope. It is an approach that provides enhanced
services to families who desire a path out of inter-
generational poverty. Food pantries, soup kitchens, daycares,
they are all going to continue, but we are going to make a
focused effort to actually help families move further than they
have moved before.
Once engaged in the program, teams will walk alongside
families as part of a partnership effort to facilitate changes
and provide support. Pathway of Hope families meet regularly
with Salvation Army caseworkers to develop goals and implement
an individual plan that will increase their self-sufficiency
and hope for the future. Trained staff will complete
assessments with the families to tailor service delivery to
their specific needs.
Our pilot programs are filled with measurable outcomes, and
there is reason for optimism about the potential impact this
will have. I share that with you because the legislation we are
looking at today seems to blend well with the success we are
finding these past several years.
We believe that any new legislation should make provision
for the following key elements.
We affirm the elimination of what is commonly referred to
as the ``marriage penalty'' in every State. It is difficult to
fathom any positive societal impact coming from indirectly
encouraging the breakdown of a two-parent family. Extensive
research shows the long-term negative impact the family
breakdown has upon a child's future educationally,
economically, and in future opportunities. The marriage penalty
produces only a small, short-term savings, but the long-term
cost, both to the family and to the budget, is enormous.
Number two, I am very encouraged to note the reference to
improving and customizing individual opportunity plans.
Educators long ago understood the value of individualized plans
for children struggling to keep up in school. These individual
plans have helped countless children overcome challenges, catch
up and thrive in academic settings. And educators understand
that early intervention is not only good for the children, but
saves significant cost later.
An equivalent approach in addressing families in poverty
will have a similar positive impact. While it may be less
expensive in the short term to just treat everyone exactly the
same, that approach has not proven to be successful. And the
addition of customized individual opportunity plans is a great
step, from our perspective.
Number three, allow more education to count toward activity
hours. We find that most individuals in poverty have an
excellent employment record, and simply don't have the
education needed to progress to a higher, more sustainable
economic level. Education is a critical step to finding a
stable job at a livable wage.
And fourth, fund pilot projects. This is a key provision,
and consistent with the success we have experienced with
Pathway of Hope programs and other initiatives. It makes good
business sense to experiment, identify best practices, and
remain somewhat fluid during initial implementation, as new
ideas evolve. I should add, though, that in the same way we are
implementing Pathway of Hope while maintaining our financial
commitment to much-needed programs, we urge you not to decrease
funding for TANF, but rather, consider the pilot programs as an
additional step.
The Congressional Record will show that on December 15,
1982, a Salvation Army officer came to Washington to testify
about homelessness and poverty at a congressional hearing just
like this one. That officer was my father, then Major Paul
Kelly.
I pray that we will get this right, that we will mold the
best possible legislation and together make meaningful
improvements to how we address poverty in this generation.
If the next generation is here to testify in 30 years, let
it be to celebrate that we have dramatically improved how we
help those in greatest need. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kelly follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
-------
Chairman BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Kelly.
Mr. Brown, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF BOYD A. BROWN, JR., J.D., AREA DIRECTOR,
EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING, GOODWILL-EASTER SEALS MINNESOTA
Mr. BROWN. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on our
experience as a local TANF community-based provider. As Mr.
Paulsen mentioned, my name is Boyd Brown, and I am the Area
Director of Employment and Training at Goodwill-Easter Seals
Minnesota. We are a leading provider of workforce services in
our State, and our stores serve as the economic engine for our
employment programs. This past year we served 35,000 people
with various employment, including 1,500 families who came to
us through TANF.
Our recommendations for TANF policy changes are, first,
hold providers accountable for what matters most: results.
Second, allow providers to document progress toward employment
goals, not hours of participation. Third, offer flexibility and
allowable activities to meet the unique and individual
challenges our families face. And, fourth, include fathers as
part of the solution by funding fatherhood initiatives, making
the voluntary services of responsible fatherhood a permanent
part of TANF. Fathers are part of the solution to stabilizing
low-income families.
Next I talk a little bit about Elizabeth's story that was
in my written testimony. When our counselor first met
Elizabeth, she slept most nights in her car and with her
daughter. Elizabeth was adamant that she needed to find a job,
and that income was the quickest way to secure housing. She had
dropped out of school in the 10th grade. To her, education was
a luxury she could not afford. Elizabeth's initial employment
plan included 6 weeks of job search, and she gave 100 percent
to finding that job, but to no avail.
Usually, the next step in the process is unpaid work or
volunteering. But her counselor knew this would not lead
Elizabeth to long-term stable employment. The counselor
convinced Elizabeth to include GED preparation in her plan,
even though it wasn't counted in the work participation rate.
While attending GED classes, Elizabeth was couch-hopping from
one friend's home to the next. Thirteen months later, she
completed her GED. Elizabeth said, other than the birth of her
daughter, it was the proudest day of her life.
Three days later, she landed a job at Target, and the
following week enrolled at a community college, pursuing a two-
year human services degree. She moved into her own apartment.
Her work hours increased, and she discontinued assistance in
late 2014. She will graduate in June of 2016, and plans to
pursue a BA to become a social worker.
So, what does Elizabeth's story tell us? First, education
and training are important. Research shows that additional
education can yield substantial earning gains, which means that
participants with more education will need less government
assistance to meet their basic needs. Elizabeth's story also
tells us that the one-size-fits-all approach dictated by the
work participation rate with its core and non-core activities
doesn't work for many participants, including Elizabeth.
And after spending, on average, 53 percent of their time on
documentation and verification, our TANF career counselors
simply do not have the time to provide the needed family
supports that change outcomes. Elizabeth's story illustrates
that, with time, meaningful and productive relationships
develop that lead to success.
Elizabeth's is only one story. We serve many people who are
homeless, who have serious mental illness, other disabilities,
who have criminal records, and little work experience. We
succeed by building strong relationships with employers, and
responding flexibly to the very different needs and situations
of the people we serve.
In my written testimony I describe multiple innovative
Minnesota TANF programs. One I will highlight here is the
Father Project. The Father Project offers voluntary services
for low-income dads to help them support their children, both
financially and emotionally. More than 90 percent of the 1,500
dads enrolled reported that the project helped increase their
commitment to financially support their family, increased their
child support payments, and 481 obtained jobs. A return on
investment study demonstrated a return of $3.41 for every
dollar invested in the Father Project.
In conclusion, by focusing on outcomes and not process,
adding flexibility and activities allowed, and reducing the
documentation demand, we can increase employment outcomes and
move families off of assistance and out of poverty. We believe
in accountability. However, hold us accountable for the
outcomes that matter, which are getting people into jobs and
off of assistance.
So, thank you for the opportunity to share our experience
as a TANF provider. We appreciate the Committee's interest in
hearing from the field, and are happy to serve as a resource to
you as we look to increase both effectiveness and efficiency of
how TANF is implemented across the Nation. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
-------
Chairman BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Brown.
Ms. Pavetti, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF LADONNA PAVETTI, VICE PRESIDENT FOR FAMILY INCOME
SUPPORT POLICY, CENTER ON BUDGET AND POLICY PRIORITIES
Ms. PAVETTI. Thank you for the invitation to testify today.
In my recent testimony, I presented data showing how few poor
families TANF serves and how little TANF does to help poor
families find work and escape poverty. In my testimony today I
will focus on ways in which the draft bill could help improve
TANF's performance in these areas, and I also will suggest
additional changes to address some of TANF's fundamental flaws.
States have long identified the complexity and rigidity of
TANF's countable work activities as hindering their ability to
operate an effective work program. The draft bill makes many
improvements that address those issues. We fully support the
changes in the bill that will expand recipients' access to
education and training, encourage States to address the needs
of TANF recipients with significant employment barriers, and
remove the disincentives for serving two-parent families.
I encourage the Committee to go further by eliminating the
30 percent cap on vocational education, which, in this economy,
doesn't seem to make any sense.
The draft bill's elimination of the caseload reduction
credit is a positive change, as it lessens the incentive for
States to continually reduce their TANF caseloads and not serve
people in need. But it effectively raises the target work
participation rate that States must meet, and it will increase
the burden on States to place a greater share of families in
work activities.
While the proposed work activity changes will enable States
to count more people toward meeting the rate, a sizeable gap
will likely remain, which could encourage States to further
restrict access to the program. So I think we need to be paying
attention to this access issue.
The draft bill's requirements that States failing to meet
the work rate must increase their State spending is a
significant improvement over the current penalty structure. One
change we would suggest is requiring States to reinvest those
additional resources to the core purposes of TANF. We believe
that States should be held accountable for employment outcomes,
but we are concerned that the details, as outlined in the
draft, may be unworkable, and we are hoping that this is an
area where we can actually have some conversation.
I believe it is realistic and appropriate to hold States
accountable for employment and retention, but I worry that the
short-term measurement limit and the limited assistance that
TANF programs usually provide--that it may not be realistic to
hold them accountable for advancement. As an alternative, I
suggest measuring median earnings at one point in time to
encourage States to place recipients in higher-paying jobs to
really go toward meeting the goal of reducing poverty.
We are concerned that the proposed penalty structure for
these new outcome measures are too onerous and too complex. The
long lag time required to gather and report the data poses
substantial challenges. And the penalty is harsher than any
initial penalty currently, and it appears that States may have
no opportunity to remedy the problem before block grant funds
are withheld. I also worry that, because the penalties are too
onerous, what States would do is negotiate very low rates, and
we wouldn't see sort of the employment outcomes and the push
toward high outcomes that you may want to see.
So, I would propose an alternative approach that emphasizes
improvement and focuses directly on States that fail to meet
their negotiated goals. First, require States to develop a
program improvement plan, and provide technical assistance to
help them do so. And second, require States to increase their
State funds and target them to work activities, just as
required for the work participation rate.
Implementing an outcome measure will not be easy for
States, nor will it be costless. Most States currently have no
data on employment outcomes which they can use to set
meaningful outcome targets. And to fill that gap, what I
recommend is starting with a benchmark year in which States
would be required to report on outcomes, but wouldn't face any
penalties. That would allow them to have some benchmarks that
they could use to negotiate targets for the future, and to
really build on and make improvements.
A key flaw of the TANF block grant is that permissible use
of the funds is so broad that States spread them across many
areas of the budget. TANF reauthorization provides a key
opportunity to reclaim some of those funds, and it is one that
shouldn't be missed. We believe requiring States to spend a
substantial--a specific share of their TANF resources on core
purposes is essential for improving TANF work programs. There
are several possible approaches here.
First, all States could be required to spend a specified
share of TANF funds on core activities, as Representative
Doggett suggested. Alternatively, States that fail to meet the
rate could actually--benchmarked could be required to move
those additional funds to those purposes.
The draft bill adds a new purpose on reducing poverty. And,
while this is a laudable goal, TANF can't reduce poverty if it
fails to reach poor families. So one of the suggestions I would
make is that we actually add a third outcome measure, and that
is access to the program. If families aren't served by the
program, we can't reduce poverty, and they can't have access to
the services that the program is likely to show.
So, I think that TANF reform is long overdue, and I am
looking forward to working with the Committee to see how we can
move forward to make positive changes. So thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Pavetti follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
-------
Chairman BOUSTANY. Thank you, Ms. Pavetti.
Mr. Collins, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF GRANT E. COLLINS II, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, FEDCAP
REHABILITATION SERVICES, INCORPORATED, WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT;
AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WECARE REGION II, FEDCAP
Mr. COLLINS. Good morning, Chairman Boustany, Ranking
Member Doggett, and distinguished Members of the Committee. I
am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the next phase
of welfare reform.
I am currently the Senior Vice President of Fedcap
Rehabilitation Services, Incorporated's Workforce Development
practice area. Fedcap is an 80-year-old non-profit human
service company that specializes in addressing the economic
well-being of those with barriers to work. My comments today
will center around the provisions found in H.R. 2968 and H.R.
2952 on casework, employment, and retention, as much of what we
do is consistent with these bills.
Fedcap administers a wide range of employment programs,
including placement services for the court-involved individual
re-entering the workforce, placing veterans as well as public
assistance recipients. We also provide employment services for
recipients with a wide range of health claims, which we deliver
through a comprehensive case management model called WeCARE,
Wellness Comprehensive Assessment Rehabilitation and
Employment.
A group often exempted from participation in most States,
each year we place thousands into employment, as we
consistently exceed our contractual goals for job placement,
while also achieving a job retention rate at 6 months of just
over 73 percent. To achieve these outcomes we employ a
strength-based assessment model, where we focus on what our
program participants can do, rather than focusing on their
weaknesses. Engagement really begins with our receptionist.
However, relationship-building is established with our case
managers, whom we refer to as our ambassadors of self-
sufficiency.
Our unique approach to case management begins with a set of
mental tools. Henry Ford once said, ``Whether you think you can
or think you can't, you are right.'' Mr. Ford was referring to
what is commonly known as the Pygmalion Effect, or self-
fulfilling prophecy. In short, what you expect is what you get,
so we expect success and shift paradigms up front. Since we
expect our participants to work, we refer to them as job-
seekers from that point forward.
Core to our success is our belief that, number one, there
are jobs; number two, that people are better off working;
number three, people do want to work. Let me discuss each
briefly.
Number one, there are jobs. We remind our job seekers that,
despite the unemployment rate, one job is all they need, and
that employers have openings.
Number two, people are better off working. There are many
reasons why we work. Work adds to a person's self-esteem, it
improves their lifestyle. Work can provide opportunity and hope
for the future. There is a platform when each of us can add to
an employer's business or to our communities, or advance a
cause, and work is the way we keep our minds and skills sharp.
It is one of the primary ways we manifest our potential. There
is a certain dignity that comes from work that only work can
provide.
And, number three, people want to work. A pathway to the
best job for a person can be reached from taking a job now.
Work is the focus of our initial face-to-face meetings.
Case managers conduct one of several assessments, starting with
an impromptu mock interview on the spot. Within the first few
minutes, we look to see if the job seeker is employer-ready.
With a sense of urgency, we get the job seeker placed
immediately, or track them quickly, often the same day, into a
second, more formal assessment called the Diagnostic Vocational
Evaluation, or DVE. The DVE is a battery of assessment tools
that is designed to help the job seeker understand their work-
based strengths. The outcome of the DVE is the basis for the
development of the job seeker's individual plan for employment,
which includes, among other things, the top three jobs they are
looking to obtain.
The plan is established, agreed upon, and signed by the job
seeker and case manager. We then fortify this with an action
plan that clearly identifies the job seeker's short-term and
long-term goals. The initial work activity, and weekly hours
are assigned, similar to what is proposed in the TANF
reauthorization draft.
Except for a few work activities, most assignments are no
more than 12 weeks in length. To extend the activity beyond 12
weeks, a comprehensive employment plan review and new plan with
new goals must be established. The draft TANF reauthorization
envisions this same approach, meeting every 3 months to review
progress and to determine next steps.
We also provide case management even after employment
begins. Once the individual is employed, we typically meet with
them no less than monthly for up to 6 months. This is
consistent with the focus on the outcomes in the draft, and is
one way to get States to follow recipients after they leave for
work, to make sure they don't come right back.
Personal responsibility is at the core of the TANF program.
Effective case management, regular progress reviews, clear,
practical action plans for employment and retention can often
provide the necessary engagement to help more job seekers
establish their own employment futures.
I, along with the other members of this panel, stand ready
to work with you to make economic independence for America's
neediest families a reality. I would be happy to answer any
questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Collins follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
--------
Chairman BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Collins, and thank you
all for your testimony. We will now go to a question and answer
phase of this hearing. Let me start by asking Ms. Cox a
question.
You have administered the TANF and workforce systems in
your prior role, and you now administer an office focused on
creating more value for every tax dollar invested. And, to me,
that sounds like focusing tax dollars on results, and not just
paying for a process, but to try to really get an outcome, and
hopefully, a favorable outcome.
The TANF statute requires States to ensure 50 percent of
their welfare caseload participates in work or activities. And
while this measures how a State is engaging welfare recipients
in activities while receiving benefits, we don't currently
measure how well the States are doing in helping welfare
recipients leave TANF for work, and hopefully meaningful work.
This discussion draft would reserve a portion of the TANF
block grant to pay States based on their success in achieving
three goals: moving TANF recipients off of welfare into work;
keeping these former welfare recipients in work; and helping
them increase their earnings over time. All, we think, are
laudable goals.
How do you think changing the TANF program from one that
focuses solely on process to one that focuses more on these
types of outcomes might encourage States to move more people
into jobs and really, actually, help them move up the economic
ladder? And what are some of the pitfalls we need to look at,
going forward in this?
Ms. COX. So, what you just said is music to my ears. Having
been in government for a while, I struggle sometimes with the
lack of outcome and accountability that we have on programs
that are being funded by taxpayers, and should have impacts for
people. It can be very process-focused, and very bureaucratic.
And, at the end of the day, we don't know if we have made a
difference or an impact.
So, when we--when I took over the TANF program, it was
completely participation-driven, and there wasn't--what is
her--here, down here, what she talked about, you know, they may
not even have the employment data. So, you know, like I said in
my testimony, we--I said I am not looking at participation. I
want employment outcomes. And it shifted the culture, that that
is what we were about. And then can we design participation
activities that actually lead to employment outcomes, rather
than just sitting people in services, so that we can get the
participation credit? So we are all about that.
A few cautions that I think would be important to continue
to vet. One, the idea--I think it is 30 or 40 percent would be
on increased earnings in the fourth quarter. I don't know if
that is arbitrary, I don't know if the general public
generally, within the fourth quarter, receives increased
earnings or not. I think it is a good aspirational concept to
consider, but I don't know what the trend is in the general
population. Is that within a State's or a provider's ability?
States could potentially game it. You could put them in part-
time employment, knowing that it will move to full-time in the
fourth quarter, so your earnings increase, but you have never
really made a big difference in their actual earnings, long-
term. So there are different ways that that could be gamed, and
I think that is an area that merits consideration.
The lag issue is one of the other issues I would want to
explore. When I budget or do long-term contracts, I look at
ongoing versus one-time funding. And if I don't know if I am
going to have that money in 17 months, I am not sure how to
budget for that. Now, if I am talking a 3 percent, it is, you
know, 3, 3, 4, a total of 10, that is not going to make or
break my budget. But it would potentially impact how I would
set up contracts, et cetera. So working through that lag, and
giving States a little bit more immediate feedback if they are
going to hit that or not is going to be something I think that
we need to continue to discuss and work through.
So there are other issues there, but I don't think any of
them are insurmountable. I would offer this counter-comment. I
like the fact that money may get lost. A lot of our Federal--
maybe nobody else will agree with me on this, but a lot of our
Federal programs threaten lost money. Right? And you go through
a lot of corrective action plans, and yada, yada. But,
generally speaking, there is not a real consequence. There just
isn't. And these funds should be considered precious, scarce
resources, and I think it is fair to say, if people don't
perform, there is a consequence to it. Now, maybe they should
have some technical assistance and a chance to improve. But at
some point there needs to be a real consequence if we are not
performing.
Chairman BOUSTANY. Well, I thank you for bringing the value
of your experience to bear on this. It is really helpful to us.
Mr. Doggett.
Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you very much.
Dr. Pavetti, as you know, the discussion draft leaves open
for discussion this question of how much the States are
devoting to the core purposes of cash aid, child care, and work
activities. How do you feel that should be--that blank should
be filled in, and why?
Ms. PAVETTI. I definitely think that there needs to be a
requirement that States spend a certain share of their funds on
core purposes. And if there isn't, I don't think you will see
meaningful change. There are some States that spend as little
as 1 percent of their TANF funds on work programs. And to
expect that we can increase--reduce poverty if they are
spending so little, I think, is unrealistic.
So, I really think there are two ways. I think one is to
require all States to get there, and to give them sort of a
time to get there. And the other is to--you know, in the draft
bill there already are expectations that States will have to
spend more State money if they don't meet those requirements.
And so that would also be--rather than that--just being able to
go anywhere in the State budget, that that really be directed
to State core purposes.
But I think it is one of the huge failures of TANF, that so
many of the funds have been pulled away from families who
really are the most needy, and this is an opportunity to
reclaim those funds. And it would be a shame if we didn't
actually get those back.
Mr. DOGGETT. When welfare reform was originally approved
back in the nineties, wasn't one of the objectives--and I think
you make reference to this--people would work their way not
only just to work, but to work their way out of poverty, and
work into the middle class? And how well has that objective
been satisfied?
Ms. PAVETTI. So what we know about the work--about work and
earnings among TANF recipients is that, one, we have very
little recent data on employment among TANF recipients. We have
data from the early years, but most States don't collect that
data and don't report it. So we really don't even know where
the starting point is in setting these benchmarks, because we
don't know how many get employed. So that is one thing I think
we need to think about.
But for those who do get employed and start out in low-wage
jobs, there was an expectation that people would move up. But
that is really--if you look at the experiments, you don't see
sort of increases in earnings over time. What you see is some
increases in employment. And where the programs really fall
short is in stable employment.
So, right now there are lots of people who get jobs, but
they don't hold them. And if people are going to increase their
earnings and increase them over time, there are two things that
make a difference. One is holding on to jobs, and the other is
having the education and the skills that are demanded in the
labor market, so that they can move up.
So I think Boyd talked in his testimony about a very
compelling example of why education really does make a
difference. So I think that the education and training--we have
evidence that there is a lag, there is an initial--there is--
that gain isn't immediate. But when you compare people who are
in those training programs, usually 2 years out their earnings
gains are much greater than people who don't participate in
them.
So I think we need to be really encouraging States to move
in that direction.
Mr. DOGGETT. If there are no new dollars, which is the case
with this proposal, no additional funds added, and if a State
can continue to devote only 1 percent to work--in the case of
one of the States you mentioned--how realistic are the
provisions in the bill that there be an individual opportunity
plan and State counseling with the recipient every 3 months?
Ms. PAVETTI. I think that is pretty unrealistic, that
States will be able to do that. I think it is the right thing
to do, but I am not sure how you do it without resources. So I
think that it is really something that needs to be paid
attention to.
I think the other thing that is important is sort of
thinking about--what happens in TANF is that we sort of--we
provide a little bit of services to everybody, including people
who may not need any services, and really thinking about how
can you take what resources are there, and really concentrate
them on the people who need the most help. And I think the work
participation rate, and the way it is designed, and the focus
on hours really does encourage this across the board, serve
everybody, even if they don't need it.
So, I think there is--both we should temper our
expectations, if the money isn't there, but also really think
about can you use the resources that are used better, and not
spread them so thin?
Mr. DOGGETT. You probably covered this already. But, in
short, what do you think are the most important changes that
need to be made in the draft?
Ms. PAVETTI. I think the most important changes--there are
two. I do think that the elimination of the core/non-core
distinction is pretty--is quite important for States, because
it gives them much more flexibility, and it helps on the
education and training aspects. And the other is I think the
movement to outcome measures is hugely important. I don't think
the details are quite right in the draft, and that we really
need to think those through. But I do think actually adding
outcome measures will change the way States think about what
they do, and will change their behavior.
Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman BOUSTANY. Mr. Young.
Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you to all of our
witnesses here today.
I will begin with where I am headed with a question. It
will be addressed to Mr. Kelly of the Salvation Army and Mr.
Brown of Goodwill, and that is, can better casework reduce
poverty and increase employment? Your organizations are on the
front line of our efforts to reduce poverty. As Chairman Ryan
likes to say, ``The Federal Government is the rear guard, but
you are the vanguard of this effort, clearly.''
I am sure those you work with who are receiving TANF
benefits often also receive other benefits and services. I have
experienced this on the ground throughout my State of Indiana.
And in many cases, the individual must meet with multiple case
workers, and visit different offices to receive these benefits
and meet the different requirements of each program. They may
also have to make repeat visits to these various case workers,
as their circumstances change over time.
Now, as I think of the served population, these are people
who lack the resources, they lack the time, oftentimes. They
are under great stress. And moving from caseworker to
caseworker, office to office, through a constellation of
different programs, can not only be mind-numbing, but
problematic and a deterrent, even, to seeking the assistance
that they require.
It is burdensome, it is confusing, it is unworkable, it is
insensitive, it is irresponsible, and unacceptable. So we have
to coordinate our efforts to solve poverty, and that starts
with good casework, to my mind.
And so, this week I introduced the Coordinating Assistance
for TANF Recipients Act. This would provide funds for States to
test better ways of helping recipients move through welfare and
into work and self-sufficiency. This bill, which is now part of
the larger Ways and Means discussion draft we are focusing on
here today, would provide funding to test and evaluate various
efforts along these lines.
So, back to the original question. Mr. Kelly, we will begin
with you, sir. How might supporting more coordinated casework
bring dignity and opportunity to more welfare recipients by
helping them move into work and out of poverty?
Mr. KELLY. Well, first, let me say I think that is a great
observation. And we would add to that that our experience with
those who are living day to day in poverty are suffering from a
severe lack of hope, that they have essentially given up. And
part of that giving-up process is the despair that comes from
going from office to office without, really, a coordinated,
centralized way to help them in the process. So, we would, I
think, be advocates of a more thoughtful, strategic approach to
how we are caring for people.
I would also say we need to help all parties keep in mind
what our actual goal is. Our actual goal is not a job that they
have, either temporarily or part-time or barely allows them to
get through a day. We are looking to move people out of
poverty. I assume that is what everyone's goal is. And you
can't do that without a large amount of coordination, both
within the casework field, and in terms of the involvement of
the client themselves.
Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Brown. Yes, sir.
Mr. BROWN. Thank you for the question, Mr. Young. Actually,
I think you are right on point. And, actually, in Minnesota we
have had several initiatives actually looking at coordinating
casework disciplines. And one I want to particularly mention is
Families Achieving Success Today that was actually part of a
randomized control trial through the U.S. Department of Human
Services, where we were integrating adult mental health,
children's mental health, along with TANF financial worker, the
financial assistance piece, as well as child care, in a
collocated, collaborative effort.
It was a 1-year study, so it showed promising efforts. We
don't have anything beyond that. But we do know that, having
those services together in one spot absolutely improved their
access to--our families' access to services, as well as
improved their outcomes.
One note of caution I would give is that we have been part
of these types of collaborative casework models in the past.
However, they did not include employment, and we did not see
the results that we wanted to see. This particular one,
Families Achieving Success Today, all the providers, whether it
is mental health, whether it is health care, they were all on
board, that employment is what we are trying to achieve with
the families we were serving, and we saw great success with
that. So thank you.
Mr. YOUNG. Perhaps that program will move from the
promising phase to proven, or will identify a variant to that,
will be a better model, and so forth.
I recognize I am out of time, so I will yield back.
Chairman BOUSTANY. I thank the gentleman. Mrs. Noem.
Mrs. NOEM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Collins, I wanted to visit with you about a loophole
that currently exists within the TANF program. And, as you
know, the TANF program states that it must engage 50 percent of
adults on welfare in worker activities related to work. South
Dakota, my home State, does a great job of this, but many other
States are failing to engage to the same level.
Under current rules, the loophole says--it is called the
Excess Spending Loophole--that States can reduce the share of
people they have to engage in work by simply looking for
spending of non-profits, charities, food banks, other third
parties, and the States, and how much they are spending on poor
families. They then add up all this third-party spending, and
report it as if it was actually spending that the State was
engaging in. And, by reporting this excess spending to HHS,
they reduce the number of welfare recipients that they are
required to help.
In fact, in some cases, States have reduced their 50
percent work participation requirement to a 0 percent. And, you
know, through this bill that we have proposed, the TANF
Accountability and Integrity Improvement Act, that I have
introduced and which is a part of this discussion draft that
the Committee has put together on TANF reforms, it would put a
stop to some of those activities.
I was wondering if you could give me some feedback on that
loophole, if you think that these recommendations to fixing
that problem are good in the discussion draft, and if you think
that it will be effective in making sure that some of the
States implement changes that would reflect more of what is
done in my home State of South Dakota?
Mr. COLLINS. Thank you, Congresswoman, for that, and for
your leadership on this particular part of the discussion
draft.
As you are well aware, the current TANF purposes do allow
for such excess maintenance of effort to be applied against the
work participation rate. And, as you rightly mention, there are
numerous ways in which this can be done, including volunteer
hours of Boy Scout leaders, as well as coaches and Shriners
and--it is, really, almost endless, the number of ways in which
the rate can be essentially avoided, by providing all of these
excess maintenance of effort opportunities.
So, I believe this is probably one of the more far-reaching
components of the discussion draft, being able to put a stop to
this. It eviscerated the work participation rate, as we know
it. Whether you agree on what work activities we are to do, the
idea of having to engage with someone is the start of a
conversation that will allow them to propel forward.
If you provide such loopholes, the incentive for States to
really go and reach out to people and engage them productively
goes away. So I think that what has been envisioned for the
discussion draft is exactly what is needed right now.
Mrs. NOEM. While you worked at HHS, did you see some States
engaging in these activities, or some States that were,
potentially, the worst offenders?
Mr. COLLINS. So, to be fair, I would--most States
participated in it to some degree or another. It is
unfortunate, because it really did reduce the work requirement.
I would like to commend all those States, post-DRA, that
actually did meet the 50 percent work participation rate.
I agree with my colleague, Ms. Cox, that the activities
really should be an on-ramp to employment. So it is not really
about putting people in activities for activities sake, but
that, really, the pressure that the rate was supposed to
provide, really, was only 50 percent. And, if you think about
it, that is half. I mean we can do far better than that.
Mrs. NOEM. Yes, I saw you nodding your head. Since I have a
little bit of time left, when they were talking about the
Families Achieving Success program today, did you have some
experience with that program, as well, or some feedback to give
on the success of that study?
Mr. COLLINS. I have just some familiarity with the strong
case management approach that the State of Minnesota takes.
They are very serious about how they engage with participants.
I was nodding my head, because I run a program in New York
City that sees 80,000 people a year that does something very
similar.
Mrs. NOEM. Okay. And it has been a successful program?
Mr. COLLINS. It has been a very successful program. This is
a program where most States would have exempted these
participations altogether, because they pose some health
challenges to the organization. We see that, after 485,000
independent medical assessments we have been able to do over
the 10 years--not my company, but the program itself--half of
everyone can actually work. And a third, while they might be
sick today, can heal, and those too can work, as well. And very
few people end up on Federal disability.
Mrs. NOEM. What was the name of the program in----
Mr. COLLINS. It is called WeCARE, Wellness, Employment,
Comprehensive Assessment, Rehabilitation, and Employment.
Mrs. NOEM. Thank you.
Mr. COLLINS. You are welcome.
Mrs. NOEM. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman BOUSTANY. I thank the gentlelady. We will now go
to Mr. Davis.
Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
thank the witnesses for being here.
You know, I was just thinking that I believe that work is
love made visible. Therefore, I am delighted with the focus of
this hearing. I have advocated for improvements to TANF and the
fatherhood grants to increase the economic well-being of
parents, especially non-custodial fathers, since Fathers Day
2007. The draft bill before us contains many of the tenets of
the Responsible Fatherhood Act, which is supported by numerous
national organizations, including the National Fatherhood
Initiative, Concerned Black Men National, the Center for Family
Policy and Practice, One Hundred Fathers, Incorporated, the
Children's Defense Fund, and others.
I applaud the bill for increasing access to education and
training, and focusing on actual employment, including
subsidized employment. I look forward to working with you, Mr.
Chairman and the Ranking Member, to consider additional
provisions to support non-custodial fathers and families, such
as lifting the 30 percent cap on education, limiting the
marriage penalty for Fiscal Year 2007 until enactment, ensuring
that participation in healthy marriage or fatherhood programs
is voluntary, and making clear to States that they can provide
non-custodial parents the same work supports as custodial
parents.
Further, I would like to work with you, Mr. Chairman and
the Ranking Member, to include provisions that would better
support kinship caregivers. I know that many Members of this
Subcommittee come from States with high percentages of
grandparents raising grandchildren. And I believe Louisiana has
the second-highest percentage of grandchildren in the care of
grandparents in the Nation, with North Carolina, Texas, South
Dakota, Georgia, and Illinois having high rates, as well. I am
preparing to introduce a bill to improve supports for kinship
caregivers, mainly through increased notice, improved data, and
State reporting to improve services and supports within TANF.
Mr. Brown, I know that your organization has been
advocating for fathers' engagement in children and family well-
being. And I hear that your organization works with low-income
fathers, often those with criminal backgrounds, to help them
support their children, both financially and emotionally, and
to provide them skills to become economically self-sufficient
and socially empowered parents and citizens. Could you
elaborate a little bit on that program, and what do you think
Federal funds really do for it, and how might we improve?
Mr. BROWN. Sure. Thank you for the question, Mr. Davis.
Yes. So we have been part of the fatherhood initiative--our
Father Project has been in existence for well over a decade. We
have been funded by the Fatherhood--responsible fatherhood
funding through the Federal Government for the past 5 years,
and been part of the study, as well.
We find that fathers are an important part of the solution
to--for low-income families and moving people out of poverty.
Our work, working with fathers, it is a wide array of services,
including parenting--parenting classes, co-parenting,
relationship-building. Because, even if you don't get along
with your partner, you need to be there for your children. And
so, really working with families on how can they co-parent,
even if they don't get along, or they are not together any
longer, that is a big part of our initiative.
Employment. Of course, we are a workforce development
agency. Employment is a key. We want to increase child support
for the families from the non-custodial, to the custodial
parent, making sure that those children's needs are met. So I
think it is an extremely important part of TANF and moving
people out of poverty. So I commend you on making sure to
include fathers and fatherhood initiatives in the TANF reform.
Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much.
Mr. BROWN. Thank you.
Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am pleased that
each one of the witnesses puts an emphasis on the engagement of
fathers, and I appreciate that very much.
Chairman BOUSTANY. I thank the gentleman. We will go to Mr.
Holding next.
Mr. HOLDING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. During the course of
this year, and the hearings that we have had, and where I have
learned about TANF and some other programs, it is striking how
bureaucracy can somehow get in the way of results. And, under
TANF, States are required to have 50 percent of their caseload
engaged in work or activities to prepare for work. That is, an
adult must be in specified activities, work, job search,
training for a number of hours a week. I have learned that.
But I have also learned, however, there is a marriage
penalty in TANF, and one that encourages States to not serve
two-parent families, and that can penalize individuals on TANF
if they marry. And I am kind of stunned at that. So, under
current TANF law, it establishes a separate, higher
participation standard that applies to two-parent families. So
these families must meet additional work requirements beyond
that of a single-parent family. Of course, we all want two-
parent families.
So, I have introduced the TANF Marriage Penalty Elimination
Act last week to address this issue by ending the separate and
higher requirement for two-parent families. And I am grateful
that this has been included as a provision in our Ways and
Means discussion draft which we released on Friday.
So, first to you, Mr. Kelly, do you think this is a step in
the right direction, to treat single parents and married
parents equally in the TANF program? And can you flesh out why
that is--if you feel so inclined?
Mr. KELLY. I would say, based on our experience, that the
key is to start from wherever that family happens to find
themselves. So we can't start from the premise that, you know,
if it is a single-parent family, well, it would be great if
both parents were there, because that is just not always
possible. And you can't start the other way, either. You always
have to start with where they are.
So, as our caseworkers have met with families that are in
need, you don't go in with a pre-conceived notion of something
that is ideal. You start with where they are, and go from
there. Having said that, I don't think there is any question
that it has been proven to be healthier for children to grow up
in an environment where both parents are involved. You know, we
all have our idea of what the ideal family construct is, but I
think statistics are pretty clear that we are better served
when both are involved.
In our own study, it has become clear that a child that
grows up in poverty is 32 times more likely to be in poverty as
an adult. So, the sooner we begin to engage, the better off we
are going to be. But we would be very supportive of a
philosophy moving forward where we are encouraging involvement
of a two-parent family, but from the perspective of
understanding where people find themselves at that moment when
they come to us, that effective case management is going to be
case management where we identify the needs of the family at
that time, and build an individualized plan that helps them to
move forward.
Mr. HOLDING. Ms. Cox, in the minute that I have remaining,
if and why do you think it is important that we take measures
to eliminate the marriage penalty, and ensure that TANF is
supporting or encouraging two-parent families?
Ms. COX. Absolutely, we think it is going in the right
direction.
The one question I have around this, though, is if you
want--you know, tell me how you measure me, and I will tell you
how I behave. Right? So, if in the outcome measures that you
are going to be looking at, how do you count leaving TANF for
increased income because of marriage? And I think that is a
point to think through, as we look at performance measures, and
making sure that, if people leave because of that--and we want
to encourage that--that States aren't penalized because of that
in the actual denominator-numerator formula in the performance
measures.
Mr. HOLDING. Good, thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman BOUSTANY. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Dold, you
are recognized.
Mr. DOLD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I certainly want to
thank you for holding this important hearing. I want to thank
our witnesses for your testimony and for your insights. We
certainly appreciate that.
I believe--and, Ms. Cox, you stated in your testimony that
work is--well, it is transforming lives. And I believe that the
best way out of poverty is a job. And while moving welfare
recipients into employment is the central goal of TANF, some
welfare recipients have a difficult time transitioning from
welfare into work.
In some cases, employers may be reluctant to hire welfare
recipients if they have limited work experience or other
barriers to work. That is why I recently introduced the
Accelerating Individuals Into the Workforce Act. This bill,
which now has been incorporated into the larger TANF discussion
draft which we are reviewing today, would provide funds for
States to test methods of subsidizing employment for TANF
recipients to better help these individuals find jobs and
become self-sufficient.
In addition to providing funds for subsidized jobs, the
bill requires a high-quality evaluation of each project to
determine whether the project was effective in helping welfare
recipients move into and stay in work.
Mr. Collins, do you think that providing short-term partial
wage subsidies to employers might be a way to encourage them to
hire welfare recipients and keep them as employees over the
long term?
Ms. Cox, if you have something to say, you can jump in
there, too, and then we will go right back to Mr. Collins.
Ms. COX. Oh, okay, sorry. We actually did a study to look
at what participation activities correlated to employment
outcomes. And this was on the top four, ``Subsidized
Employment.'' Again, my caution is not to do it for government
entities. And, you know, it should go to the private sector,
for sure.
But the other piece to be aware of is WOTC, the Work
Opportunity Tax Credit that employers could already benefit
from, from getting certain populations that are vulnerable into
employment. So how to subsidize employment, correlate or work
with WOTC, so that some employers aren't double-dipping. Just
something to be mindful of, as well.
Mr. DOLD. Okay. Mr. Collins.
Mr. COLLINS. Congressman, the details on that will matter.
I will tell you one of my biggest concerns is presenting
someone to an employer as if, for example, they are a
discounted individual. So we would have to be careful about how
that subsidy is represented for that individual. Most employers
have told me over the years that they are just looking for
somebody who wants to work, and they are less concerned about
the credits and such that go along with the individual if they,
in fact, can do the work.
So, I think it is a great opportunity, as I do many other
work activities. There is more than one way to get there.
Mr. DOLD. Sure.
Mr. COLLINS. So I think having subsidized employment be a
part of the arsenal, if you will, is a great opportunity.
Mr. DOLD. Well, so, can you talk to me a little bit more
about some of those other barriers? I mean, obviously, I am a
small business person, and obviously, what we find is once
people get in, and you have an opportunity to take a look at
how they are working, they do a great job. What are some of the
barriers in trying to get some of these people that are down on
their luck into the workforce, so that they have that
opportunity?
Mr. COLLINS. It is a great question. Most of it is their
self-view, whether or not they believe that an employer will be
willing to accept their background, or whether or not they have
enough education. A lot of it is the perception of how they see
themselves.
If we are able to get them to overcome that, whether it is
through on-the-job training and/or subsidized employment, or
whatever form of engagement, really, all we are trying to do is
to get them, really, to see themselves in a different light,
and one in which they understand what employers are looking
for, and then be able to sort of show those skills and
abilities at that point. On-the-job practices, which I would
refer to subsidized employment as being, is a great way to do
that.
Mr. DOLD. Well, and part of that--really, what we are
trying to do is we are trying to make sure that there is an
easy on-ramp into employment. And giving employers an
opportunity to say there are training costs that are going to
go into there, and that on-the-job training is potentially some
of the best, that is really what, hopefully, this program is
trying to do. What would you anticipate some of the complaints
or some of the issues from some small businesses to be?
Mr. COLLINS. I would be concerned about the cliff effect of
what would happen after the subsidy ran out, and whether or not
they are willing to continue the employment of that individual,
or if--whether or not they would be interested in, essentially,
going and finding another individual who came with a subsidy.
Because it does keep their costs down.
So, again, it is all in the details of how this gets rolled
out, so that we avoid that. But that would be my biggest
concern.
Mr. DOLD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has expired.
Chairman BOUSTANY. The gentleman's time has expired. We
will go to Mr. Crowley next.
Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank
you with the full sincerity--I think I can speak for the entire
side of my aisle--for holding this hearing today, and for
working in a bipartisan way on the discussion draft that was
released last week. So thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There are a lot of improvements we can make to the TANF
program. But for too long now, we have just been simply
renewing it with short-term extensions. So I appreciate the
chance to take a serious look at what we can do and do better.
There is some good progress in the discussion draft, as I
said. It moves the focus of the program more significantly
toward actual poverty reduction. And I am glad that the bill
includes some of the program improvements that my Democratic
colleagues and I have been advocating for years now. But I have
to say that I am disappointed at what is not in the bill, and
namely no new funding for child care.
Child care can make the difference that enables a parent to
work, put food on the table, and lift themselves and their
families out of poverty, knowing that their child is being
adequately cared for. We have had a lot of focus on work
participation in TANF. But, as I have said before, work
participation has to go hand in hand with ensuring there is
adequate access to child care. Working parents need to know
that their children are being safely cared for while they are
looking for work or are working.
Dr. Pavetti, do you agree that a greater investment in
child care would be a significant help to move people out of
poverty through the TANF program?
Ms. PAVETTI. Absolutely. I think that, for many families--
and it really varies by State, how much States have devoted
their resources to child care, but in some places there is a
long waiting list for child care, and families can't get child
care to be able to go to work. And I think, without it, we are
putting kids at risk, and we are making it so much harder for
families to do what they want to do, which is either to go to
school or to go to work to be able to provide for their
families.
So, I think child care is absolutely essential, and I agree
with you, that there is a desperate need for more resources to
actually fund child care.
Mr. CROWLEY. And would you agree that child care should be
considered as part of a TANF reauthorization?
Ms. PAVETTI. Yes, because I think that it is hard to sort
of imagine that you are going to put more people to work, and
you don't have more funds for child care, because it just
doesn't add up that you can--you know, child care is much more
costly than grants, so you can't just say instead of being on
TANF they will get child care. It just doesn't work.
So, it will create a bottleneck, and it will make--again,
it will put kids at risk. Because if families feel that they
have to go to work, and they don't have the adequate child
care, they will piece it together, and it is the kids in the
families who will be harmed by that.
Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you. The child care assistance provided
by TANF and other Federal programs is critical. In the majority
of States, including my home State of New York, child care
costs an average of more than the cost of a year at college.
The Federal assistance provided through TANF is a tremendous
help to working families, who still pay almost 60 percent of
the cost of child care.
But the Federal investment of child care assistance has
failed to keep pace with the need and, in fact, is serving
fewer children today than it did in the last decade. I have
authored the Child First Act to increase the Federal investment
in child care, and to close this gap. I will soon be
reintroducing this legislation, which will provide the funding
needed to serve more than 2.6 million children over 10 years,
as recommended in the President's budget. This funding is an
investment in successful child care programs, yes. But also in
the parents and families that are trying their hardest to lift
themselves out of poverty.
Now, I know some might claim we can't add new funding. But
those objections didn't stand in the way when my colleagues on
the other side added $610 billion to the deficit through
permanent tax cuts for businesses without being paid for. If we
want to seriously help families find work and escape poverty,
then we should seriously consider increasing child care funding
as a part of this reauthorization.
I hope my colleagues on the Subcommittee and the full
Committee will look at this issue very closely. I look forward
to working with all of you on this, and on other areas in need
of improvement, such as further improving access to vocational
education and lifting barriers that block hard-working legal
immigrant families from participating in these programs.
Let's take this opportunity and really improve, strengthen,
and move the TANF program forward for today's families. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman BOUSTANY. I thank the gentleman. His time has
expired, and we will go to Mr. Smith next.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The TANF program
currently has four purposes, which are generally to provide
help to needy families; independence from welfare through job
preparation, work, and marriage; to prevent unmarried births;
and, four, to encourage the formation and support of two-parent
families. While each of these purposes touches on poverty, none
explicitly sets a goal for the program to reduce poverty by
promoting work, instead of simply treating the symptoms of
poverty day to day.
That is why, last week, I introduced the Reducing Poverty
Through Employment Act, to explicitly highlight the connection
between poverty reduction and work. My bill would add a new
purpose to TANF, which is to reduce poverty by increasing
employment entry, retention, and advancement. The same
provision is also in the larger TANF discussion draft that is
the focus of the hearing today.
Mr. Brown, you talk about the importance of employment
goals, and how setting these goals helps people escape poverty
over the long term. Do you think adding this purpose to TANF
will help others put a greater focus on employment, as well?
Mr. BROWN. Thank you for the question, Mr. Smith. Yes, I do
agree with you. Both professionally and personally I have
dedicated my career to helping people move out of poverty, and
I think TANF is definitely an important part of that. However,
what I would say is that TANF is really a small part of the
solution, because most people coming off of TANF are not out of
poverty.
What I would like to really look at in your language is
around entry, retention, and advancement. I think those are
key, you are correct, entry into employment, retention, and
advancement. With TANF, people, when they make a certain amount
of income, they go off. And a lot of times the retention and
advancement is missing. And we need to dedicate more time, more
resources to really working with them to help them advance,
continue to move on that career pathway.
The other thing I would suggest in regard to this is
education and training is key to moving people out of poverty.
So, in addition to employment, retention, and advancement, I
would say that education and training is also a key component
to getting people to really--to family-sustaining wages. So
thank you.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman BOUSTANY. The gentleman yields back. We will next
go to Mr. Renacci.
Mr. RENACCI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
allowing me to be part of this hearing. And I want to thank the
witnesses, also, for being here and for your testimony.
Mr. Brown, your story about Elizabeth kind of touched home,
because I was--I had met with Stark--or actually, Summit County
Department of Jobs and Family Services, which is a large county
in my district. I met with their Executive Director because he
had indicated to me that it was very difficult to meet some of
the requirements of TANF, but it is also very difficult when
many of these individuals don't have their GED, and there is
the education requirement.
So we know the current TANF law really requires States to
engage 50 percent of adults on welfare in certain work
activities, and some activities only count for certain people,
or for a brief period of time. In addition, if someone works 1
hour less than a number required, the State gets no credit for
that person's participation at all. And these were kind of the
issues that he brought up to me, and that his staff brought up
to me.
Last week I introduced a Preparing More Welfare Recipients
for Work Act, which is folded into the larger Committee
discussion draft that would address this by making a number of
changes, such as giving States partial credit for individuals
who participate for less than the full hours required under
current law; eliminating some of the restrictions on how long
participation in certain activities can count toward the State
requirement; and allowing participation in some educational
activities to count for more individuals and for longer periods
than under current law, which I think is really important, and
touches somewhat on your Elizabeth's story, Mr. Brown.
Do you think this added flexibility would help you better
serve those families you are serving now?
Mr. BROWN. Yes, I would absolutely agree with you, that
this is definitely a step in the right direction. However, what
I would say also is, beyond just more flexibility, we really
want to focus more on outcomes.
So, for example, if someone is in education, they are in a
community college or they are working on a GED, we are really
focusing on those education hours. So we are counting those
hours, getting logs in on those hours. How important, really,
is that? Really, what is important is what kind of progress are
they making in that education. Are they finishing those
classes? Are they getting credits? Are they getting those
degrees, or completing those degrees? We really want to focus
what we are doing on progress and outcomes versus process.
The other thing I would mention is that, even with that
flexibility and the activities that you are asking us to do,
one of the other things that that leads to is just more
documentation and verification of those activities. It doesn't
alleviate that concern. When 53 percent of our counselors' time
is really chasing after documentation and verification of those
activities, that leaves a lot less time to really be looking at
what does this person need to gain self-sufficiency, to meet
those employment goals.
So, really, what I would like to see is that, if you are
going to ask us to report back on activities, it is more on
what really matters. How are they approaching and progressing
and meeting those goals?
Employment is another example. So they are out job
searching. What does that really tell us, unless we know what
are those leads, what employers have they actually connected
with and interviewed with? What employers have our counselors
engaged with that can lead to employment with those folks? Just
verifying hours is not helpful in meeting those families'
goals.
Mr. RENACCI. Mr. Kelly, your thoughts on some of the
flexibility?
Mr. KELLY. I think, as referenced earlier, that we have
seen significant improvements in the education field, based
predominantly on some flexibility and the ability to create
individual progress plans for people. I don't know how we can
get away from that as being one of the significant steps as we
move forward. So some of that flexibility, I think, is
absolutely required.
I think everybody sitting at the panel has used the word
``outcomes'' and ``accountability'' in some form. So even those
of us who feel as though some additional assistance is
necessary or can be tinkered with in one way or the other, we
are all in agreement that we should run this in a highly
professional, businesslike way, and you can't do that without
having significant accountability steps in place.
So, we need outcome measures, clearly-defined outcome
measures, but not without enough flexibility to help the
individual needs of the people involved.
Mr. RENACCI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman BOUSTANY. I thank the gentleman.
At this time I would like to take a moment to congratulate
our current Legislative Assistant on the Subcommittee, Levi
Stoep. Levi is leaving us today to begin law school. And, Levi,
I just want to say well done, and best of luck for the future.
Thank you for the great work.
I want to thank all of you for being here today to provide
testimony before the Subcommittee. It has been very, very
valuable in our efforts to move forward in this TANF
reauthorization. I want to thank the Members for their
participation and the great work in putting this legislative
draft together.
Members may have additional questions that come up, and we
will submit those in writing. And we would ask that you try to
respond within 2 weeks so we can make this part of the
completed record.
And, with that, the Subcommittee now stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:58 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Submissions for the Record follow:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]