Copyright 2002 eMediaMillWorks, Inc.
(f/k/a Federal
Document Clearing House, Inc.)
Federal Document Clearing House
Congressional Testimony
April 11, 2002 Thursday
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 4679 words
COMMITTEE:
HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS
SUBCOMMITTEE:
HUMAN RESOURCE
HEADLINE: WELFARE OVERHAUL PROPOSALS
TESTIMONY-BY: PAT ALBRIGHT,
AFFILIATION: EVERY MOTHER IS A WORKING MOTHER,
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
BODY: Statement of
Pat Albright, Every Mother is a Working Mother, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania (Former Welfare Recipient)
Testimony Before the
Subcommittee on Human Resources of the House
Committee on Ways and Means
Hearing on Welfare Reform Reauthorization Proposals
April 11,
2002
Background and Overview
The Every Mother Is A Working
Mother Network (EMWM) is submitting our recommendations below in response to
your solicitation of comments on the Reauthorization of the
TANF Program Authority. EMWM is a multi-racial, grassroots
community-based network of mothers and other caregivers campaigning to establish
that raising children and caring work is work, and that the time mothers spend
raising their children, and the economic value of their work should be included
in the right to welfare and other resources.
Our testimony is not
attempting to be "professional"; we are speaking from our experience and our
hearts. Everyday we live the impact of welfare "reform". We in EMWM are not part
of the advocacy sector or poverty lobby; we do not have a staff/client
relationship with anyone. We are not paid professional organizers; we are
volunteers. We are unfunded, and independent; we are not aligned with any
political party. Some of us are or have been on welfare and/or other benefits;
some of us have disabilities; some are single mothers; some are grandmothers;
all of us are carers and so we all have a personal stake in the valuation of the
caring work of mothers in welfare benefits. We care deeply about those we care
for and suffer greatly as a result of the tremendous devaluation of caring for
children and others that we see rampant in policy, the media and other areas of
society.
EMWM held a series of Community Dialogues on welfare reform on
the East and West Coasts in July 2001 where a new grassroots movement announced
itself, demanding the right of mothers to raise our own children. We are now
holding "teach-ins" in several cities on both coasts bringing together moms and
other carers on welfare with other members of the community under the banner
"Invest in Caring Not Killing".
In our experience,
TANF
has greatly neglected the profound importance of the bonding and nurturing
between mothers and our children. It has neglected the importance of the choice
to breastfeed. It has ignored the research that establishes that not only in the
early years of life, but also as teenagers, children need their mothers, and
that reduction in mother/child time has negatively impacted the development,
emotionally and otherwise, of our children. It has by-passed the obvious: that
as mothers we are in the best position to determine if and when our children are
ready to be cared for outside the home or by a non-custodial parent. It has
treated the relationship between mothers and children as standing in the way of
the glory of what is really important: a job outside the home, as though the job
of caring for one's own children is a nuisance. What kind of society is it that
ignores these very basic human rights, of a child to a mother's care and of a
mother to care for her own child or to determine under what circumstances others
should care for them? Within this context, we cannot take seriously any talk of
"family values" from those at the helm of HHS. There is a double standard at
play here and one that is grounded both in racism and in discrimination against
caregivers. Welfare "reform" clearly establishes that only those who can afford
to should be able to care for their own children and since 2/3 of those
receiving benefits are women and children of color, the racist implications
should be obvious.
For those of us who have been forced out to waged
work, the conditions that we have to leave our children under are undermining to
both our children and those who care for them. In California, for example, the
infant/adult ratio in infant care centers ranges from 3-1 or 4-1. We consider
this promoting child abuse. Since when is one adult able to nurture, hold,
cuddle, sing to, and comfort three or four babies at the same time? No wonder
pediatricians can tell which babies have been in infant care from the so-called
"flat-head" syndrome resulting from long hours of lying in a crib. Even walkers
are often not allowed and babies are stuck lying around all day without the kind
of one- on-one love and care that only a mother or main caregiver can provide.
And the pay of childcare providers is an insult; for a relative care provider,
it is often below the minimum wage. This is not to say that mothers should not
have the choice to work outside the home and access to quality childcare, but it
must be a mother's choice and not a mandate and the conditions of care and the
pay of the workers must be greatly improved.
In addition, there has been
no consideration whatsoever of the care of sick children. How can policy that
impacts children be made without considering that children get sick? And why
should a mother have to choose between welfare "reform" mandates, the time clock
and being there to care for her sick child? This is abusive to both child and
mother. Anyone who has had to be away from a sick child must know the kind of
worry and concern that distracts one from any other task at hand. Every life is
of value, including the lives of mothers on welfare and our children. Our
children are not cars to be parked in a garage. They are fragile, curious,
vibrant beings full of need and potential and they have every right to our care.
And the 30 minutes or less of waking time that mothers with infants who are in
mandated-work activities tells the story of the failure of the Department of
Health and Human Services to either provide health or be humane.
Mothers
on welfare also have every right to choose to work outside the home and when we
do, we must have pay equity, quality childcare of our choice, protection from
discrimination and
education and training of our choice.
EMWM is determined in our resolve. We are well aware that the aim of
welfare "reform" was to instill in us that we have no entitlement to resources
to care for our own children. We hope that you are aware that there is a growing
grassroots movement in this country and around the world for the valuation of
caring work. The valuation of caring work is a unifying issue and brings support
from those not on welfare to those who are. We are fed up with caregivers being
ignored by government and professional advocates. As mothers and grandmothers,
we are insisting that we, who produce all the workers in this country and the
world, be no longer ignored and by-passed. Those of us who are trained to kill
in the army receive economic support, but those of us who give and sustain life
are not. And those carers who are most vulnerable, single mothers on welfare,
must have the economic support needed to care for themselves and their children
on the basis of the caring work they do. Our experience has been that the poorer
we are the harder we are forced to work, and for too long mothers on welfare
have had the impossible task of trying to make a dollar out of fifteen cents.
EMWM is coordinated by the Wages for Housework Campaign (WFH) which
after close to three decades has put the valuation of caring work on national
and international agendas. WFH founded and coordinated the International Women
Count Network of more than 1, 200 Non-Governmental Organizations world-wide
which succeeded in winning UN resolutions calling for governments to measure and
value unwaged work (including care giving work) in satellite accounts of the
GDP. WFH also worked with the Congressional Black Caucus which in 1993
introduced the "Unremunerated Work Act" which received bi-partisan support and
called for unwaged work to be measured and valued. The US Dept of Labor,
specifically the BLS has held at least one international conference on the
valuation of caring and other unwaged work in addition to other efforts to
implement the UN decision. Another document we suggest HHS reviews is the
Platform for Action passed at the first US Women's Conference held in Houston
Texas in 1977, specifically the "Women, Welfare and Poverty" resolution which
was written by grassroots activists including at least two past presidents of
the National Welfare Rights Organization along with WFH. We urge HHS to review
the above-mentioned documents in preparing your recommendations to fix welfare
"reform".
Summary of Recommendations
1.The work done by mothers
or other caregivers raising children is a valuable contribution to the economy
and society and should be reflected in welfare benefits. Mothers, grandmothers
and other caregivers must not be required to work outside the home as a
condition of receiving benefits. Mothering is real work; what we lack are real
resources.
2.Mothers who choose to work outside the home should be
entitled to pay equity, affordable quality childcare of choice, paid
breastfeeding breaks (in accordance with the International Labor Organization),
and protections from sexual harassment, and other job supports.
3.Welfare benefits must be increased and indexed to the cost of living.
4.Time limits on receiving welfare benefits must be eliminated.
5.Mothers must not be required to identify the father or sue for child
support as a condition of receiving benefits.
6.Women must not be pushed
into marriage.
7.Mothers receiving benefits should have the right to
education and training of choice, including the right to attend
a four-year college. Participation in
education and training
should be counted as work activity.
8.No discrimination in access to
benefits, including based on immigration status, race, disability, criminal
record, or sexual preference.
9.Federal legislation on welfare should
include national standards, protections and guidelines that states must abide
by.
Rationale and Discussion
1. The work done by mothers or
other caregivers raising children is a valuable contribution to the economy and
society and should be reflected in welfare benefits. Mothers should not be
required to work outside the home as a condition of receiving benefits.
Caregivers are the heart of the economy, yet are ignored and
discriminated against in welfare and other policy. Caring is vital to the
survival and welfare of every community and every society. Mothers and other
carers are entitled to welfare on the basis of how much the caring work we do is
worth to society. Mothers, including mothers on welfare, are the first carers
and women remain the main carers. We give birth to, feed and care for all in
society. Yet beyond lip service this 24-hour-a-day job is devalued or not valued
at all by government and industry. As a result, not only mothers but caring
itself and the people we have raised are devalued and our needs ignored.
Many mothers are forced out to a second or third job, even though our
children need us. Children as young as six weeks old are deprived of the love,
care and attention they need and are entitled to. And mothers-exhausted by the
double or triple day of waged work on top of unwaged work-are deprived of the
time and energy we would like to put into our children. Increasingly we are
forced to give up breastfeeding, denying children the best and most natural food
in favor of formula, or to keep our children quiet with Ritalin, Prozac or other
highly addictive drugs-we are asked to be more available to the job market than
to our children. It is unbearable that the richest and most powerful country in
the world invests in the military and everything else it seems while it has no
money for caring for children and others who need care.
According to the
State of the World's Children 2001 a key UN goal is for states to "develop
national and child and family policies that allow parents increased time to meet
their child-rearing responsibilities and that encourage family-given childcare.
A survey released Oct 22, 2001 by the After School Alliance in the US has found
that nearly 40% of US teens have no adult supervision after school. 75% of teens
report that they are more afraid after school hours of being a victim of
violence or crime. The National Center for Laity has noted in its October 2001
issue that in the US there is no economic incentive for a parent to be home to
care for his or her own children. They observe that the government subsidizes
childcare outside the home or gives a tax deduction if someone else cares for
your child in your home, but gives no allotment if you provide the care
yourself.
According to the NGO Families International, more family
members have to work more hours outside the home which has eroded the well being
of families. Parents have experienced much higher levels of stress and tension.
The report further states: "When parents cannot be "present" . . . to their
children, it results in diminished support . . . diminished attention to their
accomplishments, hopes, fears, problems and questions."
There is growing
national and international support for the work of raising children and other
caring work to be recognized as work, in response to women ourselves demanding
that our work be counted. Many economists, statisticians and other academics
have done studies documenting the amount of time women spend raising children
and doing other unwaged work and the importance of the contribution of this work
to the functioning of society, too numerous to list here. In 1995, after an
international mobilization spearheaded by EMWM's coordinating group, at the
United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, the US and other
governments agreed to measure and value women's unwaged work and to include its
value in national statistical data and satellite accounts of the Gross Domestic
Product. The 1995 UN resolution strengthened one previously won by WFH in 1985
at the UN Mid-Decade Conference held in Nairobi. Kenya during the Reagan
administration. The 1995 agreement is considered by many to be the most
important macroeconomic decision to emerge from the UN Conferences on women, but
the US has yet to take steps to implement it. On the contrary, current welfare
policy under
TANF is in violation of, and in opposition to,
this agreement in that it dis-counts the work of mothers raising children, and
mandates that mothers' work outside the home for 30 hours or more per week as a
condition of receiving benefits.
Caring work is highly skilled. Mothers
have to do simultaneous tasks to get the job done, a skill usually associated in
industry with management. In May 1999, the Wall Street Journal reported a study
that found that the "multi-tasking" work done by a mother is valued at
$
500,000 a year. Economists have developed various models of
calculating the value of a mother's work, based on the many different jobs, the
number of hours and the prevailing market wage for those jobs if done by another
person. On a global level, the United Nations estimates that the value of
women's unwaged work is $
11 trillion (1995 figures). By
contrast, welfare benefits force women and children to live far below the
poverty line, and are in part responsible for the fact that women are the
majority of the poor in this country.
Economically rewarding those who
do caring work already has some precedents. In Montana and Minnesota, mothers
are paid for caring for their infants full-time, out of funds that the states
have allotted for childcare. In California, family members can be paid by the
county as homecare workers to care for low-income elderly or disabled relatives.
The Clinton administration's proposal that parents have the option of drawing
unemployment benefits while staying home to care for small children was picked
up by six states. And in most industrialized countries, including Canada, all
mothers are eligible to receive a family allowance or child benefit that is not
means-tested, in recognition of the reality that mothers need and have a right
to economic support. In addition, low-income mothers receive welfare. Nearly all
countries, including some of the poorest in the world, have a policy of paid
maternity leave: the United States is one of only six countries surveyed by the
UN that has no such policy. And most give a subsidy for breastfeeding.
2. Mothers who choose to work outside the home should be entitled to pay
equity, affordable quality childcare of choice, paid breastfeeding breaks (as
recommended by the International Labor Organization), protections from sexual
harassment and other job supports.
Welfare reform has contributed to the
widening pay gap between women and men, according to some economists. Women in
full-time year-round employment earn 72% of what men earn; for African- American
women the figure is 62%, and for Latina women 52%. Most women, because we are
responsible also for raising children, work in part-time temporary jobs where
the wages are even lower, and the benefits non-existent. Welfare reform denies
our right to choose whether or not to breastfeed and to otherwise nurture our
babies and older children. Mothers of young children report having less than 30
minutes a day of waking time with our babies. This will get worse when the time
on the 60-month time clock for receiving benefits runs out and we will be left
destitute with no safety net.
Even a recent HHS report found that only
l.5 million of the 9.9 million children who are eligible for childcare subsidies
receive it. Studies have also shown that childcare is the third greatest expense
for families with children between 3 and 5 years old, after housing and food;
and that a family of three earning $
15,000 spends between 24
and 45% of their income on childcare. Most families use informal care, often by
a grandmother, and welfare "reform" expects grandmothers after a lifetime of
raising their own children to be available to care for grandchildren for free or
for below the minimum wage. Low-income grandmothers are already living below the
poverty level on the pittance provided by SSI.
3. Welfare benefits
should be increased and indexed to the cost of living.
Welfare benefits
have nowhere near kept up with the rate of inflation and increases in the cost
of living. Cuts in welfare means more women and children living in poverty, and
more of us homeless, dead, or turning to prostitution or otherwise
"criminalized" trying to feed our kids. Welfare reform has put our lives and the
lives of our children in jeopardy: we are pushed to the limit financially,
physically and emotionally. We hold HHS accountable for the thousands of mothers
and children who are now destitute as a result of welfare reform. Thousands more
are among the welfare "disappeared" - no one knows what has happened to them,
but they are often counted as part of the welfare "success story" simply because
they are no longer on the welfare rolls.
4. Time limits on receiving
welfare benefits must be eliminated.
Time limits are punitive and
prevent caregivers from carrying out their responsibilities to children. It is
up to mothers, not the government, to say when a child is no longer in need of a
mother's full-time care. The clock runs in times of economic crisis when waged
work is scarce. The clock runs when a child is sick and needs a mother's care.
No woman can control when she will be in need of benefits. Most of us are just a
man away from welfare. The time clock is an intimidation keeping many of us in
abusive relationships and vulnerable to emotional and physical violence for fear
of complete destitution. The clock does not recognize the value of a mother's
time caring for her family. Time limits are running out for many women just when
the economy is in a steep downturn and layoffs are massively increasing. Without
a safety net, what are women to do? By 2002 1.3 million people, most of whom are
single mothers will be destitute.
Communities of color are at even
greater risk of crisis as unemployment in Black communities, for example, is
double that of white communities. In addition, a higher percentage of people of
color are ineligible for unemployment benefits: their jobs are more likely to be
part-time, temporary or seasonal. Welfare provided the only unemployment benefit
available to many in those situations, but now that is gone. In rural areas
including on Native reservations, waged work just isn't there. And particularly
in those communities wages don't follow from work. People need to be paid for
work they are doing that is now unwaged. Without such efforts, there is bound to
be increased destitution, homelessness, and ill health, not only physical but
emotional; with communities of color hardest hit, reinforcing a racist
hierarchy.
5. Mothers must not be required to identify the father or sue
for child support as a condition of receiving benefits.
Under current
regulations, a woman is mandated to name the father of her child and sue him for
child support whether she wants to or not, with all or most of the money going
to the welfare department, not to her or the child. Many mothers, including
lesbian mothers, do not want the father to have any part in their lives or their
children's, often because he is abusive or uncaring; others have worked out
their own arrangements. Women in domestic violence shelters say that women often
turn to welfare as their only way to leave violent men. To force such women to
have contact with these men is to set up women and children for further rape and
abuse.
6. Women must not be pushed into marriage.
We are aware
of the so-called "family formation" agenda being promoted by some in the Bush
administration, most notably Wade Horn, as the "solution" to women's poverty.
Multi-million dollar programs are proposed to promote marriage and the
involvement of fathers. We are all for loving relationships and everyone's right
to marry (including lesbian women and gay men), but not for women to be forced
into marriage, under the threat that their benefits will be cut or reduced. We
want to marry for love, not for money, and men want to know that we are with
them because we love them, not because of the money they earn. Women have fought
for several decades for our right to be financially independent of men, and have
established the importance of having money of our own as the first line of
defense against complete dependence and starvation, and as a protection against
violence against ourselves and our children. We have also fought for the right
to not have to marry. We do not intend to have the clock turned back to the dark
ages where women had to submit to sex for a bit of housekeeping money. This
official proposal is only a step away from sexual trafficking in women, which we
do not believe most people in the US would endorse.
7. Mothers receiving
benefits should have the right to
education and training of
choice, including the right to attend a four-year college. Participation in
education and training should be counted as work activity.
Welfare "reform" takes us back more than two decades on access to
education and training which could make a real difference to
women's ability to obtain jobs with income levels above the poverty line. In
addition, mothers on welfare must have the same right as anyone else to pursue
higher
education. In the 1970s, students on welfare in the SEEK
program at the City University of New York pressed for and won the right to
receive both welfare and student stipends to attend a four-year college without
one reducing the level of the other. Under welfare reform, mothers are not
allowed at all to pursue a four-year college
education. This is
a violation of our human rights. Women are exhausted raising children, working
at low-waged jobs, and trying to pursue a degree. One woman was so exhausted and
so pressed to meet her next deadline that her judgment was impaired as she
stepped out on the highway after her car broke down and was killed. Being a
student is in itself a full-time job on top of the work of being a mother and
should be acknowledged as such.
8. No discrimination in access to
benefits, including based on immigration status, race, disability, or sexual
preference.
We oppose any denial of benefits based on immigration
status. The United States is, after all, a country of, and built by, immigrant
people. Nearly one-fourth of all children of immigrants live in poverty. They
account for 23% of all poor children in the US. Two-thirds of welfare recipients
are now women and children of color. Our experience has been that women of color
are receiving the worst treatment in relation to work assignments, access to
information and services like childcare. This is on top of the institutional
racism in the waged labor market, resulting in Black and Latina women receiving
the lowest wages, and in every other area of life. Some of the most punitive
components of welfare reform - for example "family cap" policies - are in states
that have the highest proportion of women of color receiving benefits. Women
with disabilities who are supposed to be exempt, in many cases are being forced
into work assignments, and there is at least one documented case in New York
City where a woman died as a result. We have also learned from our network in
Wisconsin that women with disabilities have received the worst job placements -
the jobs that were left to women unable to be hired in the private sector - and
are working under conditions like the poorhouse of the past. Welfare "reform"
also denies the work of disability where caring for oneself is a full-time job.
Being forced to name their child's father, who may in fact be a sperm donor, and
facing the possibility of losing custody of children to the state by a social
worker who declares them "unfit" is discriminatory against lesbian mothers. In
other cases, the father may seek custody on the basis that if he is going to
pay, he is entitled to raise the child. Many lesbian and gay young people,
thrown out by parents, are facing homelessness and turn to prostitution to
survive because welfare reform requires those under 18 to live at home to
receive benefits.
9. Federal legislation on welfare should include
national standards, protections and guidelines that states cannot waive out of.
The legal right of states to enslave and segregate was fought over and
defeated in the Civil War and the civil rights movement, but welfare "reform"
gives power back to individual states. Are women, many Black and Latina women,
in sections of the country with the highest rates of rural and inner city
poverty, to be at the mercy of a local white male racist establishment? Are we
to tolerate policies such as
TANF which promote disparities in
standards of living in different parts of the country? We say no to these, and
no to any other policies which attempt to eliminate federal standards,
protections and guidelines and turn back the clock to 1863.
Finally, we
are alarmed at the reauthorization process thus far. The HHS "Listening
Sessions" have been government behind closed doors: a few are handpicked to
testify and in some instances half of the slots are given to the likes of the
Heritage Foundation. In other so-called open "listening sessions" held only
after protests on both coasts, the testimony is token, bypassed by top HHS
officials and not even taped. This is not acceptable. HHS gives the impression
that they are listening when in fact the voices of mothers on welfare are being
shut out and shut up. We also want to know what is to happen to written
testimony, particularly from grassroots networks like ours who do not have the
money to hire experts to spend months writing testimony, and who don't have paid
lobbyists on the hill. We are the experts, we and our children are living
examples of the discriminatory effect of welfare "reform," and we are demanding
that our testimony is considered with seriousness and respect, and that our
concerns be reflected in the recommendations for reauthorization by HHS.
LOAD-DATE: May 1, 2002