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: 1672 words
COMMITTEE:
HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS
SUBCOMMITTEE:
HUMAN RESOURCE
HEADLINE: WELFARE OVERHAUL PROPOSALS
TESTIMONY-BY: DENNIS J. KUCINICH,, REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE
AFFILIATION: STATE OF OHIO
BODY: Statement of
Dennis J. Kucinich, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio
Testimony Before the
Subcommittee on Human Resources of the House
Committee on Ways and Means
Hearing on Welfare Reform Reauthorization Proposals
April 11,
2002
Since work seems to be at the center of this debate, I am going to
limit my testimony to the proposed work programs. We agree that that we should
help vulnerable families become economically self sufficient, but differ as to
how to help them find and maintain a stable, living wage job. Many of us also
agree that
education and other services are essential for
moving from welfare to work, but we need to make good on the rhetoric about
obtaining skills and pulling oneself up by their bootstraps out of poverty,
instead of restricting the opportunity to gain skills and
education. The work programs that have been proposed
would increase state work participation rates to 70 percent and increase the
number of hours of work per week to 40 hours. It would decrease the number of
activities that count as work for the first 24 hours, eliminating many program
that help get recipients ready to work, like
education,
training, and rehabilitation. It would encourage workfare programs. Finally,
these proposals drastically reduce current opportunities under the law to pursue
education, and limit
education and other
activities to a mere 3 months out of two years. I have grave doubts about the
possible success of the type of program that has been proposed by the
Administration, by Mr. Herger in HR 4090, and by Mr. McKeon in HR 4092. Not only
do I think that these proposals will not help recipients, but I think they will
be difficult if not impossible for states to implement and could be largely
counterproductive.
First, states, service providers and recipients
themselves have opposed the provisions that encourage workfare programs. HR 4090
limits activities that count as work to 5 activities, from 12 in the current
law. It eliminates activities that help ensure people are able to work and
maintain a job. No longer would someone be allowed to participate in a program
to help him or her overcome a physical, mental or learning disability, or
participate in a training program that would help him or her to find a stable,
living wage job. States have responded that, contrary to the limitations placed
on the definition of work in HR 4090 and HR 4092, they need more flexibility. In
responding to the National Governors Association Survey, Ohio cites activities
such as English-as-a-second language, domestic violence counseling and support,
and substance abuse programs as necessary to help families move off
TANF support permanently.
While Republican bills allow
3 months out of 24 for non-work activities, this is wholly inadequate. In my
state, Joel Potts, the head of the Ohio Department of Jobs and Family Services,
stated that Ohio would have difficulty providing "non-work" activities in the
narrow 3-month time frame. There are often waiting lists for individuals needing
vocational
education, mental health counseling or substance
abuse treatment. Also, most vocational
education programs need
more than 3 months to complete, and the 3-month limit is a large restriction on
good programs. Potts says that it would actually be counterproductive because it
would mean fewer individuals would be able to enroll in programs that would lead
to stable employment.
Instead of limiting opportunities for advancement
and self- sufficiency as in the Herger/McKeon bills,
TANF
should expand these opportunities. Research data shows that with these
opportunities, families can stay off public assistance permanently. Single
female heads of households with a high school diploma are 60 percent more likely
to have jobs, and are 95 percent more likely to be employed with an associate's
degree. An associate's degree is a mere two years, and that could be a ticket to
a good job with more than adequate benefits. The job market is also growing in
areas that demand more skills, not surprisingly. The US Bureau of Labor
Statistics found that people in jobs requiring the least
education will experience the lowest professional growth, while
jobs requiring at least an associate's degree will experience a job growth rate
of 31 percent over the next 10 years. Of the top 30 fastest growing occupations,
only 5 can be achieved with short-term training, and these are the least well
compensated. Almost every other job requires an associates degree or bachelor's
degree.
During
TANF reauthorization, we should allow
recipients to pursue
education for at least 2 years. We should
also lift the state cap on those pursuing
education.
Additionally, the hard-to-serve should also be given the opportunity to enroll
in rehabilitation programs as a work activity to prepare for a stable job. The
harsh limitations imposed by the Republican bills for the pursuit of non-work
activities --16 hours per week, and 3 months per 24 months - are a token effort.
Few activities even exist within these timeframes. These limitations do not have
the support of extensive research and data, and they do not have the support of
states.
Second, many states have experience with workfare programs, and
the experience is not good. States have tried a variety of programs, but
programs have been unsuccessful. Of 43 states that recently responded to a
National Governors association survey, 40 reported that they currently operate a
community service or work experience program (CS/WEP), or both. Some states
reported that CS/WEP programs are simply ineffective for preparing recipients
for work in the private sector. Most programs are operated on a small-scale
basis because they are expensive, it is difficult to hire supervisors and
difficult to develop an appropriate work site. The expense is so great, that if
states were forced to implement proposed work provisions, it would divert
resources from other initiatives, and cut off other recipients from desperately
needed services, like training and child well being. The move towards workfare
would be counterproductive.
Third, there is the question of ensuring
that recipients receive the same wage and workforce protections as other
workers. The Administration's plan specifically states: "
TANF
payments to families participating in supervised work experience or supervised
community service are not considered compensation for work performed. Thus,
these payments do not entitle an individual to a salary or to benefits provided
under any other provision of law."
Through the use of a "super waiver,"
the Herger and McKeon bills appear to allow the Secretaries to waive legal
requirements, including minimum wage requirements, OSHA standards, and civil
rights regulations. There is no language in the bill that would clearly prohibit
waivers of these requirements. Unfortunately, this would be consistent with the
ways some states have implemented past programs. This has the unfortunate effect
of making workfare participants undermine other low-income, working people who
are not workfare participants. Thus,
TANF workfare provisions,
unless they are reformed, create a substandardly compensated workforce that
displaces existing, low wage workers.
In the largest WEP program in New
York, 30,000 municipal jobs were displaced with workfare jobs. At least 86
percent of WEP workers that were surveyed reported doing the same work as
municipal employees[1]. While workfare participants were doing the exact same
work as previous municipal employees, who received benefits, workfare
participants were not considered workers, and did not receive the minimum wage
and other work protections. This should never happen again.
This is
unacceptable! The solution is this: Workfare participants are workers, and they
must be guaranteed the higher of the federal minimum wage compensation, or their
state and local minimum wage. Participants must also be guaranteed all
protections laid out in the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Occupational Safety
and Healthy Act, the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities At and
the Age Discrimination Act and any other federal, state or local worker
protection laws. In previous court cases, it has been decided that volunteers
receive such protection, and they should not be lifted for workfare
participants.
Moreover, when New York City WEP workers were sexually
harassed, the Department of Justice, specifically the US Attorney in NY, sued
the city of New York in May 2001 on their behalf. In bringing that litigation,
the DOJ has taken the position in court that Title VII, one of the main federal
employment laws, covers these women. Additionally, three different agencies -
the Department of Labor, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the
Department of Health and Human Services - have issued guidance stating, in part,
that the full range of employment laws and their relevant legal standards should
be applied to workfare participants just as they would be applied to other
workers. New
TANF proposals should not roll back current laws.
Assuming my position has the backing of the previous four federal
agencies, states would face a Catch-22. By paying recipients minimum wage,
recipients in some states working the mandated 24 hours would suddenly be
ineligible for
TANF. Their earnings would disqualify them. So,
the Herger bill creates an impossible situation. By mandating a 24-hour
workweek, in a workfare program, people who are eligible for
TANF would be made INELIGIBLE if they work the 24 hours.
Compliance with program requirements would actually DISQUALIFY recipients! These
provisions make it impossible for many states to implement this bill.
It
is my hope that these serious problems are addressed during reauthorization.
TANF recipients deserve real opportunities beyond 16-hour and
3-month restrictions on skill building activities to find stable jobs, and I
hope that reauthorization will make good on these promises.
LOAD-DATE: May 1, 2002