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: 5509 words
COMMITTEE:
HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS
SUBCOMMITTEE:
HUMAN RESOURCE
HEADLINE: WELFARE OVERHAUL PROPOSALS
TESTIMONY-BY: RAYMOND MEIER,, CHAIR, COMMITTEE ON
SOCIAL SERVICES,
AFFILIATION: NEW YORK STATE SENATE
BODY: Statement of
Raymond Meier, Chair,
Committee on Social Services, New York State Senate; Chair, Human Services
Committee, and Co-Chair, Task Force on Welfare Reform Reauthorization, National
Conference of State Legislatures
Testimony Before the Subcommittee on
Human Resources of the House
Committee on Ways and Means
Hearing
on Welfare Reform Reauthorization Proposals
April 11, 2002
Chairman Herger, Ranking Member Cardin and members of the Human
Resources Subcommittee, I am Senator Ray Meier of New York. I chair the
Committee on Social Services in the New York State Senate. I am testifying here
today on behalf of the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), where I
serve as the Chair of the Human Services Committee as well as co-chair NCSL's
Task Force on Welfare Reform Reauthorization. NCSL is the bipartisan
organization that serves the legislators and staff of the states, commonwealths
and territories. Mr. Chairman, as key stakeholders in welfare reform, state
legislators are reviewing your efforts to reauthorize the historic 1996 welfare
reform law very closely. NCSL supported the law in 1996. Enacting and
implementing welfare reform was accomplished in partnership with state
government; our hope is that reauthorization will continue this partnership
built on flexibility, not mandates. State legislators are responsible for
writing, financing and implementing laws governing the
TANF
program in their states, for overseeing the programs in their states, and for
appropriating
TANF and Maintenance of Effort (MOE) funds. Our
choices and successes offer the federal government a chance to learn what really
works to help struggling families, just as the federal government drew on state
efforts to reform welfare in crafting the 1996 law.
Last year, NCSL
created a task force on welfare reauthorization that I co-chair with
Assemblywoman Dion Aroner of California. This bipartisan group of 36 legislators
and staff developed NCSL's positions that were adopted by NCSL's Executive
Committee at its February meeting. We have learned a great deal about the
successes and remaining challenges of welfare reform and the creativity and
enthusiasm of government, for-profit, not-for profit and faith-based and
community organizations in serving these families. Federal law should help
foster this creativity and not stifle this enthusiasm.
As states have
transformed the nation's welfare system to better serve local needs and
different populations, our nation's state legislatures have made different
choices. States have crafted different approaches that respond better to local
economies. Many states further devolved policymaking responsibility to
localities, as my own state of New York did. State legislatures' diverse policy
choices and funding decisions mean that any further changes in the program may
impact states in different ways.
Like you, I work in an environment
where bipartisan compromise is necessary because control of the chambers is
divided by party. Like the U.S., the state of New York has urban and rural areas
that have unique sets of needs. My own district, which includes large rural
areas, is vastly different from New York City. The most exciting thing about
TANF is that we can tailor our programs to best serve the needs
of very different places. The federal government devolved policymaking authority
to the states. In New York, we have taken this policy even further by giving
some policymaking authority to our 58 counties so they can tailor programs even
further to local needs.
As the County Executive of Oneida County ten
years ago, I was involved in welfare reform before the passage of the federal
welfare reform law in 1996. I instituted a program with federal and state
waivers requiring and supporting work and eliminating barriers to employment by
welfare recipients. I have furthered these efforts in the state legislature as
chairman of the Senate Social Services Committee. A job provides freedom,
independence and the ability to support oneself and one's family. Welfare reform
has made employment possible for millions of families and helped give people the
freedom to make a better life for themselves.
Our work is not done.
While caseloads have declined dramatically, many families struggle with barriers
to self-sufficiency. Mental illness, substance abuse, physical challenges, low
literacy, limited English proficiency, domestic violence, and learning
disabilities are among the challenges faced by our clients, especially long-term
recipients. Given the declining economy and the impact of the tragic events of
September 11th on industries that have traditionally hired former welfare
recipients, special attention is needed to ensure that there are no adverse
unintended consequences in reauthorization. State legislators also believe that
welfare reform is an ongoing process of sustaining the work effort of former
welfare recipients. This includes services that support job placement, retention
and advancement to prevent welfare recidivism and improve the lives of children
and families. Our work has also focused on welfare prevention strategies
including teen pregnancy prevention, noncustodial parents and fatherhood
programs, promoting marriage and other family formation strategies.
I
participated in the listening sessions held by HHS to hear the views of state
policymakers. I appreciated the sincere effort the Administration made to listen
to our experience in the states. The President's welfare reform proposal
reflects an effort to resolve many issues that were raised by state legislators
in these sessions and will increase state flexibility. Unfortunately, less
attention has been paid to these helpful provisions because the proposal also
adds new requirements with no additional funding, resulting in less flexibility
for the states. In particular, the President's work rates proposal will force
states to concentrate their efforts on those receiving cash assistance. This
will force states to reallocate
TANF funding away from creative
and innovative services to fund these new efforts, and will exacerbate the
difficulties states face in providing child care to those on welfare and poor
working families including former welfare recipients since no new child care
funds are included.
FUNDING
States and territories have used the
flexibility in the
TANF program to fund services such as
expanded child care, substance abuse treatment, pre-kindergarten classes,
training to help parents get better jobs and after school programs aimed at
reducing teen pregnancy. In FY2000, only 50% of
TANF was spent
on cash assistance. 20% was spent on child care and the remainder was spent on
other services.
The
TANF program today serves a very
different population than the AFDC program at its inception in the 1930s. People
accessing our services are no longer widows and most children on welfare are not
orphans. Most women work outside the home and our economy has changed the type
of job opportunities available to low- skilled workers. The caseload for cash
assistance has declined nearly 60% nationally since passage of PRWORA; however,
as we provide increasing support to ensure job retention and advancement as well
as services for children and families, the total caseload receiving services has
increased. This is why continued full funding is critical.
We appreciate
that both the Administration's proposal and your own legislation, Chairman
Herger, do not cut the block grant but maintain the commitment to fully funding
the block grant. We also appreciate that the
TANF supplemental
grants are continued and that the contingency fund, which provides federal cost
sharing in an economic downturn is reinstated. However, the contingency fund
should have a less restrictive trigger mechanism and less complicated
requirements for state participation than the contingency fund in the 1996 law.
I urge you to construct the reconciliation and maintenance of effort provisions
so that needy states can have greater access to the fund.
FINANCIAL
FLEXIBILITY
In addition, the administration's proposal continues the
financial flexibility of the block grant structure. We are pleased that the
Administration rejected pressures to earmark the block grant. NCSL will oppose
any effort to earmark the
TANF block grant as a limitation on
critical flexibility and antithetical to the notion of devolution. Mr. Chairman,
there are a number of provisions included in the President's proposal and your
legislation that would enhance the financial flexibility for of the
TANF program. These items reflect concerns raised in the
listening sessions by myself and my colleagues in the nation's state
legislatures. First, restrictions are lifted from
TANF that is
carried-over from the previous fiscal year so it can be spent as flexibly as
current year
TANF, not limited to funding only time-limited
assistance for basic needs. The administration promotes changes so states get
"credit" for rainy day funds when we appropriate the funds for that purpose and
your legislation mirrors this. Currently, states are discouraged from
maintaining their own contingency funds because such funds remain in the federal
treasury and are considered unobligated, thus making it appear that those funds
are not needed or not allocated for any purpose. We appreciate your recognition
that state rainy day
TANF funds as a legitimate use of
TANF block grant funds consistent with state budgeting
principles. We especially appreciate that the current artificial distinction on
the treatment of child care and work supports for the employed and unemployed is
removed in the President's proposal. Currently, time limits are triggered for
the unemployed using these services while they search for a job.
WORK
Mr. Chairman, state legislators believe strongly in the value of work.
In fact, states changed their welfare programs into programs that require and
support work using waivers before the federal government acted. 48 states
operated their welfare programs under these waivers before 1996. The rigid rules
of the old AFDC program actually prevented programs from implementing strategies
to help welfare recipients become self-sufficient. For every dollar earned,
welfare recipients lost a dollar in benefits. Poor people can do the math. If we
make it advantageous to go to work and provide support to those confronting
tough challenges, parents will work. We supported the federal bill in 1996
because we recognized that the old system had trapped too many families in
poverty by not having any expectation that individuals work or make themselves
ready to work.
States are strongly committed to the work first focus of
TANF. Federal constraints will compromise our ability to
allocate our resources to best serve individual recipients. Major changes in the
current requirements could upend state spending decisions. We have learned that
different strategies are needed for clients who have very different barriers to
work. We also believe that part- time employment with some support is better
than no employment, and feel that states should be able to count all recipient
work effort. We value job retention and advancement efforts. These supports are
critical for long-term self-sufficiency and truly represent the next phase of
welfare reform. States are best suited to decide what work activities a
recipient can perform. We know we must work quickly to get recipients into the
workforce. After all,
TANF is a time limited program, with a 60
month lifetime limit on benefits.
In my own state of New York, labor
participation rose in the years following welfare reform with the largest
increases occurring in groups most likely to use welfare; for example, single
mothers. Between 1994 and 2000, work rates for never- married single mothers
increased from 40.6% to 60.8%, an increase of 50% in just five years.
Mr. Chairman, we have targeted
TANF resources toward
supporting families who are in the work force. New York provides a package of
work supports that include child care subsidies, EITC, Child Health Plus,
Medicaid, housing and transportation along with administrative changes that
increased child support collections. New York has a very generous state earned
income credit. The average state and federal credit was $
1,849,
for the most recent year in which statistics are available.
Mr.
Chairman, New York's combined impact of increased supports make a difference.
For a working mother with two children holding down a $
6 an
hour job, food stamps and the EITC boost her income well above what she'd get in
welfare and move her above the federal poverty level. And, if we give her help
with her child care bills and get her the child support she is due, this will
further boost her family income. Unfortunately, with higher work participation
rates and an increase from 30 to 40 hours per week, the New York legislature
will be forced to reallocate funds from these supports. States like mine are
facing our own budget deficits - in fact, 45 states and the District of Columbia
have budget shortfalls - and cannot make up the difference with state funds.
Mr. Chairman, it is very misleading to think that because of the
caseload reduction credit, states are not requiring recipients to undertake
productive activities. The current caseload dropped dramatically, 63% in New
York, from January 1995 through December 2001. This was beyond our wildest
expectation. No one predicted so many families would leave public assistance.
Many are still receiving
TANF funded service but are no longer
receiving cash. The so-called "effective" work rate doesn't reflect state
efforts at putting people to work at all. It has been a longstanding policy of
NCSL to support a measure that gives us credit for putting people to work or
keeping them from going on welfare in the first place. We have supported giving
credit to the states for caseload reduction and are intrigued by your proposal
that would maintain the caseload reduction credit, but change the baseline year.
We will need to examine the implications further. However, if the caseload
reduction were to be removed or limited, an employment credit would more
accurately reflect the accomplishments of the
TANF program.
Federal statistics about the number of recipients receiving cash who are
working under-represent the number of mothers and fathers actively engaged in
preparing themselves for life without cash assistance. Under current rules the
federal government does not collect this information. Half of the states don't
report activities that don't count under the federal definition of activities
that count toward the work participation rate, including job preparation.
Activities that represent critical steps to self-sufficiency, such as drug
treatment, do not count. In New York, about 50% of adults receiving
TANF cash assistance are either in a work training activity or
actual employment. If exempt adults are removed from the equation, then 70% of
nonexempt adults receiving cash assistance are engaged in some level of training
or employment. The remainder are mostly in the process of being assessed and
assigned to work activities or sanctioned for noncompliance.
Unless they
work for the full 30 hours, recipient work efforts cannot be included under
current rules. If we value part time work, all hours worked should count. If a
recipient who never worked or a victim whose batterer had prevented her from
working outside the home is able to work 15-20 hours a week, that's a success to
be built on. They also miss the families we have exempted from work - notably
parents caring for a disabled child -- and it's worth noting that these families
are at high risk of divorce and dissolution, contrary to our shared goal of
promoting marriage and family formation. In New York state, 26% of the adults
exempted were exempt due to caretaker status of a child under 12 months or as a
caretaker of an incapacitated individual; 33% were exempt due to long-term
disability which could make them SSI eligible; and 28% were exempt because of
short-term disability.
Current law and the President's proposal don't
give us credit for those we help who never touch cash assistance and are
diverted from the welfare system. I am proud of our
TANF funded
Wheels to Work Program that helps families with their transportation needs
without making them go on welfare. Let me give you an example of how it helped
one individual, a grandmother in the rural part of Dutchess County raising her
deceased daughters' three kids. She has an $
8 an hour job at
Wal-Mart. To get to work, she had to spend $
8 on taxi fare each
way-- in other words, two hours of her earnings every day were consumed by
transportation. Our Wheels for Work program helped her buy a car. Now that's an
example of how we can wisely use our
TANF resources to give an
individual the freedom to make a better life for themselves and avoid cash
assistance. I would hate to see innovations like these stifled.
As I
said before, the
TANF program has given each state the freedom
to respond to its own unique set of needs and circumstances. What troubles state
legislators about the President's plan is not that it focuses on work-- let me
repeat that state welfare programs have honored and rewarded work-- but that it
will force states to establish community work programs for those on the rolls at
the expense of those who have left or have never been on the rolls. If new and
inflexible work requirements are added to the program, states, constrained by
the fixed sum of money available from the block grant and their own economic
difficulties, will be forced to cut back on other
TANF funded
programs that support work. Programs that could be cut include programs like our
INVEST program which provides on-the- job training help for employers hiring
welfare recipients and programs that prevent welfare dependency in the first
place, such as after school programs to prevent teen pregnancy. Instead, states
will have to fund an administration structure to create slots and monitor
activities to meet the work participation rates. To do otherwise would leave
states vulnerable to substantial fiscal penalties - losing 5% of
TANF block grant, backfilling this penalty with state dollars
and an increase in 5% for the state maintenance of effort requirement.
While my state has experience with workfare program, few other states
have chosen this approach. We have permitted each county to make their own
decision - and while workfare is used in some locations, notably New York City,
this has not proven to be a useful strategy in more suburban and rural counties.
My own attitude is that everyone who is able should give some work effort back
to the community while they are receiving public assistance. Still, a welfare
recipient who we require to perform public service such as cleaning public parks
is still on welfare. If our goals are personal and economic independence, then
the place to find them is where Americans have historically found them, in
private sector employment. The majority of states have focused on getting
welfare recipients into unsubsidized jobs in the private sector -- a proven
strategy to increase earnings, promote family stability and end the cycle of
dependence. States have succeeded with this strategy, and I am puzzled that
Congress and the Administration seem to be considering making it difficult for
states to continue this success.
Another troubling feature is that job
search and vocational
education would not count for the first
24 hours of the work requirement as they do under current law. Job search, often
through job clubs, has been an effective means of ensuring placement in the
private sector. The focus on work should not come at the exclusion of necessary
basic or vocational
education including English as a Second
Language that would enhance skills, job retention and earnings. NCSL has always
urged the federal government to leave the decision on when and how
education should count for each client up to the states,
similar to other
TANF benefit and services decisions. The
current policy that limits the amount of time and caps the number of clients
engaged in vocational
education does not take into account
state decision- making. We should have the ability to count educational
activities if we choose to include them in our range of job preparation efforts.
Both job search and vocational
education should continue to
count as work.
We strongly support the Administration's proposal to
eliminate the two-parent work participation rate and have all families count in
one consistent work participation requirement, which will help strengthen
families and remove a barrier to marriage.
We appreciate that your
legislation and the Administration's proposal attempt to give states more
flexibility in counting employability services such as job search, mental health
treatment, treatment for substance abuse and
education both for
3 months towards the 40 hour work requirement and towards 16 of the 40 hours of
the work requirements thereafter. Unfortunately, the work rates overall are less
flexible, but recognizing the value of treatment and employment preparation by
counting such activity for the work rate, even if in a limited manner, is a
positive step. However, since 24 hours of work are required in order for any of
the 16 hour activities to count, this is hardly flexible.
In addition,
the 24 hour work requirement represents a four hour increase for parents with
children under 6 who are required to meet 20 hours under current law. Child care
is most expensive for these families with young children and under current law,
we cannot compel a parent with a child under six to work without child care
assistance.
Finally, it is not clear to us why an increase in the
requirement from 30 to 40 hours is necessary. The jobs most readily available to
low-skilled workers don't offer 40 hours a week of work, or the hours worked may
vary from one week to the next. Hotel workers, for example, found their hours
cut back after September 11th. In addition, the Bureau of Labor Statistics
reports that the workweek for production or nonsupervisory workers on private
payrolls has consistently averaged 34-35 hours over the last decade.
The
work requirements will have a different impact on each state because each state
sets its own welfare benefit level and eligibility requirements. In fact, under
current state law, welfare recipients working at minimum wage at 40 hours a week
would be ineligible for cash assistance in 27 states. In 5 states, a recipient
working 24 hours a week would make too much to qualify for cash.
CHILD
CARE
Increased funding for child care is essential to the continued
success of
TANF. Mothers and fathers cannot work without safe,
reliable child care. In addition to using all of our CCDF dollars, states are
currently spending 20% of our
TANF funds on child care, yet we
still struggle with deciding whether the poor families who have never been on
TANF or poor families who are moving off cash assistance or low
income poor families who never received welfare but are a crisis away should
receive subsidies. By the way, that
TANF spending funds more
child care than the entire value of the federal Child Care Development Fund.
New York's CCDF funds, even when augmented by
TANF
transfers, only reach 12% of the eligible caseload. If, as the administration
proposes, states are faced with more parents having to work more hours a week,
and no new funds are provided, the situation will only get worse. There is
simply no way to continue our progress without increased funding for child care.
In New York,
TANF transfers to child care are more than the
value of the federal block grant and these funds mean 76,000 additional
subsidies annually.
Mr. Chairman, we strongly support an increase in the
mandatory funding of the Child Care Development Fund. I believe that this is a
critical support for these families - families on welfare meeting work
requirements, families leaving welfare for work and working poor families.
FAMILY FORMATION AND MARRIAGE
While marriage is an issue that
transcends discussion of the reauthorization of the
TANF
program, promoting the formation of stable families is part of ensuring that the
cycle of dependency on government programs is broken. Marriage provides
important benefits, including economic ones, for adults and children. Government
policy should be to support healthy marriages, and, perhaps as critically, not
to set up barriers to marriage. While we have made great progress has been in
reducing dependence on welfare, state legislators recognize that much remains to
be done in addressing the underlying causes of poverty. That includes
strengthening two-parent families. State legislators also recognize that not
everyone will choose to marry or choose to stay married.
State
legislators believe that any federal discussion of the issue of marriage must be
based on the following principles:
NCSL recognizes that efforts to
salvage some relationships may not be appropriate and there needs to be special
awareness of the prevalence of domestic violence, family violence and abuse.
Therefore, NCSL supports the family violence option;
Marital status must
never be a condition of receiving
TANF benefits or services.
Because people approaching human services agencies are in a vulnerable position,
great care must be taken to respect personal decisions;
Efforts to
encourage marriage should respect cultural differences and should be conducted
in culturally sensitive ways;
States must have maximum flexibility as
they utilize a range of approaches to promote marriage, especially within the
finite resources of the
TANF block grant. Marriage laws have
been the purview of state government, not the federal government;
A
central focus of these efforts must be child well-being. NCSL supports efforts
to assist parents with parenting skills, even in the absence of marriage, so the
children involved have a stable support system, and
Rules for the
TANF program and other federal programs must be examined to
ensure that they do not penalize couples that choose to marry.
The
federal government should consider existing efforts and how those efforts might
be strengthened. States are already working to promote marriage outside the
TANF program. Some examples of actions states have taken
include establishing fatherhood programs, providing incentives for marriage
education including reduced fees for marriage licenses,
enacting earned income tax credits without penalizing marital status, enacting
family law related to both marriage and divorce and creating programs to sustain
the marriages of parents of children with disabilities with respite care
services. State legislators urge federal policymakers to affirm the value of
these efforts.
Mr. Chairman, NCSL supports the President's proposal to
use the funds in the current out-of-wedlock bonus fund to create a technical
assistance and demonstration fund for states to implement marriage and family
formation initiatives including out of wedlock pregnancy prevention. We also
support the creation of a fund to expand the ability of states to create new
programs in this area. NCSL opposes any efforts to earmark the
TANF block grant for the purpose of family formation or
marriage. We strongly urge the federal government to provide more technical
assistance to states on this topic. We appreciate that you have made it simpler
for states to use maintenance of effort funds for services states provide under
purposes three and four of the
TANF program, promoting marriage
and family formation and preventing out-of-wedlock births.
TEEN
PREGNANCY
Teen pregnancy has declined, but it still must be a focus of
efforts to reduce out-of-wedlock child bearing. NCSL believes that this national
problem deserves our full and continued attention. We have found through our
research that teen mothers and fathers have worse future outcomes including
educational attainment and income than other teens. Over time, we believe, teen
parents have much more difficulty remaining self-sufficient and are more
vulnerable to economic shifts in the labor market.
CHILD SUPPORT
ENFORCEMENT/NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS
Child support enforcement is a critical
component of welfare reform and these payments represent an important part of
family income. Child support payments can make the difference in a working
family living in or moving out of poverty. State legislators have been at the
forefront of innovative efforts to improve child support including establishment
of orders, collection, enforcement and work with noncustodial parents. We are
concerned, however, about unfunded mandates and preemption of state law in any
new federal child support law.
Mr. Chairman, NCSL strongly supports the
creation of options for states to pass through child support directly to
families without having to reimburse the federal government. Thank you for
addressing this issue in your bill. Currently federal law requires that state
pay not only the state share of collected child support, but reimburse the
federal government for their share if the state chooses to pass through support
to families. NCSL strongly supports a change in federal law that eliminates the
requirement that states reimburse the federal government if the state chooses to
pass-through child support to families. This will also strengthen the
relationship between fathers, mothers, and their children. It may also lead to
reconciliation and/or marriage. Noncustodial parent programs, especially
fatherhood programs, are also critical to this effort. We reiterate our concern
that as states update their child support legislation, technical assistance is
needed to assist the states as they come into compliance with federal goals.
LEGAL Immigrants and refugees
Mr. Chairman, I urge you to
reconsider the 1996 provisions that deny eligibility for legal immigrants and
certain refugees to the
TANF program and to create a state
option to provide
TANF funded services to these families. The
1996 welfare law eliminated most of the federal safety net that serves legal
immigrants and consequently shifted these costs to states. 23 states including
New York provide assistance to those families using state funds. Unfortunately,
by barring these families from
TANF, legal immigrants cannot
even access
TANF funded services that could make it possible
for them to improve their ability to work such as job training and ESL. While
some benefits have been restored to some immigrants, much more should be done.
The President listened to state lawmakers' concerns on this issue and has
proposed restoration of food stamp benefits to legal immigrants. There should be
a state option to provide
TANF to legal immigrants as well.
WELFARE WAIVERS
NCSL strongly believes that states need
flexibility for further innovation. State legislators would prefer to have
options, rather than waivers, for policy changes. NCSL strongly believes that
states must be able to continue current federal waivers and receive new federal
waivers for welfare reform.
Program coordination remains a barrier to
state innovation. I was very pleased to hear the President propose a "super
waiver" process for demonstration programs that could cut across programs and
federal departments. It is very important that we work closely together on the
details of this proposal.
SOCIAL SERVICES BLOCK GRANT
Social
Services Block Grant (SSBG or Title XX) funds are a vital part of the delivery
of community and home-based services to the most vulnerable segments of society
including the disabled, elderly, and children in need of protective services.
NCSL urges the federal government to fund the SSBG at the level agreed to as
part of the enactment of the 1996 welfare reform act, $
2.8
billion. New York transfers more from
TANF into SSBG than the
amount of its SSBG allotment. It is critical that the amount states can transfer
from their
TANF grants to the SSBG remains at least 10% and is
not reduced. If New York can only transfer 4.25% of its
TANF
grant into the SSBG, that would mean:
21,000 fewer children in
subsidized day care;
70,000 fewer adults helped in adult protective
services; and
138,000 cases in the child protective services system that
would have casework disrupted or delayed.
States use their SSBG funds to
provide protective services for children and adults, adult day care, meal
preparation and delivery for the elderly, counseling services, and serve the
disabled in their homes, rather than in institutions. Further reductions in
funding for this grant would mean programmatic losses and service reductions.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony, I would be very happy to
respond to any questions that you and the members of the subcommittee have at
this time.
LOAD-DATE: May 1, 2002