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: 896 words

COMMITTEE: HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS

SUBCOMMITTEE: HUMAN RESOURCE

HEADLINE: WELFARE OVERHAUL PROPOSALS

TESTIMONY-BY: JOHN F. TIERNEY,, REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE

AFFILIATION: STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

BODY:
Statement of

John F. Tierney, a Representative in Congress from the State of Massachusetts

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 other Members of the Committee,

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss one of the most critical and most overlooked issues facing us as we discuss TANF reauthorization. This is the issue of allowing state flexibility through continuation of state waiver authority.

As you know, one of the cornerstones of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act was to increase the flexibility given to states in providing benefits through the TANF block grant. This flexibility has produced successes beyond what most of us envisioned, and the prospects for future successes remain bright. However, we need to recognize that what allowed for this success, and what will continue to allow for success, is for states to continue to have the options to be innovative and creative in the administering of their welfare program. After all, it was states like Massachusetts who implemented welfare reform under a 1995 waiver that led the way for other states and served as a model for some of the federal statutes in the 1996 law. Indeed, if we look at the national data on moving people off of welfare, many of the states that received waiver authority have been more successful using their programs to help Americans achieve independence and self-sufficiency.

Massachusetts has a waiver that is not scheduled to expire until 2005. Using the flexibility of its waiver, Massachusetts has focused mandatory work activities on families without major identified barriers to work and has succeeded in moving most of these families into employment. The current caseload is barely half of what it was before state welfare reform began. However, three-quarters of those remaining are families with serious barriers to employment, including:

Disability the need to care for a disabled family member and the lack of a parent in the home.

The waiver gives Massachusetts the flexibility to design education, training and other services to help these families achieve economic stability.

We have accomplished a great deal, yet much remains to be done. We have a plan in place to accomplish our goals, and we need the flexibility of our waiver to see this plan through. There are 8 other states a position like Massachusetts', and it seems to be a matter of fairness that the federal government live up to its commitment and allow these waivers to continue until their agreed upon expiration. Moreover, I would argue that any reauthorization language should include a provision that allows states to renew their waivers if the states' programs have shown impressive results.

The Administration's proposal to eliminate all existing state waivers was clearly disturbing. However, I was very pleased that when I questioned Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson about this provision at this week's Education and the Workforce Committee hearing, he told the Committee that he was very supportive of state waivers.

In fact, Secretary Thompson mentioned that as Governor of Wisconsin, he had used waiver authority to create one of the most heralded programs in the country. He indicated a willingness to work with me and other Members concerned about this issue. Effectively, the Secretary said that the state waiver authority elimination was not an important aspect of the President's plan, and that it was indeed negotiable, as both he and the President support state flexibility. This is a promising start.

Mr. Chairman, the reauthorization legislation that you, along with several of your Committee colleagues, recently introduced contains the provision of eliminating state waiver authority for existing waivers. In light of Secretary Thompson's comments on this issue, and the President's support of state flexibility, I am hopeful that we can work together and reconsider this provision. On Tuesday, Mr. Chairman, you received a letter from me and 24 other House Members asking that you consider maintaining the state waiver authority, a copy of which I have here and ask that it be submitted for the record. It is my hope that this Subcommittee will consider removing this provision while also considering permitting states to renew their waiver authority upon expiration. Such legislative language can be found in Senator Rockefeller's reauthorization bill, S. 2052, and it is my hope that this is the language that will be used in any House bill that comes to the Floor.

Throughout this debate, there will undoubtedly be disagreements about work requirements, time limits and funding levels. But on this issue of state waiver authority, there appears to be little if any difference of opinion that state flexibility is advantageous to serving our ultimate goal, which is to move people from dependence to self-sufficiency. Massachusetts has been operating its program since 1995 and has been successful at reaching this goal. I respectfully request that this Committee allow this program, and others like it, to continue, and I stand ready to work with Members to preserve the state waiver authority.



LOAD-DATE: May 1, 2002