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