U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

89–478 2017

WAIVING WORK REQUIREMENTS 

IN THE TANF PROGRAM 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 28, 2013 

Serial No. 113–HR02 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means 

( 

ii 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

DAVE CAMP, Michigan, Chairman 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas 

KEVIN BRADY, Texas 

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin 

DEVIN NUNES, California 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

PETER J. ROSKAM, Illinois 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

LYNN JENKINS, Kansas 

ERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota 

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas 

DIANE BLACK, Tennessee 

TOM REED, New York 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

JIM RENACCI, Ohio 

SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan 

CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York 

JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington 

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia 

RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts 

XAVIER BECERRA, California 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas 

MIKE THOMPSON, California 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

RON KIND, Wisconsin 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

DANNY DAVIS, Illinois 

LINDA SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

JENNIFER M. SAFAVIAN, Staff Director and General Counsel 

JANICE MAYS, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington, Chairman 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

JIM RENACCI, Ohio 

TOM REED, New York 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas 

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

DANNY DAVIS, Illinois 

iii 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Advisory of February 28, 2013 announcing the hearing ...................................... 2 

WITNESSES 

Panel One 

The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch, a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah, 

and Ranking Member, Senate Finance Committee ........................................... 6 

Panel Two 

Kay E. Brown, Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security, U.S. 

Government Accountability Office ...................................................................... 13 

Jason A. Turner, Executive Director, Secretary’s Innovation Group .................. 25 

Elizabeth Lower-Basch, Policy Coordinator and Senior Policy Analyst, Center 

for Law and Social Policy .................................................................................... 37 

Douglas J. Besharov, Normand and Florence Brody Professor, School of Public 

Policy, University of Maryland, and Senior Fellow, The Atlantic Council ...... 49 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

All Families Deserve a Chance Coalition .............................................................. 84 

Goodwill Industries International .......................................................................... 86 

9to5 ........................................................................................................................... 91 

Center for Fiscal Equity .......................................................................................... 92 

Richard Franke ........................................................................................................ 96 

National Alliance to End Homelessness and The Arc .......................................... 97 

Legal Momentum ..................................................................................................... 103 

Marylhurst University ............................................................................................ 107 

(1) 

WAIVING WORK REQUIREMENTS 

IN THE TANF PROGRAM 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2013 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:00 a.m., in 

Room 1100, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Dave Reichert 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

[The advisory announcing the hearing follows:] 

2 

ADVISORY 

FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: (202) 225–3625 

Thursday, February 21, 2013 

No. HR–02 

Chairman Reichert Announces Hearing on 

Waiving Work Requirements 

in the TANF Program 

Congressman Dave Reichert (R–WA), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Human 

Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced that the Subcommittee will hold a hearing on the proposed waiver of work requirements in the 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. The hearing will take 

place at 9:00 a.m. on Thursday, February 28, 2013, in Room 1100 of the 

Longworth House Office Building. 

In view of the limited time available to hear from witnesses, oral testimony at 

this hearing will be from invited witnesses only. Witnesses will include experts on 

welfare reform and individuals who will testify on the importance of work requirements in TANF and other social programs. However, any individual or organization 

not scheduled for an oral appearance may submit a written statement for consideration by the Committee and for inclusion in the printed record of the hearing. 

BACKGROUND: 

Work requirements were a central feature of the landmark bipartisan 1996 welfare reform law. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, 

created as a part of welfare reform, was designed to end the dependence of needy 

families on government benefits by promoting work, marriage, and personal responsibility. As a result of these reforms, States shifted from primarily providing 

monthly checks to recipients to instead providing benefits and services to help lowincome parents get jobs and become self-sufficient. After the 1996 reforms, the Nation saw increased work and earnings for single mothers, a decrease in poverty 

among female-headed families with children, and record declines in welfare dependence. 

Since 1996, States have been required to meet statutory work requirements or 

face rising financial penalties. For example, States currently are generally expected 

to engage at least 50 percent of adults collecting TANF assistance checks in work 

or specified work-related activities. Certain credits and exemptions apply toward 

this 50 percent requirement, such as the credit for recent caseload declines and exemptions for disabled adults. Additionally, individuals counted as engaged in work 

must participate for a minimum number of hours in work or related activities each 

week. 

On July 12, 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued 

an Information Memorandum in which they announced that the Secretary would 

begin allowing States to apply for a waiver of the TANF work requirements as part 

of a demonstration project related to the employment goals of the TANF program. 

No such waivers had previously been granted since the TANF program was created 

in 1996, nor had the Obama Administration indicated it was contemplating such a 

change. On September 20, 2012, the House of Representatives approved H.J. Res. 

118, a resolution disapproving of the HHS waiver memorandum by a 250 to 164 

vote. 

The TANF program is currently authorized through March 27, 2013. 

3 

In announcing the hearing, Chairman Reichert stated, ‘‘Americans consistently 

believe welfare should primarily serve as a bridge to self sufficiency, empowering able-bodied recipients with the tools to secure a job, lift oneself 

out of poverty, and provide for one’s family. To meet these goals, work requirements have been the cornerstone of empowering welfare recipients 

within the TANF program since 1996—successfully increasing earnings for 

single mothers, decreasing poverty, and setting record declines in government dependence. Now the Administration claims they can ignore the law 

and waive these work requirements. Congress was clear that it did not intend for HHS to have the authority to waive these work requirements, and 

no prior Secretary has claimed to have it. It is critical for us to review the 

damaging effects of waiving TANF work requirements, which could result 

in less work and earnings, and more poverty and government dependence.’’ 

FOCUS OF THE HEARING: 

The hearing will review HHS’ proposed waivers of TANF work requirements. 

DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: 

Please Note: Any person(s) and/or organization(s) wishing to submit for the hearing record must follow the appropriate link on the hearing page of the Committee 

website and complete the informational forms. From the Committee homepage, 

https://waysandmeans.house.gov, select ‘‘Hearings.’’ Select the hearing for which you 

would like to submit, and click on the link entitled, ‘‘Click here to provide a submission for the record.’’ Once you have followed the online instructions, submit all requested information. Attach your submission as a Word document, in compliance 

with the formatting requirements listed below, by the close of business on 

Thursday, March 14, 2013. Finally, please note that due to the change in House 

mail policy, the U.S. Capitol Police will refuse sealed-package deliveries to all House 

Office Buildings. For questions, or if you encounter technical problems, please call 

(202) 225–1721 or (202) 225–3625. 

FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS: 

The Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing record. As always, submissions will be included in the record according to the discretion of the Committee. 

The Committee will not alter the content of your submission, but we reserve the right to format 

it according to our guidelines. Any submission provided to the Committee by a witness, any supplementary materials submitted for the printed record, and any written comments in response 

to a request for written comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any submission 

or supplementary item not in compliance with these guidelines will not be printed, but will be 

maintained in the Committee files for review and use by the Committee. 

1. All submissions and supplementary materials must be provided in Word format and MUST 

NOT exceed a total of 10 pages, including attachments. Witnesses and submitters are advised 

that the Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing record. 

2. Copies of whole documents submitted as exhibit material will not be accepted for printing. 

Instead, exhibit material should be referenced and quoted or paraphrased. All exhibit material 

not meeting these specifications will be maintained in the Committee files for review and use 

by the Committee. 

3. All submissions must include a list of all clients, persons, and/or organizations on whose 

behalf the witness appears. A supplemental sheet must accompany each submission listing the 

name, company, address, telephone, and fax numbers of each witness. 

The Committee seeks to make its facilities accessible to persons with disabilities. 

If you are in need of special accommodations, please call 202–225–1721 or 202–226– 

3411 TDD/TTY in advance of the event (four business days notice is requested). 

Questions with regard to special accommodation needs in general (including availability of Committee materials in alternative formats) may be directed to the Committee as noted above. 

Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available online at http:// 

www.waysandmeans.house.gov/. 

f 

4 

Chairman REICHERT. Good morning. We will call the Subcommittee to order. Today’s hearing is on the Obama Administration’s July 2012 proposal to allow States to waive work and activity 

requirements for welfare recipients, often simply called welfare’s 

work requirements. These work requirements originated in 1996 in 

the Welfare Reform Law, which passed on a bipartisan basis after 

literally years of debate. 

President Clinton campaigned in 1992 on a pledge to end welfare 

as we know it, and Republicans in Congress took that seriously. 

The landmark 1996 reforms expected welfare recipients to work or 

get education and training. The law also capped funding while providing States new flexibility, and it included time limits on benefits 

so welfare was no longer a way of life. The years following reform 

witnessed some of the greatest progress against poverty and dependence in our Nation’s history. After reform, we saw sharp increases in work and earnings by single mothers, a 30-percent drop 

in poverty among female-headed families with children and record 

declines in welfare dependence with the TANF roles remaining 57 

percent below pre-reform levels, even after the 2007 recession. 

The idea that welfare recipients should work for benefits remains 

extraordinarily popular: Eighty-three percent of Americans support 

requiring welfare recipients to work for their benefits. And that is 

why so many Americans were shocked last summer when the 

Obama Administration suggested States could apply to waive these 

work requirements for the first time. Current law, congressional intent, historical precedent, and expert reviews all confirmed HHS 

does not have the authority to do that. In November 1996, Ways 

and Means summary of the new reforms said it best: Waivers 

granted after the date of enactment may not override provisions of 

the TANF law that concern mandatory work requirements. 

The reason why Congress said work requirements couldn’t be 

waived is simple: It wanted strong work requirements. And regardless of what the Administration suggests, simple logic confirms, 

States don’t need waivers to strengthen work requirements; they 

only need them to weaken work requirements. The House acted in 

September to repeal the Administration’s waiver policy. And, unfortunately, the Senate didn’t follow suit. Today’s hearing allows us 

to review this issue as we consider the next extension of TANF required before the end of March. I believe we should make clear 

that Congress meant what it said about welfare work requirements. What works is work and aggressively preparing for work. 

And the Administration can’t unilaterally waive these critical features of our welfare reform. If anything, as we will hear from several witnesses, we should be exploring how to apply these work requirements to other programs so States help more welfare recipients work or prepare for work. That is the best and the only real 

path out of poverty. 

Without objection, each Member will have the opportunity to 

submit a written statement and have it included in the record at 

this point. 

Mr. Doggett, I would recognize you for 5 minutes for your opening statement. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

5 

I believe in the value of work. I voted for the 1996 welfare law 

because I supported moving people from welfare to work. I don’t believe, though there have been some spotty successes, that that law 

has begun to fulfill its promise. 

And I think that the responsibility for those failures is shared by 

many: States who did not do their part; an Administration that has 

not come forward with its own plan; and Republicans here in Congress who have continued to build on old, flawed stereotypes. As 

this TANF reauthorization has been considered, we have moved on 

a stop-start basis with a number of temporary extensions, instead 

of dealing with the root causes of why we don’t have more people 

moving into the workforce. We have done—we have dealt with such 

tangential issues as whether people were cashing their checks at 

a strip club, a liquor store, or a casino; not one of the core issues. 

I certainly didn’t object to restricting checks from being cashed 

there. But it hardly addressed the core concerns of how we provide 

temporary assistance to those who are poor and how we use those 

resources to get them into jobs. 

Now, with yet another start-stop, we face a deadline at the end 

of this month without any real and basic reforms. The only focus 

has been on attempting to limit the Administration in giving States 

added flexibility. In my opinion, in some areas, they have too much 

flexibility already and have basically used TANF as a slush fund 

to fund some of the social services that they should have been providing themselves and were, in some cases, providing themselves 

to assist those who were poor to move into the workforce and to 

develop better skills. And whether they needed additional flexibility, there is a good argument that they should—but what we 

really should be doing is a broad reauthorization of this program, 

looking at whether it fulfills its original purpose and whether we 

can make it work better for the taxpayer and for those that it is 

designed to provide temporary assistance to. 

This temporary assistance program—misnamed, I believe—is increasingly irrelevant for most Americans that are struggling in 

poverty. In response to the worst recession in our lifetimes, enrollment in TANF grew little across the country. In 2010, 2011, only 

about one in five poor children received assistance through this 

program. That is the lowest level of poor children receiving cash assistance since 1964. In my home State of Texas, the picture is 

much more bleak, as it usually is, with roughly 1 out of every 20 

children receiving any cash assistance from TANF. 

I think all of us want to see fewer people receive assistance because they found a good job. But there is no indication that these 

folks who are not receiving assistance found a good job, and no one 

should consider it a success when fewer and fewer very poor children and families have access to a program designed to serve them. 

Instead of focusing on whether a waiver authority is being misused or whether people are misusing their check at a liquor store, 

it seems to me the fundamental concern ought to be on how we do 

more to lift people out of poverty and have them contribute productively to our society. Part of this strategy should include the President’s call for an increase in the minimum wage. Right now, a family of four with one full-time earner working for minimum wage is 

living in poverty, even after counting refundable tax credits. InVerDate Sep 11 2014 11:53 Aug 01, 2017 Jkt 089478 PO 89478 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\WAYSPS\89478\89478.XXX 89478
6 

creasing the minimum wage would give a pay raise to 15 million 

low-income workers, and it would increase the value of work for 

some of those leaving welfare. Increasing educational opportunities, 

including for our youngest children, is another strategy. And, of 

course, defending against those who have criticized it so regularly, 

the earned income tax credit is another proven way of helping to 

lift people out of poverty. And it is doing more to lift people out of 

poverty than the TANF program is. 

We also need to consider what changes should be made in TANF. 

I wish that had been the focus of this hearing and the focus of 

more attention from the Administration. We will hear from one 

witness later today outlining what some of those changes might be 

that could strengthen the program and make it fulfill its original 

purpose. Certainly that purpose will not be fulfilled if we see even 

more cuts with sequester beginning tomorrow, another area which 

we need to address the attention of the Congress. 

I look forward to hearing the witnesses. 

Chairman REICHERT. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Thank you. 

I want to remind our witnesses to limit their oral statements to 

5 minutes. However, without objection, all of the written testimony 

will be made a part of the permanent record. 

On our first panel this morning, we will be hearing from Senator 

Orrin Hatch of Utah, who all of us know and all of us know has 

worked hard to lift people out of poverty. Senator Hatch is the 

Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee and has been 

very active with Chairman Camp on the issue of TANF waivers 

since the Administration announced its policy last July. As his 

written testimony notes, he has helped draft every major piece of 

legislation relating to welfare in the past two decades, including 

the 1996 Welfare Reform Law, whose work requirements are the 

focus of our discussion today. And during that time, he has worked 

on numerous bipartisan and even tripartisan welfare bills. We are 

honored to have the benefit of Senator Hatch’s deep experience and 

expertise on this issue and greatly appreciate his willingness to 

testify. 

And as all of us recognize the busy schedules among Members 

and staff on the Hill, unfortunately Senator Hatch has to leave 

shortly after his testimony. So if there are any questions, they can 

be submitted to the Senator in writing. 

Senator Hatch, good morning. Thank you for being here. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF UTAH, AND RANKING MEMBER, SENATE 

FINANCE COMMITTEE 

Senator HATCH. Thank you. 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Doggett, 

Members of the very important Subcommittee on Human Resources. 

I want to thank you for convening this hearing and for asking 

me to address all of you this morning on the Obama Administration’s proposal to waive Federal welfare requirements. 

First of all, I want to congratulate you, Chairman Reichert, on 

your new role as Subcommittee Chairman. I have been very 

7 

pleased to work closely with Chairman Camp on this important 

issue, and I look forward to continuing that partnership with you 

and with our friends on the other side. 

Your long and impressive history in law enforcement has brought 

you in direct contact with some of the vulnerable populations that 

programs under your Subcommittee’s jurisdiction are designed to 

help. 

Your experience with these families will serve you well in your 

capacity as the new Chairman. While I commend the Subcommittee for holding this hearing, I regret that it is necessary to have 

such a hearing in the first place. Authority for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, as we call it, and related 

programs expired at the end of fiscal year 2010. 

In the years leading up to and following the expiration of TANF, 

the Obama Administration never proposed a 5-year reauthorization 

of these programs. In the 4 years since President Obama has been 

in office, not once did a Member of his Administration offer to meet 

with me to discuss the TANF reauthorization. 

Indeed, for years, the Obama Administration showed no interest 

in making improvements to these programs. 

That being the case, I was stunned on July 12, 2012, when, 

with no advance warning, the Administration released so-called 

guidance to States, informing them that the Administration had 

granted itself the authority to essentially, in my opinion, gut welfare reform by undermining important Welfare-to-Work requirements. 

Mr. Chairman, over the past 20 years, I have helped draft every 

major piece of Senate legislation relating to welfare. I was a Member of the Senate Finance Committee during the 1996 debate and 

helped managed the Senate floor during the Senate consideration 

of welfare reform. In 2002, I worked with Senators Breaux, Snowe, 

Rockefeller, and Jeffords to put forth a series of recommendations 

known as the Tripartisan Agreement. The Tripartisan Agreement 

formed the basis of the TANF reauthorization legislation considered by the Senate Finance Committee. 

I also worked closely with then Chairman Grassley to develop 

the bipartisan PRIDE bill. So not only do I have a long history of 

developing welfare policies on a bipartisan basis, I have also been 

intimately involved in all the major deliberations on welfare policy. 

That being the case, I can say with confidence that at no time 

in the nearly 20 years of discussions did Members of Congress ever 

contemplate granting the executive branch the authority to waive 

Federal Welfare-to-Work requirements. 

Now, the Obama Administration has stated that they need to be 

able to waive the work requirements in order to ‘‘explore new ways 

to strengthen work requirements.’’ The Obama Administration has 

not elaborated on what is contemplated by the word ‘‘strengthen.’’ 

However, we do know that these unknown new ways to strengthen 

work requirements do not mean limiting what counts as work to 

actual work or job searches. These new ways to strengthen work 

requirements do not mean actually requiring more people to work. 

That is because under current law, there are no restrictions on a 

State’s ability to increase or strengthen the work requirements. A 

State does not need a waiver to limit the number of activities it 

8 

considers work. A State does not need a waiver to increase the required hours of work for welfare recipients. A State does not need 

a waiver to increase the number of able-bodied adults who are 

working in exchange for their welfare check. 

So if strengthening the work requirements does not mean limiting what counts as work and it does not mean increasing the 

number of people engaged in work for longer hours, then what does 

it mean? 

For guidance in answering that question, we should consider 

what types of policy changes a State would need a waiver for if the 

Administration had the authority to provide such waivers in the 

first place. A State would need a waiver to increase the number of 

activities that could count as work. For example, adding education 

and substance abuse treatment to the list. 

Mr. Chairman, as you know, there are already 12 different definitions of work described in the TANF law, and some States have 

demonstrated considerable creativity under the flexibility that currently exists to count things like bedrest and personal journaling 

as work. 

In addition, a State would need a waiver to count toward the 

participation rate, a person performing less than the required number of hours of work per week. And a State would need a waiver 

to meet a performance measure other than the current requirement 

that the State engage at least 50 percent of able-bodied adults on 

welfare in work and related activities. In short, the approach envisioned by the Obama Administration would mean less work for 

fewer hours and for a smaller share of adults on welfare. 

This approach is contrary to a work-first approach that has been 

an integral feature of welfare reform. Over the years, research has 

consistently demonstrated that a work-first approach, combining 

an intense effort to engage clients in work-related activities to foster an attachment to the workforce, with a blended menu of work 

supports, such as education, and training, has the greatest degree 

of success in getting clients off of welfare. 

The reason I am so vehemently opposed to the Administration’s 

scheme to undermine the Welfare-to-Work requirements is I believe it will hinder, not help, adults from exiting the welfare rolls. 

Put simply, allowing activities that are not work to count as work 

will not get people into work. 

Mr. Chairman, last year, I sent President Obama a letter asking 

him to withdraw his waiver rule and submit a TANF reauthorization to Congress. I pledged to the President I would work in good 

faith with him to craft bipartisan welfare legislation that can help 

fragile families progress toward greater self-sufficiency. 

To date, I have not received a response to my letter. The President has not withdrawn his welfare waiver rule, nor has he submitted a TANF reauthorization to Congress. 

Therefore, in my opinion, Congress must act. Congress must stop 

this executive overreach and prevent this Administration from undermining key provisions of welfare reform. I am hopeful that this 

hearing today will be the first step in a process that leads the 

House of Representatives to pass legislation to invalidate the Administration’s welfare waiver rule. And I hope that the Senate will 

act in a similar fashion. 

9 

I am counting on you. I am counting on a bipartisan effort to 

really keep this work requirement as a substantial and effective 

work requirement. And I will do whatever I can to make sure that 

that occurs. 

And I just want to thank you for holding this hearing. I respect 

each and every one of you. And I know these are tough issues. But 

I feel really deeply about this. And one reason TANF worked so 

well is because of the work requirement, and a lot of people found 

that going to work was a good thing. And what we need to do is 

find better ways of opening up the doors so they can work and get 

jobs they need. Thank you so much. It has been a privilege to be 

with you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Hatch follows:] 

10 


89478A.001
11 


89478A.002
12 

f 


89478A.003
13 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you, Senator, for your testimony. 

Thank you for helping us understand this issue a little bit better. 

We can tell that you are passionate about this and are willing to 

help us in any way you can. Your presence here today is absolutely 

a sign of that and your testimony, too, and your comments after. 

So we look forward to working with you. Thank you so much for 

being with us today. 

I will repeat to the Members of the panel here that if you have 

any questions for the Senator, you have the opportunity to submit 

those in writing. 

Thank you again, Senator. 

Senator HATCH. Thank you, sir. 

Good to see all of you again. Thank you for your kindness. 

Chairman REICHERT. Now will the next panel please take their 

seats. And we will begin the second panel of witnesses. 

Thank you for being here this morning. On our second panel this 

morning we will be hearing from Kay Brown, who is the Director 

of Education, Workforce, and Income Security, U.S. Government 

Accountability Office; Jason Turner, Executive Director, Secretary’s 

Innovation Group; Elizabeth Lower-Basch, Policy Coordinator and 

Senior Policy Analyst, Center for Law and Social Policy; and Douglas Besharov, Normand and Florence Brody Professor, School of 

Public Policy, University of Maryland. 

Welcome. 

Ms. Brown, you can proceed with your testimony, please. 

You have 5 minutes. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF KAY E. BROWN, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION, 

WORKFORCE, AND INCOME SECURITY, U.S. GOVERNMENT 

ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Ms. BROWN. Chairman Reichert, Ranking Member Doggett, and 

Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here 

today to discuss waivers of work provisions in the TANF program. 

I will talk about whether States express interest in these waivers 

and whether HHS granted any. My remarks are based primarily 

on a report we issued last September. 

As you know, one of TANF’s key goals is to promote job preparation and work to help end dependence on government benefits. In 

fact, States are expected to ensure that a certain percentage of 

work-eligible families participate in work activities for a minimum 

number of hours each week, and these requirements are specified 

in law. 

Before TANF, under the Aid to Families With Dependent Children program, 46 States received approval from HHS to implement 

about 113 waivers between 1987 and 1996. These waivers were 

granted under Section 1115 of the Social Security Act and allow 

States to conduct pilot or demonstration projects to test the effect 

of changes to the existing program. 

Some of the waivers tested policies that became key features of 

the TANF program, such as stronger work requirements and, for 

the first time, time limits. When TANF replaced AFDC, States 

with ongoing waivers were permitted to continue to operate their 

programs under these waivers until they expired. The last one exVerDate Sep 11 2014 11:53 Aug 01, 2017 Jkt 089478 PO 89478 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\WAYSPS\89478\89478.XXX 89478
14 

pired in 2007, and no provision in law allowed these AFDC waivers 

to be extended. 

Further, since TANF was created, HHS has not granted any 

waivers related to the program, although several States have expressed interest. Specifically, from 2000 through 2009, we found 

that five States asked HHS about the availability of waivers under 

TANF. For example, two States requested waivers because they 

thought that unanticipated circumstances, such as the September 

11, 2001, terrorist attacks, might result in their noncompliance 

with certain Federal TANF requirements. In these cases, States 

generally were not asking for waivers to test new approaches 

through pilot or demonstration projects, which would be necessary 

in order to get a waiver under Section 1115, and instead, were asking to be excused from specific requirements. HHS officials responded each time that they did not have authority to provide 

waivers and offered to work with the States to address their concerns through other flexibilities allowed under the law. 

Then, in 2001, in response to a Presidential memorandum, HHS 

asked the States for ideas of how increased administrative flexibility could lead to improved TANF outcomes. HHS documents 

show that five States indicated their interest in waivers that were 

specifically related to TANF work requirements. In their response, 

HHS officials indicated that the Department was in the process of 

reviewing its TANF waiver authority at that time. In July 2012, 

HHS issued the information memorandum indicating the Secretary’s willingness to exercise Section 1150 waiver authority related to TANF work requirements. 

I should clarify that we have not done an analysis of HHS’ legal 

authority to grant these waivers. As of September 12th of last year, 

HHS documents showed that eight States had expressed interest in 

pursuing these waivers. We recently learned that two additional 

States have expressed interest. However, no State has formally 

submitted to HHS a request for a waiver. In conclusion, in contrast 

to the AFDC period before TANF, there have been no new waivers 

granted under TANF. And until last year, we found no formal documentation that HHS believed it had authority to waive the work 

requirements. 

This concludes my prepared statement. I am happy to answer 

any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Brown follows:] 

15 


89478A.004
16 


89478A.005
17 


89478A.006
18 


89478A.007
19 


89478A.008
20 


89478A.009
21 


89478A.010
22 


89478A.011
23 


89478A.012
24 

f 


89478A.013
25 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you, Ms. Brown. 

Mr. Turner, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JASON A. TURNER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

SECRETARY’S INNOVATION GROUP 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My name is Jason Turner. I am formerly Mayor Giuliani’s Commissioner for Welfare, Medicaid, and WIA during his second term. 

Now I serve as the Executive Director of the Secretary’s Innovation 

Group, a network composed of 18 States’ human service secretaries, representing more than half the population. Our members 

hail from Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Virginia, South Carolina, Florida, Louisiana, Texas, Arizona, and six 

other States. We exchange State-innovative program ideas and 

support national policies which favor work and economic selfreliance, helping families budget discipline and orientation toward 

limited government. 

I would like to take this opportunity to describe the circumstances in the period leading up to the passage of the Temporary 

Assistance for Needy Families program and how it relates to the 

current discussion over work requirements in the law. During the 

1980s, there was an increasing public concern over the growth of 

the TANF predecessor program, AFDC, which you are well familiar 

with. To address this concern, HHS sponsored a large-scale experiment in which some families received fairly generous, unrestricted 

cash benefits via a negative income tax and a control group did not, 

in order to see what the positive and negative effects were. This 

experiment showed that those receiving the unrestricted welfare 

benefits worked significantly fewer hours and experienced higher 

levels of family dissolution than those in the control group. In other 

words, free money without obligations resulted in bad social consequences, something our grandmothers may have remarked did 

not require an experiment to predict. 

Partly as a result of this large-scale experiment, the Congress 

passed the Family Support Act in 1988, an education and training 

program intended to move recipients to work, and based on the 

premise that welfare adults would qualify for jobs and accept them 

if they were provided additional education and training to improve 

their skill levels. 

Regrettably, experience showed that this new provision of education and training did not have this effect. In fact, the opposite 

occurred from what we had hoped. In the first 5 years after the 

program was activated, rather than declining, the caseload increased by one-third to its highest level ever. 

Faced with these disappointing results, HHS conducted a multiState, multi-year comparison of the effectiveness of the education 

and training model embedded in its then Family Support Act program against a work-first intervention, otherwise known as a labor 

attachment model. Under the work-first approach, welfare recipients are encouraged to get into the labor force as soon as they can 

find a job and improve their employment and wage circumstances 

from that point forward, in contrast to the skills model, where they 

remain outside the labor force while they undergo remedial education and training. 

26 

The results unequivocally favored the work-first labor attachment model. The research concluded, employment-focused programs generally had larger effects on employment, earnings and 

welfare receipt than education-focused programs. And given the 

large number of programs examined in research and their variety 

of served populations, of implementation procedures and of different labor markets, these results provide more support for the advantages of employment-focused programs than education-focused 

ones. 

With all of these considerations in mind, the Congress spent a 

great deal of time evaluating alternatives as it crafted its 1996 legislation. The resulting program allocated funds to States with a 

substantial operating flexibility but with the understanding that 

States must place an increasing number of adult recipients into 

employment or work-related activities. 

Why didn’t Congress just allocate funds via an unrestricted block 

grant? I can answer this from my perch at the time in the early 

1990s as the HHS director of the AFDC welfare program and subsequently as a State welfare director in Wisconsin while all of this 

was happening. In general, States find it easy to run voluntary programs of remedial education and training, where slots are already 

available via community colleges or WIA and recipients could take 

advantage of these or not, as they wish. From a State’s point of 

view, it is bureaucratically hard to run a mandatory program based 

on work activities. This is because a mandatory work program requires more supervision, more creation of qualifying activities, 

more attendance tracking, and more followup to assure progress is 

being made. But we know from experience the harder approach is 

necessary. 

Our member States in the Secretary’s Innovation Group are not 

calling for the weakening of TANF work requirements, but the opposite. Our TANF policy brief lays out just such a policy agenda. 

Finally, as a former Federal executive branch official and former 

State welfare director, I tend naturally to favor executive branch 

authority and flexibility. But I also know that this impulse can be 

taken too far and lead some States to take the easy way out, when 

we know from robust experimentation and the results of the TANF 

program, that an ambitious work-first program will lead to increased employment and decreased dependency. We think policies 

should be carefully considered by the Congress, not abandoned by 

executive fiat. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Turner follows:] 

27 


89478A.014
28 


89478A.015
29 


89478A.016
30 


89478A.017
31 


89478A.018
32 


89478A.019
33 


89478A.020
34 


89478A.021
35 


89478A.022
36 

f 


89478A.023
37 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you, Mr. Turner. 

Ms. Lower-Basch. 

STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH LOWER-BASCH, POLICY COORDINATOR AND SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, CENTER FOR LAW 

AND SOCIAL POLICY 

Ms. LOWER-BASCH. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to share CLASP’s views regarding 

the work rates that States must meet under the TANF program. 

CLASP develops and advocates for policies at the Federal, State, 

and local levels that improve the lives of low-income people. 

In calling this hearing, Mr. Chairman, you said that welfare 

should empower able-bodied recipients with the tools to secure a 

job, lift oneself out of poverty, and provide for one’s family. I agree. 

Stable employment in a well-paying job is the best pathway out of 

poverty and into the middle class. Employment is one of the key 

ways that people contribute to society. 

Where we may disagree, however, is whether the work participation rate under TANF is an effective way of promoting this goal. 

I do not believe that it is. The work participation rate only measures attendance. It does not make any attempt to measure the effectiveness of State’s employment programs, whether these programs actually get people jobs. It forces States and caseworkers to 

focus on documentation rather than helping clients and unnecessarily limits range of activities that can be counted. 

In an economy where family-supporting jobs are increasingly limited to those with at least a post-secondary credential, those without at least a high school diploma find it harder and harder to find 

any employment. Low-income parents need access to training that 

will allow them to escape the cycle of low wages, unstable work, 

and poverty. 

Many States have particularly highlighted as a problem the limits on counting basic education and GED classes toward the work 

rates. States have learned much about work-focused education in 

the decades since such programs were last evaluated, and we are 

also in a very different economic context. 

While the labor force participation of low-income mothers did increase dramatically during the early 1990s, this was not primarily 

due to the TANF work participation rate. Rather, I would credit 

the combination of the strong economy, the messaging effect of welfare reform, and the package of improvements that made work pay 

for low-income mothers. These included a rising minimum wage, an 

expansion of the earned income tax credit, child care subsidies, and 

public health insurance. 

States would almost certainly continue to enforce a work expectation even in the absence of Federal requirements. Moreover, the 

vast majority of low-income parents themselves value work and 

want to support themselves and their families. They do not need 

more work requirements but rather work opportunities and employment support. 

Looking to TANF reauthorization, we should start tracking at 

the State level performance on a wide range of outcome measuring, 

including employment, poverty, deep poverty, and other measures 

38 

of material hardship. TANF should not be considered a success 

while millions of children are being left in deep poverty. 

States that are willing to be held accountable for the outcomes 

they achieve in their programs, such as employment entry, job retention, or poverty reduction, should be given the ability to opt out 

of the process-focused participation rate, either for the entire TANF 

population or for groups participating in specific programs, such as 

career pathways initiatives, in exchange for rigorous evaluation of 

these efforts. Whether such a flexibility is provided through waivers or through a new State option allowed under reauthorization, 

such experiments would help identify the most effective service 

models in the current environment. These pilots would also help to 

identify possibilities and pitfalls, moving more broadly from process 

measures to outcome-based performance measures. 

In my written testimony, I do discuss some modest changes to 

the work participation rate that can significantly reduce the negative effect as it is currently designed. Foremost among these is the 

replacement of the caseload deduction credit with employment 

credit. I also discuss funding and the value of creating a permanent 

source of support for subsidized employment programs. These received bipartisan support at the State level when they were funded 

with the TANF emergency fund. I really think we should build on 

that experience. 

I appreciate the opportunity to provide CLASP’s perspective. 

I know welfare has often been a subject of deep disagreements. 

But I do believe it is possible to find common ground in improving 

the effectiveness of TANF in promoting work opportunity for lowincome parents. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Lower-Basch follows:] 

39 


89478A.024
40 


89478A.025
41 


89478A.026
42 


89478A.027
43 


89478A.028
44 


89478A.029
45 


89478A.030
46 


89478A.031
47 


89478A.032
48 

f 


89478A.033
49 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. Besharov. 

STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS J. BESHAROV, NORMAND AND 

FLORENCE BRODY PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND, AND SENIOR FELLOW, THE 

ATLANTIC COUNCIL 

Mr. BESHAROV. Chairman Reichert, Ranking Member Doggett, 

other Members of the Subcommittee, it is good to see you again. 

What a time we are in. I appreciated the comments of the other 

panelists and Senator Hatch. My view is that this waiver—and I 

don’t know anything about its legal basis, I know it wasn’t intended when the bill was written by anyone on either side—my 

sense is that this waiver both goes too far and doesn’t go far 

enough. And let me explain what I mean by that. 

It goes too far because there was one lesson we learned very 

clearly through the lead-up to welfare reform, and this is something that Jason Turner and Senator Hatch talked about: The evidence was really clear. The best way, as the Europeans say, to activate welfare recipients, was to do work first, meaning to encourage 

them to look for a job, and help them look for a job. And job training had to be second or third at best. 

I think that is right. I think the evidence from Europe, which I 

will talk about in a minute, is similar. But it is reinforced by the 

evidence in this country. 

Next week, the House will take up WIA, the Workforce Investment Act. The sad truth is the evaluations of that program show 

that it is hardly effective for the low-income families it is meant 

to serve. So that is why I say this waiver goes too far. It seems to 

abandon work first, and it seems to put too much reliance on a 

failed policy, which is our current job training program. 

But it also doesn’t go far enough. And what I mean by that is 

we use the phrase, both sides use the phrase, flexibility, coordination, trying new things. But the new thing, the big thing, the 

needed waiver, the needed coordination is between TANF, which 

has now become something like a block grant, and a small one at 

that, and SNAP, UI, and the disability program. SNAP, UI, and 

disability now far, far outweigh what we spend on TANF. They provide an alternate route for government support. And each one of 

them separately has a minimum of Welfare-to-Work, work experience, job-first provisions. 

A true waiver for flexibility would do something about all those 

programs. Now, I think I am here partly because, at the University 

of Maryland, I study programs in socialist Europe. And that includes now France and Italy, as well as Germany, the Netherlands 

and the Nordic countries. And they are all moving to the kind of 

combined work-first program that I am talking about. 

If you look for a moment, I think you have a full-size picture of 

Figure 1. And this is part of the conversation we are having about 

the broader U.S. economy. And I don’t for a moment want to say 

that it is only welfare or only disability that causes what is a striking decline in the labor force participation—excuse me, in the employment rate of America. 

50 

But if you look at this, the United States is in red, and you see 

a sharp decline at the time of the recession. While the Germans 

were increasing, the Dutch have held constant; the French are 

doing things to try to improve their labor force participation. What 

are most of these countries in Europe, whether led by conservative 

or socialist countries, doing? They are combining their recipient 

programs, the equivalent of disability, the equivalent of SNAP, the 

equivalent of unemployment insurance, into one program. They are 

housing those programs in the same office. 

When someone applies for any one of those programs, those people are treated the same. The agency looks to see what the barriers 

are to employment and through a combination of work-first and 

other assists tries to help those people go to work. 

That is why I say this waiver both goes too far and not nearly 

far enough. It goes too far because I think it undermines the original finding that led the Congress to pass TANF, which is that 

work-first works. 

And, secondly, it doesn’t go nearly far enough because this Administration, although it has said it supports broad waivers across 

programs, didn’t use this opportunity to allow the States to combine their SNAP programs and their UI programs. And SNAP, at 

least, I know there is legislative authority they could have done. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Besharov follows:] 

51 


89478A.034
52 


89478A.035
53 


89478A.036
54 


89478A.037
55 


89478A.038
56 


89478A.039
57 

f 


89478A.040
58 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you all for your testimony. We will 

now move into the question phase. I will ask Mr. Turner a question. But I noted a few comments by the panel that sort of struck 

a personal note with me. Mr. Turner’s comment about free money 

without obligations results in bad social consequences; Ms. LowerBasch, what activities are actually effective in helping people get 

jobs; and then Mr. Besharov, help people look for a job and the 

training could be second or third in the process. 

And it just sort of reminded me of my childhood. I am the oldest 

of seven children. And my father had trouble a few times in his life 

finding work, especially when we moved from Minnesota to Washington State in the 1950s. We were on—I think they just called it 

State assistance back in those days or public assistance, or something like that and stood in a food bank line, which wasn’t really 

a food bank back then; it was a place that you went to, one place 

in Seattle, where they gave you bags of, you know, paper bags of 

bulgur wheat and flour; the staples. And I remember my father 

really struggling with being on public assistance. His self-esteem 

was erased. There was no pride there. There was domestic violence 

happening at home, it created a lot of stress. 

I don’t know what happened. But eventually what he did is he 

turned to an activity, and the activity was he would walk—I know, 

you hear these stories all the time, ‘‘I walked 4 miles to school in 

the deep snow.’’ So this is the story my father and my mother told 

me, that he walked to work, to a place where he thought he might 

get a job, and sat on the curb with his lunchbox for 2 to 3 weeks 

and asked the guard at the guard shack, ‘‘Do you know if there are 

any openings?’’ The activity was him walking to the place where he 

wanted to go to work, sitting down on the curb with his lunch 

bucket, and waiting. Eventually, somebody came out and said, ‘‘We 

know you are out here wanting to work. We will hire you.’’ And he 

got a job. 

And so was that an activity that led to employment? It is hard 

to define, isn’t it? 

I think the training then, of course, came second. He got the job 

and went in and became a steelworker, where they built railroad 

cars back then. Now it is Kenworth Trucking in Seattle. 

But I am sure a lot of people in this room and on this panel or 

their family members can identify with those things throughout 

their lives. So we really want to try to fix this. We want to make 

sure that we get people back to work. And that is the challenge 

here. 

Mr. Turner, today we have been discussing work requirements in 

the TANF program. Your testimony has provided a good summary 

of how Congress arrived at the current structure of work requirements in the TANF program. But TANF is only one program 

among many that are intended to help low-income families. Do 

other similar programs that provide help to low-income families 

have anything comparable to the TANF work requirements? If not, 

should these programs have activity requirements more like those 

in TANF? 

I think, Mr. Besharov, you sort of touched on that a little bit. 

Mr. Turner, comment, and then maybe Mr. Besharov could speak 

to it. 

59 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I will leave it to Mr. Besharov to comment on the specific programs. 

But let me just say in response to that that work activation or 

work activity, even where private employment is not available immediately, has tremendous benefits to anybody in any circumstance 

receiving assistance. The benefits to staying active, such as you described in your family history, are immense. We know, for instance, 

that those who are engaged in a work activity may benefit by keeping active, by keeping social with other people, by making connections with prospective employers or other people that can help 

them find employment. We know that they stay healthier. We 

know that if you are not active, you tend to become isolated, and 

you stay at home. We know that your health declines. Depression 

increases. Isolation sets in. Substance abuse goes up. So the longer 

you are inactive, after having been employed, the more your prospects decline over time. 

And so one of the things that work activation does, if you think 

of this as being a whole population of low-income people that are 

being served on welfare, a subset of that can be employed in the 

economy. And like an accordion, it goes up and down. The private 

economy takes more people and then takes less people. But you 

want to keep the entire population activated and doing something 

so that they are on the bench, ready to get off and go back into the 

football game. 

So, in a sense, work activation is a program idea for all seasons, 

whether it is—whether the economy is strong or weak. 

Mr. BESHAROV. Thank you. 

Let me take SNAP, food stamps, as an example. It is a very large 

program now. Tomorrow, I am going to be speaking on a panel at 

the USDA on this question of how to activate food stamp recipients. An issue is that many of them, about 30 percent of all SNAP 

households, have earnings. But there is a substantial number of 

people who receive food stamps who aren’t working. And the question, the challenge for the Congress is to make a distinction between those groups and find a way for the nonworking recipients 

to be activated, to use the European term. 

And I really want to emphasize that even at this time of high 

unemployment, work first, job search works. The Europeans have 

done studies because they have higher unemployment rates than 

we do. And the reason I asked an economist about this, what is the 

fancy word, is because I am going to testify. And it is variance from 

the mean. That is a fancy way of saying that while some counties 

today have unemployment rates of 25 percent, other counties, other 

localities have unemployment rates of 5 percent. Some places have 

no jobs for aerospace engineers but loads of jobs, entry-level jobs. 

So we can’t even use the unemployment rate as a reason for not 

encouraging work first. We just have to apply it in a reasonable 

and confident way. 

I think that the TANF rules, as they were, tended to do that. We 

saw very few examples of people saying TANF has been unfair or 

the State agencies have been unfair during the recession. And I 

think that speaks well of the system that the Congress adopted 

now almost 20 years ago. 

60 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you for your response. 

Mr. Doggett, you are recognized for questioning. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Lower-Basch, let me ask you a very hypothetical question. 

Let’s suppose that we lived in a world in which a significant number of Members of Congress did not feel there was political advantage in building on old stereotypes of welfare Cadillacs, of members 

of our society devoting their days to using taxpayer money at liquor 

stores and strip clubs, of numbers of Americans who desired to just 

live on the dole instead of to work, and that instead of building on 

those stereotypes there was a genuine, broadbased, bipartisan interest in Congress to lift people out of poverty. And let’s suppose 

we lived in a hypothetical world where an Administration was not 

afraid of being stereotyped itself and provided some bold leadership 

with the TANF law coming up for reauthorization to make recommendations about how we might get people out of poverty and 

that this law and this reauthorization could play at least a limited 

measure in doing that. What would you see in that hypothetical 

world as the key elements that we need to have in a law focused 

on lifting people out of poverty, reducing the underclass in this society? 

Ms. LOWER-BASCH. Thank you. That is a big question. And, 

obviously, TANF by itself is not going to lift everyone out of poverty. Clearly, the other programs that Mr. Besharov mentioned are 

very important. The minimum wage, and the labor market as a 

whole. So, obviously, TANF is only going to be a piece. Within 

TANF, I do think it is engaging people in work activities, to the 

extent that they are able. I do think it is recognizing that some 

people are going to need to take the more indirect path, that, you 

know, if people are in the middle of being homeless, if their kids 

are about to go into foster care, that they need to focus on getting 

housing or resolving the problems that are putting them in crisis. 

If they are—do have mental health or substance abuse issues, they 

might get a job, but they are going to get fired from it, you know, 

if they are really in trouble. So they need to resolve those issues 

and then move to work. 

At a Federal level, I do believe in providing flexibility to States 

in return for real accountability on their accomplishments; as I 

said, I think funding subsidized employment is—that is clearly, 

when the public, private sector jobs are not available, a great way 

to give people real work experience, real connections to the work. 

And it also helps the employers. We know a lot of small businesses 

benefited from that during the recession. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Some of the testimony has indicated that the job 

training and educational opportunities really don’t accomplish very 

much. And it does appear that some of these job training programs 

have not been very successful. 

What is your assessment of the role in any reform we have of the 

outcomes we should require concerning education and job training 

programs. 

Ms. LOWER-BASCH. Right. So let me start with the jobs evaluation, which is the study that did drive a lot of this belief that 

education doesn’t work. And those programs clearly were not very 

effective. People were in very low-intensity programs. They didn’t 

61 

get anywhere. We know now you need to have credentials that have 

value in the labor market. You need to be much more connected to 

what employers say they need and not just more classroom-based. 

We have learned a lot in the past 20 years. The economy has also, 

frankly, changed. The unemployment rate for people without a high 

school diploma is twice what it is for anyone else. And employers 

are increasingly unwilling to just hire the folks like your dad, who 

have a great attitude but don’t have any of the skills. They want 

people ready to show up and do the job on the first day. So we need 

to give people access to that training. 

Mr. DOGGETT. We have already let one program, the supplemental grants under TANF, expire. That was a benefit in Texas 

and a total of 17 States. What is the effect of losing that supplemental program and how should it be a factor in looking at further 

revisions or reauthorization of TANF. 

Ms. LOWER-BASCH. Right. So, overall, the value of the TANF 

block grant has been fixed in nominal dollars since it was created 

in 1996. So it has lost about 30 percent of its value. In the 17 

States that got supplemental grants, obviously, the cut has been 

even greater. 

As we know, States do a lot of different things with their TANF 

block grants. So, in some cases, it is hard to pick specific things. 

But we know, in recent years, States have been cutting actually 

their Welfare-to-Work contracts; in many cases, providing less services. In many cases, child care has gotten cut back, which means 

that in some States, people are back to this crazy Catch-22, where 

you have to go on welfare in order to get a child care subsidy because the waiting list for child care for working poor is so long. All 

of these things happen when funding gets squeezed over time. 

Mr. DOGGETT. I thank you and all the witnesses, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you, Mr. Doggett. 

Mr. Kelly, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Turner, I was really interested in your testimony. One of the 

things is the dissolution of the family. When I looked at the title 

of this, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the key to 

that being temporary, again, being a bridge from one point to another. And when we look at all these programs, we look at what 

the intentions were and then how far we get away from some of 

those things. 

But in your testimony, you talk—I think it is on page 1, about 

the dissolution of families. If you could just address that a little bit. 

Because I think the concern is—and coming from the private sector, I never, ever, in my lifetime ever regretted investing one penny 

in any type of a program that would train the people that worked 

for me in our dealership to get from where they were to where they 

could go, depending on their potential. But the key was we already 

had jobs for them. We had a market waiting for them. We had a 

way for them to rise from where they were. 

I just look at some of these programs and I think, Ms. LowerBasch, you just made a statement, we are so far away from what 

we intended originally. 

Thanks for the variance in means. That is great. 

62 

And I have only been here 2 years. But the idea was a great 

idea. But we want it to be a bridge from where you are to where 

you want to be and where you can be and where you should be. 

So, Mr. Turner, talk about this dissolution of family. Because I 

see in our culture right now, in our society, the basic family structure being broken down for many different reasons. A lot of it has 

to do with the economy. But you have to be able to take care of 

your own. You have to be able to take care of yourself. And you 

have to be able to dream that you can actually rise from where you 

started to wherever you want to go. 

This is troubling, is it not? 

Mr. TURNER. Yes, I think you are right. Absolutely, it is troubling. And the family is the original income transfer program, if 

you will, meaning, fathers, mothers, and children all transfer support to each other within the family unit. And once the family unit 

is dissolved, and fathers and mothers go their separate ways, it is 

very difficult for government to substitute as a parent or as an income source for the family. 

What they found out in this experiment is that over time, in 3 

to 5 years of samples, both blacks and whites, and to a lesser extent Chicanos, had marital dissolution effects that were significant. 

We don’t know precisely how that works. But we think that 

when there is an income that comes in that is not connected to the 

father or the mother’s active employment and bringing money into 

the family, that the two parties tend to separate both psychologically and have different sources of income and, because they 

have an alternative source of income, tend to stop working and 

family breakup occurs. 

Mr. KELLY. When you expand that and you look at different 

programs that are available, really it is that ability to stay together 

as a family to get through the hard times that makes it very, very 

real then that as you go forward, as a child, if you see your parents 

working that way and you know they depend on each other for the 

general good of the whole family, then it works. 

I have noticed, at least in my lifetime—I don’t have data to support this, this is just what I have noticed—I have noticed that 

those folks who really have that strong family bond, that nuclear 

family, tend to be able to get through hard times really well and 

then tend to duplicate those same experiences as they get older. 

So I know these programs are all necessary. And I think that we 

want to make sure that they are reaching the goal that we intend 

for them. 

So I want to thank you all for being here today. It is so important that we hear from you and that we continue this open dialogue to find out what we can do to really help our fellow citizens 

who need our help right now, but make sure that at the end, the 

end result actually gets to where we want it to be and we don’t create some type of a model that leads to a further dissolution of the 

family and a further separation of those roles I think we consider 

so basic in our society. 

I thank you. 

And I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you, Mr. Kelly. 

Mr. Davis, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

63 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And I, too, want to thank our witnesses for being here and for 

their testimony. 

You know, as I listened to the discussion and as I thought about 

it prior to coming, Ms. Brown, am I correct when I recall that you 

indicated that since the creation of TANF, there have been very 

few requests for waivers from States? 

Ms. BROWN. That is correct. 

Mr. DAVIS. Do you have any idea why there may not have been 

any? 

Ms. BROWN. Well, we have been talking about this. And I think 

one of the things to bear in mind is that in the early years after 

TANF was created, you know, States did have a great deal of flexibility, and they were experimenting in designing their own programs. And as time went on, the requirements for meeting their 

work participation rate and the constraints that States faced in 

meeting those work participation rates may have at that point increased some of the interest that we saw in more recent years asking for waivers. But beyond that, we know what was requested and 

we know what HHS said, but we have not done a lot of work on 

the reasons behind that. 

Mr. DAVIS. And you have not had to do a lot of work on trying 

to determine whether you would or would not grant a waiver. If nobody is asking, then you don’t really have to deal a great deal with 

that. Right? 

Ms. BROWN. I see your point. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Ms. Basch, let me ask you, the Director of the Congressional Budget Office testified last week that the budget cuts in 

the sequester, which begins tomorrow, would reduce employment 

by 750,000 jobs by the end of the year. 

How do you think this might affect or impact our efforts to take 

people from welfare and put them to work? 

Ms. LOWER-BASCH. Obviously, as, you know—a few of the job 

losses from the sequester may directly impact low-income parents. 

Both—you know, some of them may work as school aids or something like that, that would be affected. But it is more likely that 

low-income people will feel the indirect effects of the overall economy and reduced job growth and reduced jobs. So, yes, it will make 

it harder for people to find work. Many low-income families will obviously be affected by the direct spending cuts, things like Head 

Start and WIC as well. 

Mr. DAVIS. You know, I feel that there is a tremendous amount 

of myth that is projected, percolated about the willingness of people 

and the desire of individuals to work. I have lived in low-income 

communities all of my life, from the time I was born until even 

today. And many of those individuals had some difficulty. I was intrigued by the Chairman’s story relative to his childhood because 

my family had pretty much the same experience. I can recall my 

father saying that he would rather drink muddy wine than stand 

in a line to get some food and sleep in a hollow log. I mean, that 

was his expression. 

And so this notion somehow that there are these vast numbers 

of people who want to live off public help, I think is more myth 

than reality. 

64 

Are you aware of, Ms. Basch, programs that really help facilitate 

the entre of individuals into the workforce, and what are some of 

those? 

Chairman REICHERT. Could you make your answer short? Time 

has expired. Go ahead. 

Ms. LOWER-BASCH. I just want to say that, you know, we do 

think it requires both pieces; it requires the skills for the jobs but 

also the actual connection to the employers who are hiring. We 

know successful programs don’t just train people up and then send 

them out in the world. They really make those direct connections 

from employers and, in some cases, give them the opportunity to 

demonstrate their work skills. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you, Mr. Davis. 

Mr. Renacci, you are recognized. 

Mr. RENACCI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank all the witnesses for being here today. 

You know, there was some discussion about labor and my colleague was talking about sequestration, maybe the loss of jobs. 

But, Mr. Besharov, we talked about in your testimony how a number of European countries have incorporated activity or Welfare-toWork provisions into their social programs. Many of those countries 

have done so while dealing with high unemployment and other difficult labor market conditions. Based on your research in the area, 

what do you say or what have those European countries said to 

those who argue Welfare-to-Work policies cannot be effectively implemented or should be suspended during time of high unemployment? 

Mr. BESHAROV. Well, that is the crucial question here. And I 

think the answer depends on the political system or the political 

party in charge in each country. There has been a real pushback 

in Germany and somewhat of a pushback in some of the Nordic 

countries. But in the countries run by liberal or socialist governments, such as France, there has been no pushback. Here is the 

argument: They look at that chart which I showed you, Figure 1, 

and they see something between 60 and 70 percent of the people 

who are eligible to work in the right age category working, but 30, 

35 percent not working. And they see that number growing. And 

they don’t think that they have a future, economically, when the 

number is decreasing, when there are fewer people working. 

And so they take a deep breath and they say, we have to push 

as many people as possible into looking for work. When they do 

that, two things happen: Number one, people who otherwise were 

disenchanted or discouraged about finding work, some of them find 

work. And the other part that happens is because there are people 

looking for jobs, and there is a push and pull about this, because 

there is more supply of workers, especially low-income workers, 

employers are more likely to expand and hire people. 

Now, this isn’t a magic potion. And we are not going to eradicate 

unemployment. But we do have to use every means at our disposal 

to get the United States back in fighting shape. And this is one of 

the ways. One of the ways is to encourage everyone who is of the 

age to work and healthy enough to work to look for work. 

Mr. RENACCI. Thank you. 

65 

Mr. Turner, Congress has spent years designing, reviewing, and 

modifying work requirements in TANF programs. And it is for that 

reason I strongly believe that any changes to requirements should 

be first handled by Congress through legislation. But I would ask, 

if this waiver is allowed to move forward, is it possible that States 

could maybe even want to go further with waiver programs like 

this? 

Mr. TURNER. Well, what we know from good work programs is 

that even if there—even if somebody is not on unemployment, if he 

is engaged in a work activity that is creating something of value, 

it is a value to a recipient himself. For instance, in New York City, 

welfare recipients engaged in work in parks throughout the city, 

which has increased their level of cleanliness from 85 percent to 95 

percent. So why is that important? Because those people going into 

the parks are learning important lessons about work habits, reliability, staying on the job, taking direction from supervisors. These 

are the things that employers say are most missing among the lowincome population; work habits, as opposed to work skills. Okay. 

So to answer your question, from that point of view, I think that 

once you get away from a program which offers an opportunity to 

actually provide work in a work-like setting and you do things like 

bedrest or staying in a remedial class, you are losing the opportunity to do what we call work hardening or getting organized 

around the idea that to take a job, you have to be prepared to keep 

the job, to stay on the job, and to get along with people. That is 

the main thing that you can learn outside of the labor force in a 

workforce setting. 

Mr. RENACCI. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman REICHERT. Mr. Lewis. 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding 

this hearing. 

I want to thank all of the witnesses for being here today. Today 

the House is considering a bill to reauthorize the Violence Against 

Women Act, one of the most important life-changing bills Congress 

ever created. I don’t know how many of you know that TANF is an 

important part of the puzzle in helping survivors of domestic violence get back on their feet. A Huffington Post article broke down 

the challenges facing poor parents in the State of Georgia, my 

State, and deterring applicants. In fact, the Georgia Coalition 

Against Domestic Violence gave up helping women apply for TANF 

benefits. 

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to submit the full article 

for the record. 

Chairman REICHERT. Without objection. 

[The submission of The Honorable John Lewis follows:] 

66 


89478A.041
67 


89478A.042
68 


89478A.043
69 


89478A.044
70 


89478A.045
71 


89478A.046
72 


89478A.047
73 


89478A.048
74 


89478A.049
75 


89478A.050
76 


89478A.051
77 


89478A.052
78 

f 


89478A.053
79 

Mr. LEWIS. Now, I happen to believe that poverty is a radical 

evil in our society. At one time, when we had full employment, unemployment was down to 4 percent, right? And we said we had full 

employment. There were still hundreds and thousands and millions 

of poor people. And we had the war on poverty. We had all these 

groups. Can any member of this panel suggest or tell me what 

should we do as a society, as a Nation, to maybe have a radical 

good, to abolish poverty from this land? 

It is shameful, it is a disgrace. When you travel through America, in spite of all of the resources, there are still so many people 

left behind. You are right: They are black. They are white. They 

are Latino. They are Asian American. They are Native American. 

I travel and I have seen this country. If we had all the resources, 

if we had millions and billions of dollars, if we end the wars, stop 

spending so much money on bombs and missiles and guns and take 

care of our people here at home, what would you suggest that we 

do? What proposal? What plan? 

Ms. LOWER-BASCH. As I said, you know, I think it is going to 

be a multi-tiered thing. One problem is there are an awful lot of 

people who are working, in many cases full time, year round, and 

they are still poor. Because we have an economy that has a lot of 

low-wage jobs. So there is a piece about both, you know, improving 

the labor market and providing supports for workers. There is a 

piece about, you know, people who have disabilities that really do 

prevent them from working. There are lots of different—there is no 

magic bullet. It is going to be 30 bullets, you know—I hate to use 

that metaphor. Let me not. 

But it is going to be a lot of different pieces to the puzzle to put 

together. TANF is one of the pieces, and it has been a broken link. 

Let’s take your example of Georgia. Georgia used to pay TANF 

caseworkers to go to domestic violence shelters to help women 

apply for cash assistance. They stopped doing that because they decided they did not want to make it easy for people to get cash assistance. You know, you don’t want people to break up marriages 

when they are good marriages. But when there is a domestic violence situation, you want TANF to be that lifeline. And it is not 

always there. So, yes, it has been a broken piece in the puzzle. 

Mr. BESHAROV. I am struck, Mr. Lewis, by the point you made 

and the point Mr. Kelly made. Because they are actually two parts 

of the same problem, which is the weakness of the family. 

I was at a job training program in Newark, inner city Newark. 

And these were women, almost entirely minority, who had been 

practical nurses, and they were in a training program to become 

registered nurses. And this is automatic; you go from $25,000 a 

year to $45,000 or $50,000. It just happens—you know, there is no 

magic bullet. It is once they get the skills, whether it is the Affordable Care Act or whatever, there are jobs. So this is automatic. 

And there were about 150 women in the room. And I said, ‘‘What 

is the biggest problem that you have?’’ And one of them got up and 

said, ‘‘Well, the man in my life just doesn’t make it easy for me. 

One day I went home, all my furniture was in the street, and he 

had set fire to it.’’ 

80 

Now, I said to myself, this is crazy. I am sure, I said, ‘‘How many 

other women have a problem like that?’’ Three hands. I said, ‘‘You 

mean exactly like that?’’ They said, ‘‘Yes.’’ 

Now, we have MDRC research from New York City when they 

did their program of job training and support for inner city women 

who wanted, volunteered, to go through job training and find a job. 

And what they found that was one of the major reasons why those 

women didn’t make it is because the men in their lives did not support the idea of them becoming independent. 

So some part of this, some part of this is about family relations. 

We may call it family violence. We may call it the broken family. 

But a part of this is getting these young—I am feeling this age 

issue—getting these young people to do it right. 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you. 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you, Mr. Lewis. 

Mr. Young, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member, 

as well. 

This is an important conversation. This really does fit into the 

larger picture of how we address poverty in this country. So I am 

glad that Mr. Lewis brought that up. 

This is such a multifaceted challenge. Of course, the program 

we are here to discuss today plays a very important role in that 

puzzle. The weakness of the family. I have to say, before I get into 

the immediate concern of this hearing, I think if we could get the 

economy to grow a little faster, we would alleviate so much. I saw 

all heads nodding affirmatively on our panel when I said that. It 

would create more wherewithal so that we could fund these important programs, provide more hope and opportunity for people 

that—perhaps incentivize them to, if they are not already searching for work, to go out and search more actively, and just restore 

some hope and dignity and prosperity in this country. Because we 

know those on the margins of society who benefit from many of 

these important programs are most adversely hurt during a down 

economy. So reforming the Tax Code, the regulatory code and so on 

are things that we really need to do. 

With that said, I know we are here today to discuss the implications of HHS’ unilateral decision to waive work requirements from 

the TANF program. At a time when national poverty rates and 

welfare spending are very high, at least compared to recent history, 

Congress needs to ensure that those who need help are receiving 

TANF in a manner that provides a path to self-sufficiency, which 

includes ensuring that the job training programs that are out there 

are effective. But we must not waive requirements that have led 

to more jobs and earnings and also reduced poverty and welfare dependence. On that, I hope all of us can agree. 

Now, before the 1996 Federal Welfare Law was signed into law 

by President Clinton, my home State of Indiana, under a Democrat 

Governor, Evan Bayh, created work requirements for Hoosiers who 

received welfare benefits. This ensured Hoosiers who were receiving benefits really got the benefits they needed. But we targeted 

this program toward those who needed the benefits most. 

81 

As former Governor Bayh later said, the bottom line was trying 

to make someone self-sufficient. We were trying to achieve two values: One was the notion of community, and also responsibility. So 

this is exactly, in my estimation, what the 1996 Federal Welfare 

Reform Law did, and is exactly what the Obama Administration is 

undermining through this unilateral decision by HHS. 

So if HHS now claims they have the authority to waive work requirements, I am curious, and I will direct this question to Ms. 

Brown, I know GAO hasn’t conducted a legal analysis about the 

authority to grant these waivers unilaterally, but did you indicate 

that you have reviewed documentation showing that there is no 

evidence the Administration has believed it had the authority in 

the past? So does this set us up on a sort of slippery slope here? 

What conceivably could HHS claim they could waive within the 

TANF program in the future? 

Ms. BROWN. I am quite sure that our General Counsel will advise me that I have to be very careful with this question. I 

think—— 

Mr. YOUNG. Please don’t. Just be candid and forthright. 

Ms. BROWN. I think the issue is that what we saw when we 

looked at the records was a number of requests that States have 

made that were not necessarily grand redesigns. And during that 

process, HHS said, again and again, different people, different levels, we don’t have that authority, we don’t have that authority. 

And then, as the President issued a memorandum telling Federal 

agencies to talk to States and locals about how to remove some of 

the burdens so that programs could work more effectively, they 

were hearing from States that they would like waivers. And HHS 

said they were beginning to think about whether—they were revisiting whether they had waiver authority. That is as much as I 

know. 

Mr. YOUNG. That was a very carefully constructed response. 

But much appreciated. And I thank you very much for your testimony. 

I yield back. 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you. 

Mr. Griffin, you are recognized. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for holding this hearing. 

Mr. Besharov, I want to ask you, you talked about—Mr. Young 

was talking about the theory upon which the change was made. I 

want to know why it was made. Why would we take away the requirement that some sort of work—we have heard a lot about traditional work here. But I think that is a mischaracterization. I am 

looking at all the different combinations that one can engage in to 

fulfill the work requirement. There are all sorts of different things. 

And it seems to me the point of this is to get people engaged in 

productive work-related, work-type activities; not traditional work, 

necessarily. But why would the Administration do this? 

Mr. BESHAROV. Well, let me just quickly follow up on what Ms. 

Brown said. 

The authority the Administration is using to justify the waivers 

is quite a big gun. It is saying we have the authority to modify 

82 

what you, the States, have to report to us; therefore, we can waive 

any portion of TANF. It is not just this portion, based on that. 

I have a feeling if the shoe was on the other foot, which is to say, 

if this were a Democratic House and a Republican Congress, we 

would have the same debate, only with different faces on the argument. This is a major expansion of executive authority if it is legal. 

If it is legal, it is because of quite a loophole; it is the teeniest little 

loophole that they are driving a truck through. 

You asked the question, though, why might they want to do it? 

And it is because of the argument you are seeing here, which is, 

some people read the history and the current situation to mean the 

best way to get people into a productive job is for them to get into 

a productive job and increase their earnings and experience. Other 

people think the best way to do it is through education and training first. That is a big argument. It was not quite settled in 1996. 

But for a while, the work-first people had it; they were going with 

it. The people who are on the losing end of that argument are, in 

large measure, in the Administration. So they get now, as the 

President says, I won the election. So they are revisiting this argument about work-first versus job training. I think that is what it 

comes down to. I think they are wrong, but I think they—it is a 

longstanding argument. 

One is never—I was trained as a lawyer—one is never supposed 

to ask a witness a question you don’t know the answer to. But I 

believe, Jason, I believe it is the case that before you became Commissioner in New York, one half—one half of the women at City 

College were on welfare. 

Mr. TURNER. Yes, that is actually true. And beyond that, Mr. 

Besharov, they didn’t graduate. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. We will save time for you to ask him questions. 

Mr. BESHAROV. Sorry. I apologize. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. My time is up. 

It looks to me like education is a big part of combinations that 

I am looking at. For those of us who have spent a lot of time getting an education and had spent a lot of time working, I think we 

can do a good job assessing which is the best preparation for life. 

But, correct me if I am wrong, and I know that there was some 

sensitivity to getting into this by Ms. Brown, but the Administration was—they were opposed to, legally opposed to changing this 

before they were in favor of it. Is that fair? Could you speak to 

that? If she can’t, can you? 

Mr. BESHAROV. I think this was a new interpretation that reversed the opinion that HHS had for many years. It is clearly a 

new interpretation. And it gives them authority that many people, 

including HHS, didn’t know it had before. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Thank you, Mr. Besharov. 

Looks like I am out of time. 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you, Mr. Griffin. 

Thank you all for your testimony today. I also want to thank the 

Members for being here at this important hearing. We have lots of 

work to do. Hopefully, we can come to an agreement so we can help 

those people out in our Nation who really need our help. 

A reminder to all Members, if you have additional questions for 

the witnesses, they will be submitted in writing, please. And we 

83 

would appreciate receiving your responses when you get their questions in writing for the record within 2 weeks. 

We now adjourn the meeting, thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 10:30 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Submissions for the Record follow:] 

84 


89478A.054
85 

f 


89478A.055
86 


89478A.056
87 


89478A.057
88 


89478A.058
89 


89478A.059
90 

f 


89478A.060
91 

f 


89478A.061
92 


89478A.062
93 


89478A.063
94 


89478A.064
95 

f 


89478A.065
96 

f 


89478A.066
97 


89478A.067
98 


89478A.068
99 


89478A.069
100 


89478A.070
101 


89478A.071
102 

f 


89478A.072
103 


89478A.073
104 


89478A.074
105 


89478A.075
106 

f 


89478A.076
107 


89478A.077
108 


89478A.078
109 


89478A.079
110 


89478A.080
111 


89478A.081
112 


89478A.082
113 


89478A.083
114 


89478A.084
115 


89478A.085
116 


89478A.086
117 


89478A.087
118 


89478A.088
119 


89478A.089
120 

Æ 


89478A.090