WORKING TOWARD INDEPENDENCE:

THE ADMINISTRATION’S PLAN TO BUILD UPON 

THE SUCCESSES OF WELFARE REFORM

HEARING

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND 

THE WORKFORCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, APRIL 9, 2002 

Serial No. 107-54 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education 

and the Workforce

 82-130 pdf 

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

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

 FAX: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
ii

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio, Chairman 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin GEORGE MILLER, California 

MARGE ROUKEMA, New Jersey DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina MAJOR R. OWENS, New York 

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

HOWARD P. “BUCK” McKEON, California PATSY MINK, Hawaii 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas TIM ROEMER, Indiana 

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania ROBERT C. “BOBBY” SCOTT, Virginia 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan 

CHARLIE W. NORWOOD, JR., Georgia RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas 

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York 

FRED UPTON, Michigan JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee RON KIND, Wisconsin 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee 

ERNIE FLETCHER, Kentucky DENNIS KUCINICH, Ohio 

JIM DeMINT, South Carolina DAVID WU, Oregon 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois SUSAN DAVIS, California 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

 Paula Nowakowski, Chief of Staff 

 John Lawrence, Minority Staff Director 
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ i

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHN BOEHNER, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ................. 2

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MINORITY MEMBER PATSY MINK OF THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21ST CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, EDUCATION AND 

WORKFORCE COMMITTEE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ................................... 3

STATEMENT OF HON. TOMMY G. THOMPSON, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES........................................................................................... 6

STATEMENT OF WENDELL PRIMUS, DIRECTOR OF INCOME SECURITY, CENTER 

ON BUDGET AND POLICY PRIORITIES................................................................................ 36

STATEMENT OF JASON A. TURNER, VISITING FELLOW, THE HERITAGE 

FOUNDATION ............................................................................................................................ 38

APPENDIX A -- OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHN BOEHNER, 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. ........................................................................... 55

APENDIX B –GROUPS THAT HAVE ENDORSED H.R. 3113, THE TANF 

REAUTHORIZATION ACT, SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY REPRESENTATIVE 

PATSY MINK, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. ........................................................................... 59

APPENDIX C -- WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF HON. TOMMY G. THOMPSON, 

SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES ..................... 63

APPENDIX D -- WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF WENDELL PRIMUS, DIRECTOR OF 

INCOME SECURITY, CENTER ON BUDGET AND POLICY PRIORITIES......................... 75

APPENDIX E -- WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF JASON A. TURNER, VISITING FELLOW, 

THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION .............................................................................................. 91

APPENDIX F – SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, QUESTIONS FROM MINORITY 

MEMBERS FOR OF HON. TOMMY G. THOMPSON, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, SUBMITTED BY RANKING MINORITY 

MEMBER GEORGE MILLER, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C.............................................. 103

TABLE OF INDEXES ............................................................................................................... 126
iv
1

HEARING ON WORKING TOWARD INDEPENDENCE: 

THE ADMINISTRATION'S PLAN TO BUILD UPON 

THE SUCCESSES OF WELFARE REFORM 

____________________________

TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 2002 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

 The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:00 p.m., in Room 2175, Rayburn House Office 

Building, Hon. John A. Boehner, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

 Present: Representatives Boehner, Petri, Roukema, Ballenger, Hoekstra, McKeon, Castle, 

Johnson, Upton, Hilleary, Ehlers, Biggert, Tiberi, Osborne, Miller, Kildee, Owens, Mink, Roemer, 

Scott, Woolsey, Rivers, Hinojosa, Tierney, Kind, Kucinich, Holt, Solis, Davis, and McCollum. 

 Staff Present: Stephanie Milburn, Professional Staff Member; John Cline, Professional Staff 

Member; Kate Gorton, Professional Staff Member; Travis McCoy, Legislative Assistant; Paula 

Nowakowski, Staff Director; Sally Lovejoy, Director of Education and Human Resources Policy; 

Jo-Marie St. Martin, General Counsel; Scott Galupo, Communications Specialist; Patrick Lyden, 

Professional Staff Member; Deborah O. Samantar, Committee Clerk/Intern Coordinator; Charles 

Barone, Minority Deputy Staff Director; Mark Zuckerman, Minority General Counsel; Maria 

Cuprill, Minority Legislative Associate/Labor: Ruth Friedman, Minority Legislative 

Associate/Education; James Kvaal, Minority Legislative Associate/Education; Maggie McDow, 

Minority Legislative Associate/Education; Joe Novotny, Minority Staff Assistant/Education; Peter 

Rutledge, Minority Senior Legislative Associate/Labor: Michele Varnhagen, Minority Labor 

Counsel/Coordinator; Daniel Weiss, Minority Special Assistant to the Ranking Member. 
2

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHN BOEHNER, COMMITTEE 

ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES

Chairman Boehner. We are hearing testimony today on the administration's proposals for welfare 

reform. 

 Under committee rule 12 (b) opening statements are permitted by the chairman and the 

ranking minority member of the committee. Therefore, if other members have opening statements, 

they will be included in the hearing record. And with that, I ask that the hearing record remain 

open for 14 days to allow members' statements to be submitted for the hearing record. Without 

objection, so ordered. 

 Let me say good afternoon to you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Mr. Miller, and all my 

colleagues, and our audience. I extend a warm welcome to you. I want to thank you very much for 

being here to show your interest and assistance. 

 Many of us on this committee remember the heated debates Congress had over welfare 

reform in 1996. After President Clinton signed the bill into law, some predicted it would have 

disastrous results. One of our former Senate colleagues said, and I'll quote, “Those involved will 

take this disgrace to their graves.'' 

 Well, let's look at what has happened: Welfare caseloads have dropped 57 percent from 

their all-time high of 5.1 million families in March of 1994 to 2.1 million families in May of 2001, 

their lowest level since 1968 according to the U.S. Department of Heath and Human Services. 

Census figures also show that employment by mothers most likely to go on welfare rose by 40 

percent between 1995 and 2000. 

 Moreover, since 1996, nearly 3 million children have been lifted from poverty. Census data 

show that child poverty is now in its longest period of sustained decline since the early 1970s, and 

the black child poverty rate is at its lowest point ever. 

 One of the myths that welfare reform opponents like to employ is that the reductions in 

welfare caseloads and child poverty during the late 1990s were a result of a healthy economy, not 

the welfare reform law. But history shows that this argument simply doesn't hold water; during 

other long economic booms in the 1960s and the 1980s, welfare caseloads actually rose. The fact 

is that the '96 reform law's work requirements made the crucial difference in maximizing 

opportunities for welfare recipients to participate in the workforce. 

 The success of the '96 welfare reform law is beyond dispute. Indeed, an editorial in 

yesterday's New York Times called it, and I'll quote, “an obvious success.'' The challenge for this 

Congress is to build on that success by putting more Americans on the path to self-reliance when 
3

the law is reauthorized this year. While it is true that the '96 reforms significantly reduced welfare 

caseloads, we still have work to do. A majority of TANF recipients today are still not working for 

their benefits. 

 According to the Health and Human Services Department's Third Annual Report to 

Congress, 58 percent of TANF adult recipients are not participating in work activities as defined by 

federal law, which includes work and other various job training and education activities. 

 In addition to strengthening work requirements, we recognize how essential it is for welfare 

families to have access to appropriate childcare. The bill this committee will consider in the 

coming weeks will reauthorize and improve the Childcare and Development Block Grant. 

 President Bush recently released his blueprint for the second phase of welfare reform, 

which aims to help more welfare recipients achieve independence through work and strengthen 

families. Secretary Thompson is here today to testify about that proposal. 

 As this committee prepares to consider legislation to reauthorize the 1996 welfare reform 

law, which Subcommittee Chairman Buck McKeon and I will introduce today, I look forward to a 

spirited debate. We all share the same goal, and that is to help more people move into productive, 

independent, and self-sufficient lives. 

 With that, I yield to my friend and my colleague, our distinguished Congressman from 

California, Mr. Miller. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHN BOEHNER, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. – 

SEE APPENDIX A 

Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to welcome Mr. Secretary to the Committee this 

afternoon and I will be yielding my time to Congresswoman Patsy Mink, who is the ranking 

member of the subcommittee. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MINORITY MEMBER PATSY MINK 

OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21ST CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS, 

EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE COMMITTEE, U.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES

Mrs. Mink. Thank you very much, Mr. Miller. On behalf of the ranking member of the full 

committee and certain members of my subcommittee on this side and all of the minority members 

of the committee, I, too, want to join in welcoming the Secretary for this opportunity to discuss 

with you the many pertinent issues that we feel are still very much under discussion when we take 

on the responsibility of reauthorizing the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Program. 
4

 I would like to first of all, Mr. Secretary, call to your attention the bill, H.R. 3113, that I 

introduced last year. It now enjoys 88 co-sponsors in the House and it has been endorsed by more 

than 80 organizations all across the country. This represents not only the welfare community 

organizations but also well-known organizations like the BPW, YMCA, Communication Workers, 

and so on and so forth. I'd like to put on the record to include at this point the list of not only the 

co-sponsors but the list of organizations. 

GROUPS THAT HAVE ENDORSED H.R. 3113, THE TANF REAUTHORIZATION ACT, 

SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY REPRESENTATIVE PATSY MINK, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – SEE APENDIX B 

Mrs. Mink. H.R. 3113, Mr. Secretary, was the product of grassroots recommendations and the 

product of many, many hearings all across the country in which these organizations took testimony, 

particularly from recipients and recipient families, with respect to what they felt needed to be 

improved in terms of the TANF legislation. 

 My bill seeks to make a real path from welfare to true self-sufficiency. As to the relevant 

matters before this committee, we feel strongly that education and training is the major way to 

provide economic security for families who are in this specialty category. 

 Therefore, Mr. Secretary, I'm quite dismayed that so many of the suggestions for reform by 

yourself and by the administration do not go to the central issue of how to improve the families and 

their future by emphasizing the importance of education to this responsibility. 

 The President took great initiative by promoting H.R. 1, Leave No Child Behind, where we 

worked together for over a year and produced legislation which you were all able to sign and 

support, and it seems to me that if we are going to advocate a notion of leave no child behind and 

doing that through education and accountability in educational systems, then we have to adopt that 

same principle with respect to families who are on welfare and who are still in need of support. 

Education is our primary difficulty with the current bill, because it only allows one year of 

educational training. 

 The legislation that we have submitted calls for the encouragement of persons on welfare to 

engage themselves in the full display of educational opportunities so that they can uplift 

themselves, their families, and their children to the full strength of economic security and 

opportunity which there is in America, and we feel that the TANF legislation ought to do this. 

 The first thing is to allow it as a work activity and then to stop the clock while that activity 

is in full progress, so that people can get nursing degrees, teaching degrees, become professionals 

and so forth. So we think that in this committee that's the major issue that we should be facing. 

 Now the proposal of the President and your administration is to go in the opposite direction 

by requiring 40 hours of work by the recipients, 16 of which could be in education and 24 in full 

work activity. We feel that this increase of the 40 hours is a gross mistake and to couple it with 
5

acknowledgement that education is valuable we think misses the point entirely. 

 There are many other areas that go to the notion of what is important in America. We think 

that middle-class families, upper middle class, and the rich have always had a sense of pride when 

women have decided on their own, even though they have high-paying jobs and professional 

careers, to become mothers and have the responsibility of taking care of their children, to decide for 

themselves to stay home and to rear their young children until they are of school age. 

 We think that this is a philosophy that should be sustained when they deal with welfare 

recipients as well. Therefore, one of the major points that we make in our legislation is directed 

towards the responsibility to allow mothers to stay at home and care for their children. And 

certainly we think that is something that puts the child first and to allow the parents to nurture and 

raise their own children is a very important principle for welfare recipients. 

 The other areas have to do with drug treatment, to allow drug treatment to be a work 

activity that allows the clock to stop. 

 There are numerous other things, Mr. Chairman; I would like to add to the summary of my 

legislation at this point. I urge the administration to have an open mind in considering a number of 

these points that many of us feel are very, very important and go to the dignity and respect that we 

feel that these individuals who find themselves in misfortune have the right to expect their country 

to extend to them. 

 Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary Thompson. Thank you. 

Chairman Boehner. I would like to yield to my colleague and vice chairman of the committee, 

Mr. Petri, for purposes of introducing us to the former governor and now the Secretary. 

Mr. Petri. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's an honor for me to have an opportunity to 

present someone who I think you have all met a number of times already but the most distinguished 

constituent, former governor of Wisconsin, Secretary of Health and Human Services. 

 It is appropriate at this time that our nation has the leadership of Tommy Thompson in this 

important role because as governor of our state, he led the nation in reforming welfare through a 

bill that we called W2; Welfare to Work. 

 To do that, he had to not only reinvent the incentives of the program at the state level but 

also battle here in Washington for waivers so that he could do something different and innovative.

I think it is particularly noteworthy that in the administration’s proposal, which the Secretary will 

be presenting to us today, there is enhanced labor authority, so that our nation can benefit from 

using the states as laboratories of not just reform but also to deliver innovative and improved 

services to the people which provide increased opportunities. 
6

Secretary Thompson has put his efforts into practice by providing more opportunities for people 

through helping them to get health care they would not have it otherwise and a number of other 

programs. 

 We look forward to your testimony today. 

Chairman Boehner. Mr. Secretary, welcome. You may begin. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOMMY G. THOMPSON, SECRETARY, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

Secretary Thompson. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman, Congressman Miller, my very good 

friend and colleague, Congressman Petri, Congressman Kind and other members of this wonderful 

Committee. 

 I'm very honored, Mr. Chairman, to appear before you today to discuss the next phase of 

welfare reform. Chairman Boehner, your bipartisan leadership of this committee rightly earns you 

high marks. And, Congressman Miller, thank you for your years of leadership. I'm confident that 

we will work together to find common ground on the next phase of welfare reform. 

 Over the past five years welfare reform, as the Chairman has indicated, has exceeded our 

most optimistic expectations. The 1996 law dramatically shifted national welfare policy by 

promoting work and encouraging personal responsibility, discouraging unwed pregnancy, and 

supporting marriages. States were given unprecedented flexibility in the design and 

implementation of their welfare programs. Families were given the help that they needed to 

transition from welfare to working. 

 And underlining all of these changes, we restored a central principle that has long been lost, 

that welfare assistance was designed to be temporary and help families in crisis and that 

dependence and poverty were not and should not be permanent conditions. 

 Welfare was fundamentally reformed, and as a result, nearly 7 million fewer individuals are 

on welfare today than in 1996. Two point eight million fewer children are in poverty. Minority 

children raised from poverty levels has increased dramatically. These things have occurred in large 

part because welfare has been transformed. 

 TANF has moved millions of individuals from welfare to work. Employment among single 

mothers has grown to unprecedented levels. Child poverty rates are at their lowest levels since 

1979. Overall, child poverty rates have declined from 20 percent in 1996 to 16 percent in 2000. 

The poverty rate among African-American children declined from 40 percent to 30 percent, the 

lowest level on record, and the poverty rate among Hispanic children declined from 40 to 28 

percent, the largest four-year drop on record. 
7

 Yet much remains to be done, and states still face many challenges. Our proposal seeks 

sixteen and a half billion dollars for block grants to the states and tribes, and an additional $319 

million for supplemental grants in order for states that have experienced high population growth 

and had historically low funding levels to achieve parity. 

 At the same time, we will continue the current maintenance effort to retain state 

contribution assistance for children and families. We will reauthorize and improve the 2 billion 

dollar contingency fund and make major changes. We will also restore, for five years, the policy 

permitting the transfer of up to 10 percent of TANF funds to the Social Services Block Grant, and 

we will seek to maximize self-sufficiency through work. 

 First and foremost, states will be required to engage all TANF families headed by an adult 

in activities leading to self-sufficiency. In addition to the requirement for universal engagement, 

we will increase the direct work requirement. Our proposal requires welfare recipients to engage in 

a 40-hour-work week, at least 24 hours of which must be in direct work, including employment, 

on-the-job training, and/or supervised work experience. This is an important step, since 40 hours is 

a normal work period for all Americans, and we want the men and women who are transitioning 

from welfare to understand what will be demanded of them in the real world. A full 16 of these 40 

hours can be used for training and education, the very things that will equip former welfare 

recipients for success in the future. 

 In addition, we will allow substance abuse treatment, rehabilitation, or work-related training 

for up to three months within any 24-month period, and we will also gradually increase minimum 

participation rate requirements of 5 percent per year. Our proposal embraces the needs of families 

by promoting child well-being and healthy marriages. To this end, we establish improving the wellbeing of children as the overarching purpose of TANF. 

 Child support is also an equally critical component of the federal and state effort to promote 

family self-sufficiency. For the low-income families who receive child support, it makes up more 

than a quarter of the family budget. 

 Welfare reform has made a dramatic difference in child support collections as well. The 

good news is that the number of paternities established or acknowledged over the past five years 

has now reached almost 1.6 million. In fiscal year 2001 a record of nearly $19 billion in child 

support was collected serving an estimated seventeen-and-a-half million child support cases. We 

are proposing to do even more. 

 Our proposals are to be targeted to increase collections to families by merely one-and-ahalf-billion dollars over five years, beginning fiscal year 2004. 

 All of that said, I know this committee's deep commitment and passion to ensure an 

adequate level of childcare funding for children at risk. I appreciate the leadership of you, Mr. 

Chairman, and the other members of this committee that have shone in this area. 

 In 1999, 20 million families in the U.S. had one or more children under the age of 13 with 

an employed mother. Thirty-two percent of these families were in low income. For a number of 
8

reasons, including the high cost of childcare, many of these individual families have difficulty 

funding and finding care arrangements that they all can afford. 

 I can tell you from my experience as governor of Wisconsin, access to childcare assistance 

can make a critical difference in helping low income families find and be able to retain jobs. Our 

proposal includes a total of $4.8 billion of the Childcare and Development Fund. When combined 

with TANF and other federal funding sources, nearly $9 billion is available for childcare and 

related services for children. 

 Funding available to our childcare programs and TANF transfers alone will provide 

childcare assistance to an estimated 2.2 million children in fiscal year 2003. This is a significant 

increase over the number served just a few years ago, when children served by the Social Services 

Block Grant and TANF direct spending for childcare are considered. An estimated one-half million 

additional children will be served in 2003. 

 Under the President's plan, states have significant flexibility to decide how childcare funds 

will be used and what will be emphasized in achieving the overall goals of improving access to 

care and the quality of care. 

 Along with state flexibility, parental choice is a key element of a successful childcare 

program. Families must be allowed to choose the care that best meets their needs, whether with a 

relative, neighbor, childcare center, faith-based program, or after-school program. 

 In addition, we established a new state programs integration waiver authority, as 

Congressman Petri indicated, to permit states to further integrate a broad range of public assistance 

and workforce development programs in order to improve the effectiveness of these programs. 

Broad flexibility to develop new strategies and approaches will be provided, enabling the states to 

design fully integrated welfare and workforce development systems that could revolutionize 

services delivered. 

 Of course, the purpose of these programs must continue to be met. States still will be 

required to identify the programs and the activities for which waivers are requested, and must 

describe how the program's proposals and purposes will be achieved, and show how the proposals 

will improve or enhance the achievement of these goals. 

Mr. Chairman, the proposal I bring before you today contains several essential principles and 

proposals. What binds them together is the desire, as I know it is the Committee's desire, to 

improve the lives of the families protected by America's social safety net. I look forward to 

working with you, Mr. Chairman, and all the members of this committee in a bipartisan way to 

accomplish that ending. 

 Now, I'll be happy to answer any questions that you might have. 
9

WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF HON. TOMMY G. THOMPSON, SECRETARY, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES –SEE APPENDIX C 

Chairman Boehner. Mr. Secretary, thank you for your testimony, and again, thank you for your 

willingness to come up and talk to this committee about the administration's proposal. 

 As the development of welfare reform has been a big success in moving people from 

welfare to work, questions are raised as to what kind of work are former recipients receiving and if 

they are getting stuck in low-paying jobs. Do you see advancement, not just job placement, as an 

element of the TANF program? 

Secretary Thompson. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman, and that's the reason for the new TANF 

proposal. Work has got to be an essential item but the training, the education, the 16 hours that are 

included in here, the 40 hours, are set up to accomplish that. You have to be able to get a job. You 

have to be able to continue to get a job and training in order to improve that and be able to go up 

the economic ladder. 

 And the second thing people say is that you could be better off by going back in the old 

system. That is absolutely incorrect, because you are going to be locked into poverty. By working, 

by getting the training, the education, the drug treatment, if necessary, and the alcohol 

rehabilitation that may be necessary, you are going to then have the opportunity to go up the 

economic ladder and improve your quality of life as well as the opportunity to improve the working 

conditions and the economic position that you are in. 

Chairman Boehner. Mr. Secretary, you described for us how, as governor, you integrated welfare 

and workforce government programs in your home state of Wisconsin. 

Secretary Thompson. Absolutely. I looked at all the workforce programs, Mr. Chairman, and I 

decided that you had to have an integrated program, so we set up counseling centers in every 

county in the State of Wisconsin and we brought in the cities, the counties, and the state work 

programs and put them into one counseling center, with counselors to talk about job prospects. We 

put all the jobs in the state on a computer base. We brought in the county and the city and the state 

counselors to meet with individuals. We had a day care center in every one of the counseling 

centers so an individual could walk in, have their children taken care of, fill out their application, 

go on the Internet and find any job that would meet their skills with a counselor there. We had 

vocational counselors there to help advise them and direct them. 

 It was the first integrated approach of any state that brought all of these things together at a 

particular site in every county in a particular state, and now we have expanded that beyond the 

counties, and it is working extremely well. I was just in Florida a couple of weeks ago in which the 

same concept is working and working extremely well, and is working in other states to the same 

degree.

Chairman Boehner. Yes, the administration's proposal phases out the caseload reduction credit.

What changes do you believe that the administration should suggest encouraging states to continue 
10

moving people off the rolls and into work? 

Secretary Thompson. Well, under the old welfare reduction credit, every 1 percent reduction of 

the welfare cases reduced the requirement of having 50 percent of their individuals working at a 

particular time. As a result of that was a decline, a tremendous decline, in welfare cases. 

 Most states are down to around 5 percent. The average is 5 to 10 percent work 

requirements now. And my own state of Wisconsin has reduced it even more than that. We don't 

have any requirement whatsoever, even though we still require it, it is a state requirement but not a 

federal one. 

 So, we went the other way. We thought we should have an employment type of credit and 

require people to start at 50 percent, going back to 50 percent, increasing that up to 70 percent, 5 

percent each year, and then encourage people on the employment side to get a job, and so we are 

putting back more requirements to keep people working. We are also putting in the requirement 

that every state has a full case file on every individual person on assistance and be able to follow 

that and put in a job plan as well as an education plan to keep them going in that direction. 

Chairman Boehner. What do you think the states could do or accomplish with the labor authority 

that is part of the goal? 

Secretary Thompson. Well, the federal laws are different as far as eligibility, you know, different 

eligibilities for HUD, different eligibilities for Labor, different eligibilities for some programs 

under TANF, different eligibility programs for the food stamp program, so I envision an 

enterprising governor to be able to take a program out of HUD, out of Labor, out of the food stamp 

program, out of TANF and be able to uniform the eligibility requirements as well as performance 

requirements so that you have one eligibility requirement, one performance requirement, and then 

have to apply for that waiver from the three or four departments that they would request. 

 The Secretaries would have to be on 90-day intervals if there are any applications for 

waivers and all of the Secretaries would have to either sign off or make comments and agree to the 

comments on that particular waiver for their department. And so it would be a uniform-packaged 

thing, to be able to bring together the performance, the eligibility requirements so there would be 

one standard that the states would follow, the welfare recipient would be able to follow, the 

counselors would be able follow, and make a uniform system and make it much easier to be able to 

place people into work. 

 Work, for instance, has many definitions in the federal code, and childcare has many 

definitions, and if you could put all of those together and make a uniform standard, you could then 

develop a very innovative program. 

Chairman Boehner. Well, maybe we can put all that under the jurisdiction of our committee, and 

we'll solve that problem for you. 

 I will have to yield to my colleague from California, Mr. Miller. 
11

Mr. Miller. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank you for your testimony. 

 Just to follow up on a point made by the Chairman, your argument in the new work 

requirement is that the states were able to offset that requirement through the use of the credit over 

the last five years; is that correct? 

Secretary Thompson. That is correct. 

Mr. Miller. So what would the actual increase be for a state that had a healthy credit for people 

leaving TANF in terms of this employment requirement? 

Secretary Thompson. Let's take my own state of Wisconsin, which doesn't have any requirements 

only because they reduced the welfare care load before that. So the first year they get the hundred 

percent of that credit. In the first year after you enact the legislation, you would be able to use that 

credit.

 The second year they would be able to use 50 percent of that credit, the second fiscal year, 

so it would be up to 25 percent. The third year they would have to go back to the hundred percent 

because of the two years intervening they would be at 60 percent. They would have 60 percent of 

the remaining caseload and some kind of work experience and would have to have a case file. 

Mr. Miller. For a number of states, that would be a substantial jump. 

Secretary Thompson. But it would be a phase-in over three years. 

Mr. Miller. I understand that.

Secretary Thompson. Yeah. 

Mr. Miller. Obviously, the credits were more successful than you anticipated. 

Secretary Thompson. Absolutely. 

Mr. Miller. In the beginning, but now you are talking about a hard number which is going to be a 

substantial real jump over the next couple of years for the states. 

Secretary Thompson. That is correct. 

Mr. Miller. The reason I asked that, it's just a point of clarification, is there has obviously been a 

concern raised that if you have this increase, and then you have this history of flat funding in 

childcare, and as you've said and many others have said, childcare is a real enabler. 

Secretary Thompson. It is. 
12

Mr. Miller. If you are going to work and stay in the workplace, I'm just not quite clear how you get 

that justification from those two facts. 

Secretary Thompson. Let me try and explain it this way. First off, I'm a big advocate of childcare, 

and I have testified in Congress many times as a governor. There are four things, really, that make 

a successful welfare reform program, the first one childcare, health care, transportation, and 

training. You have to have those four essential ingredients in order to have a successful welfare 

program. 

 Secondly, in regards to childcare, we are putting $4.8 billion in, which is a level funding, 

but when you take a look at the numbers, when we started on welfare reform back in 1996, there 

were over 8 million children in this particular category. Today there are less than 4 million, so the 

money is still there, but under TANF there are less than half the number of children to be taken 

care of with childcare. 

 Number three, if we weren't doing homeland security and were not involved in a war on 

terrorism, there may be a lot better arguments in regards to putting money into childcare, not better 

arguments, because there is always a great argument for childcare, but there would be more money 

available. With the homeland security and the war on terrorism, we felt that this was a very 

adequate amount of money at this point in time. 

Mr. Miller. Well, I guess I would just disagree with you. The purposes of this program and I think 

the intent of everyone is to see this program, and more importantly, the families in the program, 

succeed. And I just don't see that that kind of flexibility that you talk about in reading through your 

statement. The suggestion somehow is that there is plenty of money there. It's your statement, and 

you are welcome to it. 

Secretary Thompson. Yes. 

Mr. Miller. But I just don't quite see where the figures add up that that is the case. 

Secretary Thompson. Well, I negotiated with Congress back in '95 the original TANF proposal. I 

was chairman of the National Governors Organization. We cut a very good deal with Congress. 

We were able as state governors to be able to pick the base year, fiscal or calendar year '93, 

calendar year '94, calendar year '95 or a combination of those three. As a result of that, we as 

governors picked the best year or a combination of years that would be advantageous to the states 

and the particular year when the TANF proposal came, there were over 8 million children under the 

TANF program at 4.8. 

Mr. Miller. I don't disagree with that. 

Secretary Thompson. We have half the children now and still the same amount of money. 

Mr. Miller. Mr. Secretary, I don't disagree with that, but it is also fair that the intent of your new 

bill is to put additional requirements, pretty substantial work requirements, into place. We can talk 

like 1 to 5 percent, but these are real numbers that have to be placed without the credit. We've got 
13

to make those gains. 

 And so the question that is being raised by the states and others is whether or not your 

package, the package that transfers money into childcare, now that you are going to have work 

requirements and greater work requirements under the existing system and maybe even to some 

extent more real work requirements than under the existing system, and so the notion that the same 

amount of money is going to be there to be able to transfer that into childcare I don't think 

necessarily holds up. 

Secretary Thompson. But you have half of the numbers. 

Mr. Miller. Well, I'm not sure that is quite correct. It also doesn't suggest the call upon the 

childcare, while people go out there in the workplace or are trying to stay in the workplace, where 

we have waiting lists in almost every state. 

Secretary Thompson. Several states do not have waiting lists. 

Mr. Miller. God bless them. 

Secretary Thompson. One is my state, Mr. Miller. 

Mr. Miller. Well, we'll take you the next time. 

Secretary Thompson. Okay. 

Mr. Miller. The fact is that many states, mine included, have very substantial waiting lists of 

people who are trying to stay in our economic system and need childcare to do so. 

Secretary Thompson. Congressman, I want to work with you. 

Mr. Miller. No, I'm just saying that there is a... 

Secretary Thompson. Childcare is important. 

Mr. Miller. With the expression of very little concern by the states and others about whether this, 

and I expect them to make their advocacy case but I also think that as we look at the numbers and 

we look at the need of this system, I'm not sure you combine these increased requirements with that 

flat funding. But that is what the legislative process is all about. 

Secretary Thompson. Congressman, I was a proud governor and I know governors as well as 

anybody in the country and I have never seen a governor turn down extra money coming from the 

Federal Government, and they certainly will be here to request more money, sir. 

Mr. Miller. I'm not about extra money. I'm about sufficient money to make sure that these kids get 

decent care so the parents can go to work. 
14

Secretary Thompson. We both agree on that, Congressman. 

Chairman Boehner. You are starting to sound like one of those governors. 

 The chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Petri. 

Mr. Petri. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. There has been some attention given in the press as this was 

being worked on and prior to its presentation, on the marriage promotion side of this proposal. I 

personally think one of the major problems is our government has set up very peculiar adverse 

incentives for individuals to not take out a marriage license. If you take out a marriage license, 

you'll lose all kinds of benefits if you provide two low-paying jobs rather than just having one on 

the forms. So apart from encouraging marriage, our national policy for the last 20 or 30 years has 

been to discourage people taking out a marriage license. 

 I think that it's a financial disincentive to marry for low-income people, and so it helps 

explain why the illegitimacy rate in our country is in some communities is 50, 60 percent or more. 

And this is a very dangerous situation for a healthy society, I'm sure. 

 Do you think that the increased waiver requirement enables states to come up with some 

innovative ways to kind of change these incentives so that people can take out a marriage license 

without losing five or $6,000 in after-tax income when their total earnings are only 20 or $25,000, 

which is the situation some people face today? 

Secretary Thompson. I think you have answered your own question, Congressman, and I agree 

with you wholeheartedly and enthusiastically in supporting your premises in regards to this 

particular question. 

 I think that the federal laws did, in certain, instances discourage marriage, and what we are 

trying to do with the healthy marriage proposal is to allow states the innovation and the flexibility 

to set up programs on counseling as well as to assist people in regards to marriage. Not only 

encourage, we don't encourage marriages that are going to cause problems. But in the case of 

individuals who want to get married, to give them counseling so that they can make a very valid 

decision and hopefully have a positive and constructive marriage and be able to support healthy 

marriages, but at the same time, give the states the flexibility to do that. 

 And I have got a great deal of confidence in the ingenuity and the innovation of state 

governors across America to do that, and that is why the provision is in there for states to have that 

opportunity to do so. 

Mr. Petri. And actually this is the Education and the Workforce Committee, and certainly having a 

stable and two-parenting household to provide a framework where the children have a better 

chance of succeeding in school as well. So there are lots of benefits for our society in trying to 

remove disincentives to people having stable family relationships. 
15

Secretary Thompson. I agree with you, and I think that's what the TANF proposal by the 

administration is attempting to do, and I thank you for your support, Congressman. 

Chairman Boehner. The Chair recognizes the young lady from California, Ms. Woolsey. 

Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's nice to see you, Mr. Secretary. I walked my walk. I 

don't know if you know it but 35 years ago, I was a welfare mom. 

Secretary Thompson. I knew that. 

Ms. Woolsey. No fault of mine, no fault of my children's. They had no dad all of a sudden, and 

that was bad enough. Going on welfare, I went to work, of course, and stayed working. Went on 

the Aid for Dependents to make ends meet, bad enough, but the worst part of the whole thing was 

the 13 different childcare situations in 12 months. That was the worst year of my children's life. It 

was almost impossible to get to work on time but I did, became an executive, but not until I had the 

childcare situation under control. 

 There is no way we can provide funds and increase the number of mothers that have to go 

to work and the number of recipients that have to be in the workforce and make it possible for 

moms to go to work and be successful. I'm telling you when you are working, you are thinking 

about your kids and if they are not taken care of, half your brain is worried about them. Luckily I 

had a good brain, I could work with half a brain. Not everybody can. Not everybody will go to 

work and leave their children in a situation that they are not comfortable with. And that was 35 

years ago. It's not that much better now. 

 What we have to learn from what happened over the last five years is if we want moms to 

go from welfare to self-sufficiency, they have to have the support system in place. I'm not only 

talking about childcare. Certainly the education is equally important. 

 So I want to hear from you because you were a governor. Where as a governor are you 

going to find money in a state budget to make up for what the President is proposing? You know, 

insisting that more go to work, insisting that they work longer hours? There is not enough 

childcare. There is not enough childcare. 

Secretary Thompson. Congresswoman, first let me congratulate you on what you have been able 

to accomplish. Secondly, I'm very proud of what you have been able to accomplish, and I 

congratulate you. Third, you seem to be fighting with me for no reason whatsoever on childcare, 

because I happen to be an individual passionate believer in childcare. I have argued in these halls 

as a governor that we can't put people to work without adequate childcare. That is still the law. It 

is the law in TANF and if there is not childcare available, nobody is going to require somebody to 

go into work. 

 The fourth thing is that our level of funding childcare is as far as the Childcare Block Grant 

and when you look at a budget, you've got homeland security, you've got the war on terrorists, and 

you have this amount of money appropriated. 
16

 I think we've done... 

Ms. Woolsey. I'd like to take my time back, because we are not going to pay for homeland security 

and the war on terrorism on the backs of our children. 

Secretary Thompson. But you also have to realize, Congresswoman, when we put this together 

five years ago; there were over 8 million children for $4.8 billion. Today, there are less than 4 

million children for the same amount of money, so if you look at it in regards to the money, there is 

actually more money available. 

 When you put in the flexibility and allow 30 percent of the money to be diverted to 

childcare for the states where we have got half of the number of recipients on the FDC, that is a 

very, very positive package. 

Ms. Woolsey. Then, Mr. Secretary, I ask you why the other governors around the country are 

telling us that they aren't going to be able to fund these programs. 

Secretary Thompson. Well, listen. I don't want to argue with you, because I want to work with 

you. I want to come up with a solution, as you do, because this is a good program. We have a 

great opportunity to move to a national level of welfare reform in America. We want to have 

people move up the economic ladder. We want childcare. We want to increase child support. 

 The situation is, is that if I was the governor out there right now, I'd be doing the same 

thing. I know that you are going to be negotiating on this bill and I know that states are suffering 

right now through financial problems, and if I could get more money from the Federal Government 

I'm going to be doing that. You know, that has been the haven for governors and I would be doing 

the same thing if I was still the governor, but the situation is, when you look at the numbers and 

you look at the situation that we have right now, when we put TANF I together and I negotiated 

that as chairman of the National Governors, there were over 8 million children that would be 

eligible for welfare reform. 

 We wrote into the law that if there was not childcare money available, you could not require 

a mother to go to work. That still is going to be the proposal in this law. There are half the 

numbers of individuals on welfare; there is less than half the number of children, with the same 

amount of money. It seems to me that if states are doing it now, they should be able to continue to 

do it with a declining caseload and declining number of children. 

Chairman Boehner. Mr. Secretary, your time has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from North Carolina, Mr. Ballenger. 

Mr. Ballenger. Mr. Secretary, let me pose you a situation, a real situation. Sixteen years ago in 

North Carolina, we were working to find a way, and everybody came up with a brilliant idea, we 

found out that you couldn't really ask a welfare mother to go to work if she didn't have day care. 

So we got together, we got the industry together, we got the United Fund together, and we all put in 

money. We took an old school, rebuilt it, and set up day care, basically in the black section of our 
17

community.

 We started off with CETA workers and we educated them, did all the necessary things and 

then along came Head Start and then along came Smart Start and I really don't have an argument 

because this day care center was certified by the state as being one of the best in the state, but I 

don't know. I would gather that it's probably location. We were actually taking care of the kids, 

giving them one meal and a snack a day for $40 a week, and some of the churches around town 

were, you know, a hundred and fifty dollars a week with nothing more. 

 Parental choice, which you said is mandated, and you know, probably the same way about 

the school system, but what happened is our day care center started losing children. Then they 

were going to other day care centers that cost twice as much, three times as much and were no less 

qualified, and we just don't know what to do in a situation like that when you have an absolute 

parental choice by the parents and nobody seems to care what it costs. 

 That's a good question. Do you have an answer? 

Secretary Thompson. I don't have a good answer for you, Congressman. I mean, I'm a big 

advocate of parental choice and I believe that it works. I think that the parents should have the 

opportunity to choose the best day care service for their children, and whether it is with a relative 

or whether it is in a childcare center, whether it is in a Head Start Program, whatever is the case. 

 I think parents, as the Congresswoman from California had indicated, they are going to look 

out for the best interests of their children. I think they have to and I think they should and I think 

it's good and I think that is what the parental choice allows for. 

Mr. Ballenger. The only thing that bothers me is I socially believe the same that you do but in 

reality, when you get right down to the nitty-gritty, you can take your child over to the nicest 

church in town and so forth and they charge you twice as much or two times as much as a certified, 

well-qualified, well-run operation that feeds probably more than the church operation does and 

because of federal law, ours is slowly but surely going out of business because it can't compete 

with the socially correct place to put your children. 

Secretary Thompson. Well, I don't have an answer. I happen to be a strong believer in parental 

choice.

Mr. Ballenger. I'll back off. 

Mr. McKeon. [presiding] Mrs. Mink? 

Mrs. Mink. Thank you very much. Mr. Secretary, I applaud you with fervor with reference to the 

reform of childcare because without childcare there is no possibility that you can force anyone to 

go to work and that is a given. Now in the legislation that you are sponsoring, I am also as 

vehement with respect to stopping the clock on any recipient who is unable to find the quality 

childcare. 
18

Secretary Thompson. I think it should be certainly considered. I'm not going to say I'm as 

passionate about it as I am about providing for childcare, but I think it... 

Mrs. Mink. How can you be passionate about providing for childcare if it is determined that the 

parent is unable to provide and find such childcare and therefore can't work? How can you 

penalize her and have the clock keep running and ultimately in five years be out of any cash 

assistance? 

Secretary Thompson. Well, you know, Congresswoman, that I am very passionate about childcare 

and when I was governor I started out with a budget that had $12 million dollars for childcare and 

increased that, using state dollars, mainly, up to a hundred and eighty-three million, the biggest 

percentage increase of any state in America, I might add, and I'm very proud of that. 

 In regards to this, you also know under the federal law that you cannot require a mother to 

go to work unless there is childcare available for that woman. 

Mrs. Mink. But that has no meaning unless you stop the clock. 

Secretary Thompson. Well, I think Congress can make that decision, but right now Congress 

made the decision that the five-year clock runs, and I support them. 

Mrs. Mink. Now we are looking at the law and we are looking to ways to make it more humane, 

more in keeping with the policy that we set, and my question is, will your administration support 

the next step, which says we can't find it if the clock stops? 

Secretary Thompson. And I indicated to you that I would certainly take that into consideration 

when we get down to negotiating the final bill, Congresswoman. 

Mrs. Mink. Thank you very much. And the other aspect of childcare is the carryover of the federal 

responsibility for childcare after the recipient leaves welfare to find a job. That carryover support 

of childcare is part of the childcare development law. 

Secretary Thompson. Yes, it is. 

Mrs. Mink. The low-income families are entitled to receive childcare subsidies. 

Secretary Thompson. Well, they have that under the Childcare Block Grant, and the states have 

also the opportunity for doing that under the Social Services Block Grant. 

Mrs. Mink. Can they take the money out of TANF as well? 

Secretary Thompson. Yes, they can. 

Mrs. Mink. So it is a combination in which the carryover has responsibility until the recipient 

earns enough income to fall out of eligibility, is that correct? 
19

Secretary Thompson. Well, the proposal allows for, and I don't know whether the bill is going to 

be reduced, but the proposal put out by the administration allowed for the diversion of the 30 

percent of TANF to go into childcare block grants and it gives the states the flexibility, a lot of 

flexibility, to set up the requirements for how far the childcare could go and for the states to set up 

the childcare program in their respective states. 

Mrs. Mink. Well, my next question is that we all appreciate the fact that many millions of children 

have gone off the welfare rolls as a result of the '96 law, but many of them are still being supported 

by the childcare subsidies of one kind or another, so that's notwithstanding the fact that there is a 

lot more. There are still beneficiaries of the childcare laws that are in existence, so unless you 

combine more money for childcare, you are not going to be able to take the 2 million that remain 

and put them into a childcare situation that will enable the plan to work. 

 That is why we are saying that it is not about money, because if you are spending the 

money allotted for those there are success stories because the parents have gone to work, but they 

need support, and so I want to join this chorus of pleas to increase the childcare funding to make 

your policies real, so that the families can continue to abide by the decision of working. 

Secretary Thompson. And I go back to... 

Mrs. Mink. That's a direct question. 

Secretary Thompson. I know it's a direct question, and I go back and I applaud you for your 

passion and I go back to the situation, you know, that when TANF was set up, you had the TANF 

program. You had the caseload go down by 57 percent. You had the number of children who 

would be eligible for Childcare Block Grant go down, as far as the TANF program is concerned, 

under 4 million, and you still had the same amount of money. 

 It seems to me when you have the same amount of money with half the number or even less 

than half the number of children, you should be able to make ends meet, if you are an enterprising 

and innovative governor, and I happen to applaud the governors because I know they are 

enterprising and innovative. 

Mrs. Mink. A lot of the criticism went to the quality of the childcare, and I notice that you have 

only set aside 4 percent of the funding for that. Is there any possibility that we could push the 

administration to double that amount of money so that the quality issue can be answered? 

Secretary Thompson. As you know, the 4 percent level is in the existing TANF law and we just 

extended it, and we have made an assessment of what the states are doing as far as the money they 

are putting in, and right now with what the states are putting in and the money that they are 

diverting out of TANF is 7.2 percent of the money is being spent on quality. So it has almost 

achieved your 8 percent. 

 The floor is 4 percent, but what is actually being spent on quality improvements is 7.2 

percent in the United States today, almost 8 percent, as you would require. 
20

Mr. McKeon. Moving forward, we are going to have to at this point enforce the five-minute rule 

for questions. 

Mr. Castle? 

Mr. Castle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me say it was wonderful to work with the thengovernor Thompson on these issues. He is indeed the guru of welfare reform. We appreciate all he 

has done. 

 Let me ask first about one of the areas of concern, the Transitional Medical Assistance.

During the '96 reform, Congress made a strong bipartisan commitment for providing transitional 

health coverage for people moving from welfare to work. We believed the parents who did the 

right thing and went to work should not lose their health care for themselves and their children, and 

since '96 welfare recipients have gone to work more quickly in much greater numbers than any of 

us had anticipated, but there have been technical problems with TMA which have prevented many 

of the individuals from qualifying for and keeping their transitional coverage, with more than 50 

percent of welfare leavers losing their health insurance within one year. 

 I was pleased that the President included $350 million in his fiscal year to be budgeted, 

keeping the temporary Medicaid benefits for another year, but the President's request does not 

include any simplification changes. 

 Would the administration consider putting provisions in the final welfare reform 

reauthorization package which would correct the administrative problems with current TMA law, 

extend it for longer than just one year, and make the program work as Congress originally 

intended? 

Secretary Thompson. My simple answer is, absolutely and yes, and I couldn't agree more on what 

you are advocating, Congressman Castle. The only question is what are those changes that you 

would need and who you would need and who you would be bringing in. I'd like to tell you 

without a doubt, but I would like to take a look at them. I'd like to work with you. They need to be 

improved. They need to be streamlined, and I want to work with you to accomplish that, 

Congressman. 

Mr. Castle. Good. I'm pleased with your answer. I won't ask any more questions about it now.

We do need to go over the details, but it is an important area. 

Secretary Thompson. It is. 

Mr. Castle. Let me go on to another subject, and I need to take you back to the childcare, because 

you talked about it a lot today but I'm concerned about it from a little bit of a different point of 

view, and that is the view of quality of childcare. I'm a total believer that that first 60 months of 

life, as these kids get ready for kindergarten, is of vital importance to them. The kids on welfare, in 

particular, maybe from families who are illiterate to maybe not everyone is there, they don't get the 

same assistance that the families of a different circumstance might get with educated parents, et 

cetera. As a result, I think that we have to start to substitute for that in childcare. Particularly this 
21

area is one of the key areas of which we need to do that. 

 I think it is totally evident that these kids learn practically from birth and I think we need to 

build the foundation for learning the A, B, C's, one, two, three, whatever it may be, to assure that 

they are a success. 

 Do we know now, Mr. Secretary, how states are using their current quality assessments in 

the Childcare and Development Block Grant program? And let me just go over this, and based on 

the academic level of the children, do we need to ensure that more or a greater portion of federal 

dollars are used for early learning? I mean, I propose we even go from 4 to 6 percent in solving 

quality issues. 

 We notice a numbers of areas, Head Start and others, have called for more licensing of 

teachers, and I realize it's very difficult to get day care providers and I realize that everything I'm 

saying in terms of better-educated day care providers, college graduates, et cetera can also be more 

expensive and that is obviously going to be a key issue as we go through the welfare reform 

reauthorization.

 But I don't want to sort of kick out the whole idea of the quality issue simply because we 

are worried about just extending the couple; if you could help me believe that we are going to 

continue to work on the quality side of it as well, I would appreciate it. 

Secretary Thompson. Congressman, once again, I applaud you. I applaud Congresswoman Mink 

on the same question. States are increasing the amount of money from 4 percent to 7.2 percent, 

and I want to work with you on that. I think it is vitally important. 

 I think that you know the formative years, the formative months, the first 60 months are so 

vital, and in order to make sure that child gets started properly and you know that. All the studies, 

you know, indicate that or most of the studies indicate that and I happen to be a passionate believer 

of that, and I want to work with you to do that. 

Mr. Castle. Well, the states increased it from 4 to 7.2 percent. I would hope that we could increase 

our legislation from 4 to say, 6 percent. 

Secretary Thompson. Well, the Federal Government has put in the floor at 4 percent and the states 

have exceeded that at the 7.2 percent. 

Mr. Castle. I have just one final point. I've heard a lot of the editorials and all the comments about 

this and it seems to me that the President's plan in terms of the 40-hour workweek and the work 

provisions in general is not being represented accurately in the press. I'm not asking for a comment 

from you on that but I think that this is a very important subject and that the data must be fair and 

the facts must be fair and I'm starting to read information which I happen to believe is wrong. I'm 

not arguing for one side or the other. I just want to make sure that all of the reporting is fair and I 

would hope that, I mean, you are a believer of this so I would hope that your shop would watch that 

and make sure that that fair representation is being made. 
22

Secretary Thompson. Well, there is no question that it has been misrepresented. What we are 

trying to do is we are trying to make sure that every welfare family has a case file and that the 

counselor sits down with that individual and helps that individual, first, get a job; second, plan for 

that job, and then also use the 16 hours to help that individual improve, whether it be helping with 

the family, going to the day care to help with the children, going to an education or job preparation 

or getting into alcohol or drug treatment kinds of programs. All of this is in that 16 hours and it is 

there to make sure that that counselor is working with the individual client to make sure that client 

can improve and help that client, and that is the reason for it. 

Mr. McKeon. Mr. Andrews? 

Mr. Andrews. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here today. I share 

your sense of achievement that there were formerly fewer children on the TANF childcare rolls.

How many non-TANF children are in the Childcare and Development Block Grant program? 

Secretary Thompson. I don't have the number at hand, but I can get it for you. 

Mr. Andrews. There are lots of them, right? 

Secretary Thompson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Andrews. Well, I'm concerned we are sort of double counting here. Here is my concern. It's 

true that there are 4 million children in TANF families today and there were 8 million when we 

passed the law of 1996. It's also true that you are proposing the same amount of money, or at least 

authorizing the same amount of money that you did for the 8 million children. But the 4 million 

children whose parents worked their way off of welfare are still here and they still need some form 

of education. Many of them need pre-kindergarten education, right? 

Secretary Thompson. Yes. 

Mr. Andrews. Well, it seems to me that the problem here is that if there is a lot of them, you know, 

still not of school age, a lot of non-TANF families that are using the Childcare Block Grant, that 

the 4.8 billion may not be enough, isn't that right? 

Secretary Thompson. You can certainly make that argument, Congressman. I can make the other 

argument that the money, there are less children in the TANF program. The TANF program is 

directed to both children at the TANF and there are less than about 3.9 million children on the 

TANF program, and that is what the TANF program is set up to do. 

Mr. Andrews. Let me respond. I've heard you make that argument. I could also make a counterargument there is lots of non-TANF children. 

Secretary Thompson. Yes, you can. 

Mr. Andrews. These children are going after the $2.7 billion worth of Childcare Block Grant 

money that's in the bill. I would like you to supplement the record and afterward tell us how many 
23

of them there are. 

Secretary Thompson. I certainly will. 

Mr. Andrews. And tell us how many of those children will be able to serve under the 

administration's estimate, under the proposal. 

 Let me ask you a second question about the marriage initiative. First of all, I assume you 

inherited this term, and I'm not trying to be combative here but it really does pain me to read on 

page seven of your testimony the phrase, ``Illegitimacy Reduction Bonus.'' If I were a child... 

Secretary Thompson. I agree with that. I don't like the word, either. 

Mr. Andrews. I think we should make an agreement to stop using that phrase. 

Secretary Thompson. Well, it is in the law; that is why it is there, Congressman. 

Mr. Andrews. Well, maybe we can agree to change the law and stop using it. If I were a child... 

Secretary Thompson. I would agree with you. 

Mr. Andrews.... Whose mother and father were not married, I would be awfully hurt by reading 

that.

 I guess what I wanted to know is what kinds of specific things are we going to do that will 

encourage mothers and fathers of welfare children to marry. I completely support the institution of 

marriage. I participate in it. I do it with enthusiasm. 

Secretary Thompson. I'm glad about that, Congressman. 

Mr. Andrews. I have human rights, civil rights, constitutional rights concerns about my 

government using my tax money to impose a choice. I want to know what exactly we are going to 

be paying for people who do the... 

Secretary Thompson. Well, we are not paying people. What we are trying to do, Congressman, is 

that there was, in the TANF I law, there was $200 million for the Illegitimacy Bonus Reduction 

and it just didn't seem to work well, and so we decided to try something new. 

 Two hundred million dollars the government set aside for certain communities to set up 

counseling programs, to keep a couple together, maybe counsel them on alcoholism, maybe 

counsel them on their gambling problems if they have one, or drug problems if they have one, or 

also one of the problems of marriages splitting up is on money, how to counsel them. Also, 

counsel them on their children for nutrition. 

Mr. Andrews. I wouldn't dispute any of that. 
24

Secretary Thompson. Well, that is what the program is set up to do. 

Mr. Andrews. I would like to know, and this is not a rhetorical question, what the data tell us 

about how many children on TANF are in families where the parents are not married, where the 

parents were married and broke up versus how many are in families where the parents never 

married in the first place. 

Secretary Thompson. I think we can get that figure for you. I don't have it at this time. 

Mr. Andrews. I think those are two very different social situations. 

Secretary Thompson. I think they are, too. 

Mr. Andrews. I frankly would be very enthusiastic about what used to be called Fatherhood 

Initiative, which is to encourage young men to take more responsibility for children that they have 

fathered, whether that is within the context of marriage, which I personally prefer, or whether it 

isn't. I know you have done work on this with Senator Bayh of Indiana and some other people, so 

I would encourage us to try to go down that road to encourage young men to take responsibility for 

their children. 

Secretary Thompson. I couldn't agree with you more. There is nothing I can disagree with. I've 

been working with Senator Bayh on that, Dr. Wade Orm, who is the assistant secretary of my 

department, who is a national expert in this and is doing a lot of work on this and is working with 

me and with Senators to accomplish this. I would like to work with you as well. 

Mr. Andrews. I would like to work with you as well. Thank you very much. 

Mr. McKeon. Mr. Johnson? 

Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. I don't want to 

talk about childcare. 

 I notice that the administration's proposal allows 16 hours to be used for any constructive 

activity provided by the state and consistent with an individual self-sufficiency plan. Could you 

tell me one example of a self-sufficiency plan? 

Secretary Thompson. Sure. I certainly can. You are a welfare recipient on cash assistance. You 

go in to your caseworker and you are to sit down with that caseworker and develop a plan for you, 

Mr. Johnson. You would first get a job. What sort of assistance do you need in that job? Do you 

need some job preparation first before you can get the job, do you need some training, you may 

need some alcohol counseling, you may need some, not you, sir, but that individual, or drug 

rehabilitation and you would have them sit down with the counselor for the day and then you 

would sit down after you got the job working 24 hours, then you would set up the other 16 hours 

based upon the flexibility of the counselor and you; how you would develop that self-sufficiency; 

how would you use it in promoting your family; would you use it for job preparation; would you 
25

use it for vocational training or education or any other types of things. 

Mr. Johnson. Well, it is totally up to the states then? 

Secretary Thompson. That's correct. 

Mr. Johnson. Well, how does... 

Secretary Thompson. The only requirement is that we are requiring that every one of the 

individual recipients have a sufficiency plan put together. 

Mr. Johnson. But the states determine what the constructive activity is? 

Secretary Thompson. Absolutely. Complete discretion. 

Mr. Johnson. In your opinion, could the states or individuals abuse that term? 

Secretary Thompson. They could, but I don't think they will. 

Mr. Johnson. You don't? 

Secretary Thompson. No, I have a lot of confidence in them. They will be innovative. 

Mr. Johnson. Is this in the same way that you were innovative? 

Secretary Thompson. Yeah. 

Mr. Johnson. Thank you, sir. I don't have any further questions. Thank you. 

Mr. McKeon. Mr. Tierney? 

Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being with us today. The 

Secretary of Massachusetts, as you know, like Wisconsin, was one of the states that actually 

implemented welfare reform before the 1996 draft. They did it under a federal waiver as did your 

state.

 Using the flexibility of the waiver, Massachusetts has focused mandatory work activities on 

families without major barriers, and if I can follow up on that, they have succeeded to move most 

of those families on to employment. 

 In current caseloads only half are people that really have serious barriers that would include 

disability, taking care of a family member, lack of parent in the house. The waiver gives 

Massachusetts the flexibility to design education or training and other services that help the 

families choose economic stability. We have shown some pretty clear successes in Massachusetts. 

The prospect of future successes was very encouraging. 
26

 Tell me why the administration would in this proposal propose eliminating that flexibility 

of TANF? 

Secretary Thompson. Now you are talking about the elimination of the existing waivers in the 

states? 

 We discussed it and we debated it back and forth. The only reason was I think 

Massachusetts, and I'm not sure about this, I don't think Massachusetts has much more than a year 

left out of this waiver. 

Mr. Tierney. No, it's got till 2005. It's a 10-year waiver. 

Secretary Thompson. Okay. Most of the states, Congressman, most of the states that still have 

waivers outstanding were going to be finished up a by the year after the program and that is the 

reason being. There are very few states like Massachusetts that have longer than that. 

Mr. Tierney. I know your friend Governor Dukakis speaks very highly of you. 

Secretary Thompson. I think he's a wonderful guy. 

Mr. Tierney. Okay, so you must like his state and so I know you wouldn't want to penalize it. 

Secretary Thompson. I like Governor Dukakis. I love your state. I love all states. 

Mr. Tierney. It seems incredibly unfair for a state that went through the whole process to achieve 

the waiver that was 10 years and anticipated being able to reap that waiver. To now have that 

ripped out from underneath them. Can we work on that? Can you do something? 

Secretary Thompson. Congressman, it is not the main thing to me. If you want to work on that, 

we would love to have you work on it. 

Mr. Tierney. Because I think about nine states it would be very important for. 

Secretary Thompson. I think you are right. 

Mr. Tierney. It seems to me that justice... 

Secretary Thompson. Just keep the tenth somewhere. 

Mr. Tierney. I would appreciate that. I think it is extremely important to Massachusetts. I think 

you will find a lot of support for much of what has been proposed here and I think that since it has 

been so successful, it may make an incredible difference on that. 

 That is really the only point I wanted to raise with you and I'm very pleased with your 

answer on that. 
27

Secretary Thompson. For somebody who loves waivers and worked with the waiver system more 

than any of... 

Mr. Tierney. Secretary, I don't want to bring that up because I didn't want to sound like a wise 

guy, but you did work the waiver system. 

 [Laughter.] 

Mr. Tierney. And I still recognize it in Massachusetts. 

Secretary Thompson. Thank you. 

Mr. Tierney. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. McKeon. Thank you. Mr. Hilleary? 

Mr. Hilleary. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I just want to follow up on my colleague's question. 

Tennessee has a waiver also. It is one of those nine states. It lasts till 2007. 

Secretary Thompson. I think Tennessee has got the longest waiver of all. 

Mr. Hilleary. I guess the question is did I understand you to say that you would be willing to work 

with us? 

Secretary Thompson. Absolutely. 

Mr. Hilleary. It's worked pretty well, too. We've had tremendous problems with adult illiteracy in 

a lot of our counties and one of the things that we are able to do is spend quite a few hours in adult 

literacy education and it has worked out pretty well. That whole program worked out pretty well in 

Tennessee.

 Would you like to elaborate at all? I know you said some enterprising young governors 

could do some good things with this new program, would you care to speak more on that issue. 

Secretary Thompson. Well, you know, there are so many wonderful things that you can come up 

with. If you have a waiver system in which you could pull together, such as a food stamp from 

agriculture; a TANF program from Department of Health and Human Services; an educational 

program from the Department of Education; a labor program on a Labor and a housing program on 

a HUD and be able to come together with a constructive, positive program that would use the 

waiver system to make sure you have uniform standards in all of them, the same standards, just 

simplify it and make it easier for all people involved. 

 But, I can see that you could integrate the Food Stamp Program nicely into a TANF 

program with a policy program that could be dynamite for any enterprising governor out there and 

five secretaries could then approve it or disapprove it or modify it and all the secretaries would 

have to sign off, so nobody would be giving up anything but the governor or the legislature would 
28

be able to really try, hopefully, some things that work. 

Mr. Hilleary. Well, I like the prospects. They are very exciting and I'm looking forward to that 

and I really appreciate you considering the waivers that are already in existence. 

Secretary Thompson. Thank you. Good luck to you, Congressman. 

Mr. McKeon. Mr. Roemer? 

Mr. Roemer. Mr. Secretary, good to have you here. We worked very closely, a number of us, on 

the Democratic side to help President Clinton promote and ultimately pass the first welfare reform 

bill and certainly a couple of goals in that welfare reform were to help people leave welfare and 

help people get a decent job. I think one of the goals of this Welfare Reform II should also be to 

leave poverty. 

 We have a number of people that have elevated out of welfare, been to jobs and they are 

still in mild poverty. 

 What does this administration propose to try to achieve that important goal and shouldn't 

that be a goal that we state a little bit more emphatically in this legislation? 

Secretary Thompson. Well, see, I don't disagree with that as one item, but I think there are many 

more items than just poverty. I think it is the well being of the children, the well being of the 

family; it's how are we going to be able to move that individual up the economic ladder and so that 

person can continue to improve the American dream. 

 I think some people on your side of the aisle, and I'm not being critical and I'm not being 

confrontational, just used the word ``poverty'' and I don't think that describes the whole thing we 

are trying to accomplish. 

 I think the second thing is the self-sufficiency plans are going to be very helpful to steer that 

individual for more education, more training and be able to help counsel her or him or the family. 

 The third item is marriage innovation. The counselor must be able to try and help 

individuals with healthy marriages be able to preserve those healthy marriages. 

 These are all things I think we can work together and come up with a plan, a bipartisan plan 

hopefully, that's going to be able to achieve this. 

Mr. Roemer. I think a lot of us would like to have a bipartisan plan that achieves this and work 

with you, Mr. Secretary. I would only say that poverty is a big factor in the quality of life of our 

children, that you just mentioned, would then experience. 

 You are talking about a family of four that lives maybe under $18,000 with the benefits and 

income in this country. How would you get that quality of life under that kind of constant stress 
29

and difficulty to provide for your children? 

Secretary Thompson. That is what TANF did. 

Mr. Roemer. Well, I think we had some success. 

Secretary Thompson. And I agree with you. 

Mr. Roemer. But the fact that you get a job doesn't mean that your children are going to have a 

better quality of life, and we want to ensure through education and training and childcare 

components that, yes, getting the job is indeed one of the important focuses that we should have in 

this bill but also trying to improve of the quality of the childcare that they go to, the education and 

training opportunities that these people have. 

 In the first effort to get people off of welfare we've got a lot of the easy casework done.

We've got some of the people that had GEDs, that had difficulty finding jobs, we had 11th grade 

dropouts that needed another year. Now we have people that are eighth grade dropouts that have 

learning disabilities and English proficiency problems and that may take a bit more education and 

training.

 Is the administration going to be bipartisan, as you said, and willing to work with Congress 

on the education and training component for this bill, maybe a ladder approach to how much 

education and training and work is required? 

Secretary Thompson. Well, first off, I disagree with one thing you said and that is, and maybe you 

didn't say it, but let me restate what I think you said and what I think is the correct assumption. 

 I don't think you can get out of poverty without working. I think you need a job. 

Mr. Roemer. I agree with that. 

Secretary Thompson. And I think it is important that a child... 

Mr. Roemer. Move forward on the work restrictions and the work requirements. I supported 

Welfare Reform I. We worked very close with the President to do that. No doubt about that, but 

also the quality of life for children, for families, if you are going to vote healthy marriages, it is 

awfully hard to have a healthy marriage if two of your children can't get an education and can't get 

childcare, and you know, that sometimes is a difficult time for two parents. 

Secretary Thompson. Congressman, you know that I want the same thing as you want. I want to 

be able to have a TANF proposal. We may differ on how we get there, but I want the same 

conclusion. I want to be able to improve the quality of life for every family in America. Now, it 

may not be obtainable, but it certainly is a goal that we ascribe to. 

 Secondly, I want to make sure that the children get the best childcare possible; and third we 

have got a TANF proposal here that we may do that. The self-sufficiency plans are set up to do 
30

that.

 You know, under TANF I you had 20 hours, now you have got 24 hours of work but you 

have 16 hours that you have to use, hopefully, to improve your status and standard and be able to 

take the education and training, which is the goal. Now, you may differ with me in regards to that 

but the goal is the same, to be able to improve the economic conditions not only for the workers but 

also for the children and the overall families. 

Mr. Roemer. I don't disagree, Mr. Secretary. I know my time has expired but I don't disagree on a 

goal. We need to move people into work. We need to do it through education and training and 

childcare for people, but we also have some of the most difficult cases out there. We have 

achieved some of the easy ones and education and training will be the determinant in many of these 

cases. As to whether they not only move off of welfare to work but the quality of that work and the 

quality of being able to move up the economic ladder. 

Secretary Thompson. I don't disagree with that, but I think that 16 hours set aside requiring the 

people to stop looking and get their GED, because some of those individuals don't even have their 

high school education, so you have to put them on a plan to get their high school education. Maybe 

they need some counseling as far alcoholism. It's important during those 16 hours to do that and to 

set up a plan so they start getting the counseling necessary that they can improve their quality of 

life or drug rehab or vocational training, or job training. That is why 16 hours is set there, 

hopefully, to steer them on the state's innovation and flexibility to accomplish that. 

Mr. Roemer. Thank you. 

Mr. McKeon. Mr. Ehlers? 

Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, we have known each other quite a while. 

Secretary Thompson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Ehlers. I was a state senator and you were beginning as governor and I've always been 

impressed with you and your work. I really believe it is important to know that both you and I had 

considered this before; and I applaud you for your work that you did in Wisconsin because that 

personifies it. I'm just delighted to see you in the job that you have. 

Secretary Thompson. Thank you. 

Mr. Ehlers. I have several questions I would like to ask. You can respond as you wish. 

 I think the best example was when you took the federal regulations and determined that 

didn't make sense. We probably can make something better that does make sense. You did and it 

worked, didn't it? I remember the governor, John Engler, was also involved in that. 

 But what I hear from a few about the new administration's proposal is that it's returning 

more to the top down proposal, that there is less opportunity for experimentation. I just hope that is 
31

not true. 

Secretary Thompson. It isn't. 

Mr. Ehlers. And I hope that you will keep that in mind as we proceed through that bill that we 

want to maximize the opportunity for flexibility for the governors. 

 Another comment. I think that this bill that you will be writing has tremendous opportunity 

to use the faith-based, community-based initiatives in a very direct way in a good program. I know 

from the church that my wife and I attended when we moved to Grand Rapids, Michigan, we 

literally chose a church in our city that was struggling. It's now a thriving church. Much of this 

work has been centered around, you know, the community. We have a drop-in center, for example, 

where parents who live in the neighborhood who get in a bind and have no place to leave their 

children can drop their kids off, no questions asked, and pick them up later in the day. It's all 

without charge. 

 We operate a Saturday food program where the typical family can buy their groceries at ten 

cents on the dollar, and so they can walk out of there with $10 worth of groceries, which will last 

them for a week. It's all volunteer work, but I think much of this under the faith-based initiative we 

could reach out much more and do much more than we have in the past. 

 So I hope there is ample opportunity and to be writing a bill to insert the specific faithbased, community-based opportunities and tie them with one of the major initiatives. 

 My final point deals with the education bill. We passed the President's education bill last 

year, we signed it, but we can also do more good in another way. I worked in elementary, 

secondary, and college teaching for over 30 years and in my experience the biggest single factor in 

the success of the student is to have at least one interested, involved parent. If you don't have that 

you may not have the ability to attend school. 

 The question is, can you try to incorporate into this program some aspect of interesting, 

involving parents in the child's schoolwork? And I know various experiments have been tried and I 

would hope that you would have some newer ones including perhaps having the parent go to school 

with the children and spend one day at school each week with their child, or any number of 

proposals, but I really ask that you try to work that out, because the President's education bill will 

work much better if it has good parental involvement. 

Secretary Thompson. Congressman, let me answer one and three together and then I'll go back to 

the faith-based, number two. 

 In regards to flexibility, I talked to Governor John Engler this morning. He is absolutely 

excited about the potential of having the waiver in which he could pull together all of the diverse 

programs that have developed within the plan. I was talking as a former governor and I said I 

would have loved this opportunity. 

javascript:playOn()

 This is a huge new area of flexibility for governors, much more than they have ever had 

before to try something new and innovative. And in regards to the individual parent being 
32

involved, you are absolutely correct. You've got to have the parents involved with the child's 

education, one or both, in order to improve the quality of education. I believe that and I agree with 

you.

 But the proposal, going back to more flexibility, the 16 hours in which the self-sufficient 

plans are set up are completely flexible with the states but we also put out some guidelines and 

allow the states to qualify for that parent going to a pre-day school or to a kindergarten or to K 

through 4 for the parent to be involved with the child and that would qualify for part of the 16 

hours. And so that is some more flexibility. 

 It is up to the state to set up the standards. We think if the parent wanted to spend five of 

the 16 hours going to school with their child, so be it, and that would qualify for part of the use of 

the 16 hours, that is more flexibility but it would also accomplish some things. 

 In regards to faith-based, I think it is important to allow faith-based organizations to be able 

to apply. It is something that the President is passionate about and this Congress has approved it in 

different forms but hopefully they will come up with a way. And also the House of 

Representatives passed a compassionate capital fund last year of $30 million in regards to faithbased initiatives and that is getting up and running in our department as we speak. 

Mr. Ehlers. Well, I appreciate that, Mr. Secretary, and I think that there are specific areas that are 

covered in this bill that relate to that. For example, in our church there is also a tutoring program. 

We built an addition with about 15 tutoring rooms so individuals, not just from our church, that go 

to the private churches, can come in and tutor the students. It's about the best example I can find of 

a faith-based program that doesn't in any way infringe on the rights of recipients.

Secretary Thompson. You accomplished so much good, Congressman. 

Mr. Ehlers. What many people don't understand is that this is simply an expression of the faith of 

people in the church to do what is right.

Secretary Thompson. Thank you for your passion, Congressman. 

Mr. Ehlers. Thank you. 

Mr. McKeon. I know you are scheduled to leave. I wonder if we can call on you to stay for two 

more questions? 

Secretary Thompson. Absolutely. 

Mr. McKeon. Mr. Scott. 

Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. I wanted to 

follow up on the faith-based questions. I know we covered it in TANF and H.R. 7, which we 

passed, is a version of a charitable choice, which specifically prohibited funding programs during 
33

which there was participation for religious instruction. 

 As a part of TANF apparently you can do this as long as you don't get paid directly for it.

You can have a religious program so long as TANF didn't pay for the religious part of it. That 

intertwining I think was part of the problem in Wisconsin and of course raised constitutional 

questions about Faith Works. 

 Now my question I guess is whether or not we should pay for programs during which there 

is participation in religious instruction or whether the H.R. 7 version is better, which specifically 

prohibits paying for a program during which there is participation for religious instruction. 

Secretary Thompson. I don't know the answer to that, Congressman. I'd have to take a look at it 

and get back to you. 

Mr. Scott. The other question is on direct funding. Traditional laws have always allowed faithbased organizations to get funding, Catholic charities, Jewish organizations, and the local 

organizations get federal funding but it is not directly to the church. It is to the 501(c)(3). 

 Do you support directly funding the church? 

Secretary Thompson. Well, that's an impossible question to ask me. It depends upon the program. 

It depends, no, I'm not going to be funding a particular church but if the program is good, you know 

it's going to accomplish the overall good and improve the quality of life for children, which a lot of 

Head Start Programs do that are set up in churches or other programs, absolutely. 

Mr. Scott. I would say the Head Start Program the money doesn't go directly to the church. 

Secretary Thompson. No, but a lot of the Head Start Programs are in churches. 

Mr. Scott. Funding goes to the 501(c)(3) organization. My question is whether or not funding is 

better to go to 501(c)(3) or directly to the church. 

Secretary Thompson. And I don't think I can make, and I don't think you want me, to make a 

general statement. I would have to look at the application. I'd like to look at the program, and I'd 

have to look at the law. I'm not going to do anything that is going to violate the law or the 

constitution, but if it is a good program and it's going to accomplish the over-all good, I think then 

we should take a strong look at it. 

Mr. Scott. The last question or I guess my next to the last question is on discrimination. In the 

Faith Works case the state of Wisconsin had a specific provision that prohibited discrimination 

with the federal money. 

 I remember speaking to you before when you expressed support for equal employment 

opportunity provisions and opposition to the idea that some Americans might be unqualified for 

federal jobs solely because they were the wrong religion. 
34

 Do you support provisions like the one in Wisconsin? Do you wish to prohibit 

discrimination based on religion with the Federal Government, not the church money, the federal 

money? 

Secretary Thompson. I'm opposed to discrimination, period. 

Mr. Scott. And so the provision prohibiting discrimination would be fine with you? 

Secretary Thompson. It depends upon the context. 

Mr. Scott. You are hiring somebody with money and someone... 

Secretary Thompson. If you are using federal money to discriminate, that is wrong, period. 

Mr. Scott. Well, you just answered the question. So if under SAMSA the language allows some 

difference in standards for religious-run drug counseling programs as other drug counseling 

programs, do you support that differentiation? 

Secretary Thompson. Well, if it is in SAMSA and it's working, I would have to agree and support 

it. It's under my department. 

Mr. Scott. Do you know if it is working or not? 

Secretary Thompson. You'd have to give me specifics. I'll have to get back to you. I'd have to 

look at it. You are catching me cold on a subject that, you know, I'm not familiar with right now. I 

don't know the particular program you are talking about. 

Mr. Scott. Under credentialed drug counselors, SAMSA requires an exemption under the 

credentials for drug counselors who are in the religious-based organizations as opposed to others. 

Secretary Thompson. I know that and the program seems to be working and I support that. 

Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. McKeon. Mrs. Roukema? 

Mrs. Roukema. Thank you. Mr. Secretary Thompson, I'm going to defer to Ms. Biggert but I just 

want to take this observation and I'll submit it for your written responses. 

 I was one of the leaders of the tough-love approach that you made on the last welfare 

reform. I'm afraid that I want your explanation to specific questions I will submit to you in writing. 

 It sounds to me as though we are creating another whole new welfare program, and I don't 

have any understanding of what you mean by promoting marriages or doing the worker training if 

you force the requirements for work and training, et cetera, and the childcare. It seems like it is a 

very expensive program that is leaving little responsibility up to the individual welfare component, 
35

that individual should be taking more responsibility for their self. I'll submit the questions with 

specificity to you and would like to work with you on this question. 

Ms. Biggert. 

Secretary Thompson. Thank you, Congresswoman. You have been a delight to work with and I'll 

be looking forward to it. 

Mrs. Roukema. Thank you. 

Secretary Thompson. I don't think your premise is correct, and I'd like to be able to respond to it. 

Mrs. Biggert. I thank the gentlelady for yielding to me. I also would like to thank you for 

everything you did in Wisconsin. I was in the Illinois legislature working on welfare when you 

came down to speak to us at a meeting about what you had been doing in Wisconsin, and the 

person sitting next to me jabbed me in the ribs and said, ``Why isn't Illinois doing that?'' 

 We are, but we just don't sell it as well, so you did a great job and it really put us to shame. 

 I have just one question. We want the welfare to work but we have to have the jobs to 

provide for these people. And, we did that by having a lot of companies that signed on and said 

they would provide those jobs and they would provide jobs not by taking away or trying to split a 

job on somebody else who was very close to the poverty line but to ensure that it was a real job. 

 And I think that that worked well, but I've been hearing from some of the employers from 

my district now that the people that are taking these jobs, there is a question about job retention and 

what happens. Some of the employees are not able to fulfill the jobs or that they haven't gotten 

enough of a skill that they need or they don't have the discipline to be able to keep the job. 

 What role will your plan have? I mean are you going to have mentoring, I know it is up to 

the states, but are you going to be helping the states provide once somebody has a job but is failing. 

Secretary Thompson. Yes, one of the things that is in this law, Congresswoman Biggert, and I 

thank you for your comments, was to set aside some money for technical assistance to states and 

we will be very much involved in assisting states with their programs and helping to advise them 

but still giving the states complete flexibility to implement and carry out those programs. And I 

think it is the best way. 

 And your state of Illinois and Chicago, Ed Greenwald of United Airlines at that time was 

the co-chairman with me in getting employers to sign up for this and I just want to compliment that 

kind of private enterprise innovation that's been very helpful in hiring individuals off of welfare 

and giving them the opportunity to succeed. 
36

Mrs. Biggert. Thank you very much for being here. 

Secretary Thompson. Thank you, Congresswoman. 

Mr. McKeon. Mr. Secretary, I'd like to thank you again for being here today and some of the 

members that didn't get the opportunity to ask questions if we can put them in the record and we 

can get them to you, I would appreciate that you would answer. 

Secretary Thompson. I'd be more than happy to. Thank you very much, Congressman. 

Mr. McKeon. Thank you very much. 

Secretary Thompson. Thank you all for giving me this opportunity. It's been a privilege. 

Mr. McKeon. We'll take just about a minute recess to get the second panel here. 

 [Recess.] 

Mr. McKeon. I would like to welcome Dr. Primus, who is the Director of Income Security for the 

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. He's also worked with the U.S. Department Health and 

Human Services and the Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Human Services Policy and the Office 

of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluations. Dr. Primus has received his PhD in 

economics from Iowa State University. 

 Next we will hear from Jason Turner, Visiting Fellow for Domestic Policy from the 

Heritage Foundation. Prior to his tenure as Visiting Fellow, Mr. Turner was commissioner of the 

New York City Human Services Administration. From 1993 to 1997, Mr. Turner was a member of 

the administration of Wisconsin governor, Tommy Thompson. 

 He began by managing the statewide jobs program and later was called upon by the 

governor to direct planning members to develop an alternative to AFDC. Mr. Turner is a graduate 

from Columbia University in New York. 

Mr. Primus? 

STATEMENT OF WENDELL PRIMUS, DIRECTOR OF INCOME 

SECURITY, CENTER ON BUDGET AND POLICY PRIORITIES 

Mr. Primus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to 

testify before you today. As you consider legislation to reauthorize the TANF block grant, it is 

important to keep in mind the reasons for the welfare reform success over the last six years. There 

are a couple of reasons; one, a very strong economy; second, increases in the earned income tax 
37

credit, plus what went on in the welfare office. 

 And what went on in the welfare office really worked because of two key ingredients. The 

first was the flexibility of the TANF block grant. States were able to use their federal funds to 

design programs that fit their local needs and were effective in steering welfare recipients into 

private sector jobs. 

 The second reason welfare reform was a success was that the states had the resources to 

invest in work supports like childcare and transportation that helped low-income people stay 

employed, off welfare. Childcare expenditures increased from $3 million in 1995 to $10 billion in 

2001, and that is the key ingredient as to why we were able to move so many never-married 

mothers into the labor force. 

 There is one area, though, where we did not do as well. And that is even though there have 

been remarkable increases in the work effort of never-married mothers, their bottom-line takehome income didn't increase very much. Maybe the best way of illustrating that is if you think 

about the poverty gap, the amount of money it takes to move all families up to the poverty line. If 

you don't consider any government programs, that was reduced by 12 billion between '93 and '95 

and by another 23 billion between 1995 and 2000. In that first period of time, after you take into 

account taxes and food stamps, et cetera, we reduced, after taxes and after transfers, the poverty 

gap by 7 billion. In the last five years, despite the fact that the work effort increased double, we 

only improved the poverty gap by a mere $3.6 billion, and one of the reasons for that was the cuts, 

particularly in immigrants and the food stamp cuts and the fact that many families don't get food 

stamps. 

 The question we now face is what should the next step be, specifically, how do we reward 

and continue the successes that states have achieved in moving people from welfare to work. And 

here is where I think again we have to remember what worked, state flexibility and funding, 

unfortunately, the administration's plan fails on both accounts. 

 I think, Congressman Ehlers, that you did hear correctly from your constituents. Yes, there 

is plenty of flexibility in the second 16 hours, but really what we have in the administration's plan 

is a Washington Knows Best copout form of success, and it is very apt that Dr. Turner is also with 

me on this panel, because really what the rules are going to force each state to do is adopt a New 

York City-style workfare program or jurisdictions and there is no evidence whatsoever that work 

experience programs work better than other welfare-to-work models. 

 For example, in Michigan it would require Governor Engler has set up an intensive sixmonth voc-ed program, vocational education, in some of your community colleges. It is up to six 

months. It's 30 hours a week. That program would have to be abandoned, and in fact perhaps the 

best evidence that maybe this program doesn't work is that the 39 out of 44 states that responded to 

the MDA survey indicated that they would have to change their programs dramatically in order to 

meet these requirements. 

 What would be the net effect? States would have to pull money out of childcare and 

transportation and all the other services they currently fund, which would lead to the unraveling of 
38

welfare reform. 

 The other thing is it not only freezes the monies and we can't count on caseload reduction 

freeing up more resources for states to spend. I think caseload reduction has pretty well come to an 

end. There is actually a cut in the monies the administration has put on the table and in place of 

adjusted dollars, and because there is lack of flexibility and there is actually a cut in real resources 

under this plan, I don't think you could expect to see successes, and I think you are going to have to 

change those two ingredients substantially, and I hope this committee would consider this. 

 One other example of where Washington knows best. Consider a mother that has a sevenyear-old and a two-year-old and she is working 30 hours a week today. The state of Michigan or 

the other states say that's good enough and that mother wants to be home when the children come 

home from school. Well, under this plan that doesn't work. The state has to find another 10 hours 

of something, it may be a very loosely defined activity, but it is going to require that the mother be 

out of the home and it will upset her activity and I think it is very important. 

 So where should you move? I think a better direction would be to give the states the 

flexibility they need, particularly in the counting of the first 24 hours. I'm not concerned, as the 

Secretary answered your question, about the second 16 hours nearly as much. 

 I think the 40 hours you should re-examine whether every mother should be engaged in 

activities equaling 40 hours each and every week. And then you need to make sure that the states 

have the resources, and I don't think they have unless you are willing to at least provide inflation 

increases in childcare and the TANF block grant. I would argue it ought to be a lot more than that, 

but even that would require about 10 billion. 

 The final thing, Mr. Chairman, because I know it violates my sense of gender politics to say 

mothers have to do 40 hours of something. I also think you should be concerned about the dads of 

these children on welfare and making sure they also get into the labor force. We need a lot more 

attention, and this committee is clearly the one that can give that question attention. 

WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF WENDELL PRIMUS, DIRECTOR OF INCOME SECURITY, 

CENTER ON BUDGET AND POLICY PRIORITIES –SEE APPENDIX D 

Mr. McKeon. Thank you. Dr. Turner? 

 STATEMENT OF JASON A. TURNER, VISITING FELLOW, THE 

HERITAGE FOUNDATION 

Mr. Turner. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to be here and testify before this committee 

and I hope that some of the experiences as a program administrator we work through can be of use 
39

as this committee deliberates over the bill. 

 After we describe some of the successes of welfare reform to date, I need to dwell on them. 

Dr. Primus has noted that poverty has gone down. It certainly has gone down quite significantly 

from the 13 1/2 percent in 1996 to 8.8 percent when you include food stamps and the earned 

income tax credit and other things. 

 The reason the poverty rate has gone down so much has been a tremendous explosion in the 

proportion of single moms who have children entering into the labor market. That is the group that 

is the most poverty-laden, and we need now, as in this next decision-making process over where to 

take the TANF program, to determine what we can do to help people that haven't been helped yet 

to get into the labor market. 

 And here I think there is something that may surprise this committee, and that is that of the 

people who are on welfare currently and not working while they are on welfare in a regular job, 

only one out of five of those individuals are doing anything, not just a work activity, but anything. 

 We really have a situation now where most states, and I know this from being a program 

administrator, most states have done very, very good jobs at meeting people at the front door when 

they come in for welfare and helping them find private sector employment, and many of those 

individuals haven't even needed to get on the welfare rolls, they have gone right to work. That is 

our biggest success. But now we have 50 percent, 60 percent of the caseload move off and into 

work, and the remaining portion of the people, we are really not working with those people. 

 In Dr. Primus' written testimony he accurately says that to get a 70 percent participation 

rate, which is what the administration proposes, you really have to work with everybody that comes 

in the door, because some people aren't going to be in an employment situation or doing something 

at any given time, and I think that is good and accurate. So we need to work with everybody, not 

just the people that are easy to serve but willing to work with the harder-to-serve now and states 

need to be obligated to work with everyone. The President's plan does that. 

 The second thing the President's plan does is it accurately replicates the conditions of 

private employment, that the moms who are going to go out into the labor force are going to be 

needed, that is most full-time jobs run around 40 hours a week. 

 I'll leave it at that and we can talk about that some more in a moment. 

 But the President's proposal really does what the research tends to show works best, which 

is it doesn't just focus on one program only. It focuses on work as a core for 24 hours and 16 hours 

of other kinds of activities, and that is what in New York City we have shown to be a very effective 

way in helping move people off. 

 For instance, somebody comes in who has never worked before. What we have learned is 

that people need to actually practice the work habits. What we take for granted because we've 

always been employed is that we get along with co-workers, we listen to our supervisors, and we 

take instruction. But actually for welfare recipients who have never been in the labor force, many 
40

times what is needed more than classroom education is just practice showing up to work on time, 

practice where you have to take directions and the pride that comes from successfully mastering 

tasks on an actual job, and that is what the President's proposal does for a core piece of the week. 

 For the balance of the week any other kinds of activities which support moving into the 

labor force, including education, including training, including job search or substance abuse 

treatment can be made part of the week. And finally, for the first three months of any activity it 

can be counted towards the 24 hours. 

 So I think the President's plan offers a multitude of ability for states to move their program 

in the right direction and it should be supported. 

 Finally, I think that there is plenty of money available for childcare and in fact, in my 

judgment, the TANF program could take a 10 percent reduction in the overall block grant now. As 

a program administrator, I would know exactly how to accommodate a 10 percent reduction 

without worrying about affecting any of my core services. 

 In fact, the way states are currently spending money is such that because the amount of 

money that has gone into program benefits have been reduced from what states used to have to 

spend, 61 percent in 1998 of all the TANF money that would go to states was spent to pay benefits, 

is now only 38 percent, and that has freed up a lot of the money spent on other things. 

 But even when you take all the kinds of things related to TANF that states were spending 

money on, things like cash assistance, welfare-to-work programs, childcare, education training, 

state supplements for the earned income tax credit, transportation, systems, computers and 

administration, even after you pay for all of those, states still have and are using 23 percent of their 

money for things other than those basic TANF-related things. So some of what they are doing with 

that money, of course, is supplanting federal money, which is fine, but I think that this committee 

may decide that if it is necessary to take the 10 percent reduction, I believe the states can certainly 

accommodate that quite easily. 

 And I will save my other discussion, let me just say one final thing on childcare. We've 

discussed, during the course of this committee hearing, a need for childcare, and it is a very key 

element for families who need it to go to work, but I think oftentimes most of us working in the 

policy arena tend to think that the childcare programs that we are working with ourselves need to 

accommodate the entire program requirement. 

 In fact there are two systems. There is a direct subsidy system and there is the tax system, 

and the two systems work together. In the direct system, we have a high number of children who 

are under poverty being accommodated. HHS has found, I'm looking at the numbers, that for 

children under poverty within ages three to five, that is, kids that are not going to be infants at 

home and are not in school, in that critical group in there is fully 72 percent of all children who 

were eligible in that category are currently receiving direct subsidized childcare. The balance, of 

course, may be in informal arrangements. 
41

 In short, the direct subsidy system should be working with the tax system, and together 

there is ability for children all the way up the income scale, from the lowest to the highest, to obtain 

some help from the Federal Government in accommodating their childcare needs. 

 Thank you. 

WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF JASON A. TURNER, VISITING FELLOW, THE HERITAGE 

FOUNDATION-SEE APPENDIX E 

Mr. McKeon. Thank you. 

Mr. Ehlers? 

Mr. Ehlers. Mr. Chairman, they have said it so well I have very little questions. I do appreciate 

the comments. I also commend Mr. Primus for his work. He's been doing this for many years and 

is very compassionate, and I appreciate his testimony. 

 I think that's something I would pursue. We have to draw a fine line from the Federal 

Government to the states, between telling the states what to do and giving them the opportunity to 

experiment and find better ways. 

 Thank you very much. 

Mr. McKeon. Ms. Davis? 

Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know one of the things is that we do want to 

acknowledge, and thank you all very much for being here I appreciate you both for your testimony, 

is that the most significant factor of the welfare reform was its timing and the fact that it occurred 

during a expanding economy. Today we are not necessarily facing that to the extent that we have 

been, so that not only have we been able to encourage, able to motivate, to facilitate a number of 

people getting off of welfare, but we also had more jobs at the time, and I do think that is a unique 

situation.

 I wonder if you could go over again and address the flexibility issue. What is the harm of 

states to not necessarily have the 24/16 match but having more flexibility from that. What would 

you see the harm of that? What if you were having flexibility in that area? 

 And I also would like you to address the 30 percent cap on the number of people in high 

school or vocational education that the state can count as engagement of work activity. It seems to 

me that what we are trying to do is to help people move into career ladders, and by having a cap on 

that, we discourage the capability to do that. 

 I would also ask one more thing in looking at the way that we have some cap on vocational 

educational programs. It may be true that we don't have large numbers of people who are going into 

nursing and into education, but I think that there are a number of people out there who do aspire 
42

and would make excellent nurses or teachers and vocational rehab counselors, whatever that might 

be, and by saying that they can only be engaged in that for 12 months seems to me it puts an early 

restriction and in some cases may inhibit people's interests and desire to go into those areas, even if 

they need to have quite a number of months in preparation to get to the point of having that 

training.

 Would you please address that? It is really the caps on the states, the greater flexibility, and 

whether or not we should allow for waivers for states and people to go into those highly needed 

vocations today. 

Mr. Primus. I'd be happy to address those issues. I mean, we at the Center said that the states 

should be nudged to do a bit more. I mean, we have all supported getting rid of the caseload 

reduction credit, which is really worth about 60 percentage points, and we also said that ought to be 

replaced with employment credit. The state should only give credit for putting mothers into work, 

not for getting them off the rolls. 

 Now the effect of just those two things really raises the work requirement significantly, and 

I've listened to Governor Thompson for many years and he's always talked a lot about state 

flexibility, and frankly, I think a lot of others at the state level are baffled by this approach. In the 

first 24 hours you can basically only count mothers that are either combining work and welfare or 

work experience. Nothing else counts. So again, that example I used in Michigan, if they are in a 

voc-ed program, it doesn't count. If they are in substance abuse, it doesn't count. Now there is one 

three-month window. I don't want to mislead anybody. For three months the states do have 

complete flexibility, but once they are beyond that, a mother only counts toward meeting that 70 

percent requirement if she is engaged in 24 hours of combining work and welfare or work 

experience. That is where I think states need a lot more flexibility. 

 One thing that I've learned after studying welfare for many, many years is participants are 

heterogeneous. They have different needs, and the state needs the flexibility to meet each one of 

those individuals where they are at, and so for some, maybe work experience is the right thing, but 

for others, eliminating barriers is the right thing. I think the rules that have been designed in this 

approach do not give the states enough flexibility. I think the cap should be removed. 

 I clearly think Jason's 10 percent doesn't work at all. I think if we are going to keep them, 

the fact that there are only 2 million children receiving TANF should give you a little pause. I think 

the most conservative definition of poverty suggests there are 10 to 12 million children that are 

poor, and those mothers need additional work support, so that when you combine work and food 

stamps and maybe a little bit of cash, you don't want to call that welfare, but those mothers need a 

little bit of monthly wage earning subsidies of some kind, that is what is going to get them out of 

poverty.

 The last thing I'd say is an organization that I work with closely, the Center on Law and 

Social Policy, is going to put out a study in the next days and it is basically going to show you that 

these requirements are going to cost the states about $15 billion over a five-year period. I mean, 

they are basically somewhere between 20 and 40 and they have got to get to 70. You can ask all 

the staff behind Governor Thompson to do that study for you if you don't accept CLSP's study, and 
43

that is some information that this committee should need as it makes its judgment about what is 

appropriate.

Mr. Turner. Let me say first as it relates to flexibility and why a core work element is important. 

First 28 percent of all welfare recipients, according to HHS figures, are currently already working 

part time while they are on welfare. This forms the base of people who are already working. We 

are not going to ask them to do anything else as it relates to the 24 hours. So, we are really talking 

about a difference between 28 percent and 70 percent. Those are people who are not working and 

frankly ought to be working as a part of their overall workweek. 

 We know there are members of this committee that I'm sure are familiar, as are their staffs, 

with the well-known study that was done with an experiment by Apt Associates which looked at 13 

different programs across 10 states, found that when you compared people in the control group who 

didn't get straight education and training- type services with those who did, the employment results 

were negligible, were non-existent and for young men they actually performed the worst. 

 In short, we know that, not for everyone but generally speaking, unless you have something 

else in addition to the education and training for people at the low income level, that you were very 

unlikely to have a net impact. What the President's program does is it increases the level of 

activity and it provides for a mixture of activities that combines flexibility with what we think is an 

appropriate mix. 

Mrs. Davis. Is it your belief, though, that the states, on their own, could not develop, could not put 

together that mix that would be most appropriate for them? 

Mr. Turner. Yes, the states could under current law put together a program that combines work 

and welfare and many do, but as I mentioned before, as a group states really only focus on the front 

door and job searching. Six percent of people were in a job search. They need people at the front 

door and they do a good job with that, but they are not working with the bulk of the population, and 

we are at a point now where we can't afford to leave the rest of the population unserved. We really 

have to go out and meet them. 

Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, if I might speak just very, very quickly on the question of 

nurses, teachers, and helping people to get to the point that they could do that. Would you be in 

support of a waiver for people who are identified so they don't have just 12-month application? 

Mr. Turner. Well, in New York City back when I was commissioner, there were some very good 

narrow programs, ``narrow'' meaning short-term programs, that helped nurses and teachers' aides, 

and we found a way to accommodate them. But I would say that when we are talking for a period 

that is more than a year, we really should be asking for a combination of perhaps on-the-job 

training or work while going to school, just as many of our constituents do. I think one year is 

more than enough time to not be asked to participate in work, not be self-supporting as well. 

Mr. McKeon. Mrs. Biggert? 
44

Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Primus, you said that you didn't think that women 

with young children should have to work the 40 hours but to go back to the 30 hours. Would that 

be a legislation thing? You would prefer to see that or waivers by the state? The other question 

then is to look at the dads, too. Could there be some combination if there is a two-parent family, to 

work out the number of hours based on the two of them? 

Mr. Primus. That is clearly a judgment that you at the committee are going to have to make. I 

guess I have looked at how much progress we made in trying to put these mothers with pretty 

severe employment barriers, some of them haven't completed high school, raising kids is a lot of 

work as you probably know, and I think the state should have some flexibility, and it turns out that 

only about a third of the mothers with young children work a full year full time in the United 

States.

 So, you know, that is not the most representative case and I think you could explore ways 

that you combine the non-custodial dad's earnings or hours with the mother's and give some relief 

on the 30. I think it is also important to send a message to states, which isn't in this proposal, that 

says it is also important that we get dads to work. I think if you want strong communities, we 

shouldn't expect the females to do everything, parent the child and go to work. I think there is also 

an obligation on the male side of that equation. 

Mrs. Biggert. And in looking at what you have been saying in your studies, but the average state 

the women are working for 30 hours? Is that what's on average? 

Mr. Primus. No, I think if you look at the hours data that is recorded now at the HSS the average 

hours of participation for those who are working is on the order of 27 or 28 hours, and while the 

proposal would allow partial credit for those mothers, again, that is a judgment you are going to 

have to make, but I think for a lot of these mothers 30 hours are a lot. 

Mrs. Biggert. Okay. Then, Mr. Turner, you said that the caseload has declined for TANF, which 

means that more people are working; are there any recipients that just kind of dropped out that we 

can't find, that didn't make it but didn't go back to get more help? 

Mr. Turner. Well, that is always a question that comes up and the studies of the people that leave 

welfare and what happens to them finds that, typically in all states throughout the country, when 

you look maybe 60 percent that are employed at that point in time thereafter but what of the other 

40 percent? 

 Well, in many instances there are a lot of different things. In New York we found 12 

percent had applied for disability insurance, they had been accepted and were receiving disability 

insurance. In other instances we find moms who are either living with boyfriends, living with their 

parents while they are looking for work and are being supported in a number of ways, sometimes 

without jobs that are on the books is another typical way that we find them. When you look at 

indicators that might show you lots of distress as a result of people going off of welfare and not 
45

working, most of the administrative data that you can find would indicate that. 

 For instance, nationally the proportion of children, and the number of children in foster care 

has been declining slightly. The number of families that are in poverty overall has been declining 

and the number of people that say that they are hungry has not gone up. So, for all of these 

different indicators it would seem to indicate that we are doing okay. Now, there are individual 

instances, of course. 

Mrs. Biggert. Well, Mrs. Davis brought up a point about the unemployment that has gone up and 

yet the caseload continues to drop, even after this year with unemployment going up. 

Mr. Turner. Yes, in New York City, where I worked for Mayor Giuliani, we were able to continue 

to increase the number of people going into employment even as the economy softened a little bit, 

so I think that is very encouraging news. 

 Let me say this also about the President's plan and why I think it is good when the recession 

eventually comes. You don't want to have people dropping out of the labor force, going on welfare, 

doing nothing, which is what a lot of people are currently doing on welfare, and losing their work 

habits or their work skills. 

 What you want to do is you want the welfare system to replicate what it is like being at 

work so that when you move off, it is like an accordion. It expands as needed, but all the time you 

are keeping people engaged in work-like activity so as soon as they are able to, they move right 

back into the workforce. 

Mr. Primus. If I may, I might quibble just a little bit. My understanding of the latest caseload data 

is that in a majority of the states is that in the last six months or so caseloads are rising a bit, not 

very much, but I think over the last six months they have risen. 

Mrs. Biggert. Okay. Thank you very much. 

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. McKeon. Mr. Owens? 

Mr. Owens. Dr. Primus, you concur that the program has been successful, most of the time. You 

are receptive, in my opinion. But even as you say it's been successful, you mentioned before that 

there are about 10 million children out there who are in poverty and only 2 million are in the 

program, if I heard you correctly. 

Mr. Primus. Ten million is a conservative number. I actually think it is higher. 

Mr. Owens. Ten million is a conservative number. Thank you. That is 8 million not in the 

program. What are the indicators of success? The fact that people are off the rolls or the caseloads 

are down, that is an indicator which I question greatly because that just means that gatekeepers, the 
46

people who are in charge of putting people on the rolls or who force them off, could be very hostile 

and trained to force people off. 

 This morning I heard on C-Span how mothers in Wisconsin were testifying that they were 

humiliated and reduced to tears because when they went to welfare, they got asked questions like 

when did you have your last sexual encounter. In New York, of course, I think Mayor Giuliani and 

company were masters at pushing people off the rolls and intimidating them. And so I question 

whether that is an indicator of our success in terms of helping children in poverty because that is 

the real goal, you are helping children. It's about helping poor children, the same poor children 

who have got to be the soldiers that go off and fight all the wars in America. These are the children 

who get killed in wars starting with World War I, World War II, and Korea. They now support the 

poor rural kids, the poor in big cities. They are the ones who fight the wars. So finding them is a 

matter of public policy, and yet I see a tremendous amount of hostility. 

 What are some of the other indicators that you mentioned briefly before, something about 

the number of children in poverty have gone down? My figures show it hasn't. The percentage of 

children in poverty is about the same and in many places higher. What about the percentage of low 

birth weight babies, mortality rate, have all these indicators indicated that this program has been a 

success? 

 And you know, you can answer both of these questions. Why is there such hostility toward 

the education and the training? Only 1 percent of TANF I money has been spent on education and 

training and most studies, including the study of the Health and Human Services itself, say that 

most recipients are taking low wage, low professional jobs. Why not give the states more flexibility 

and encouragement to place recipients in education and training? 

 As I read it, higher education is off limits. In the time that's allotted, you can't get involved 

in a university program. Nurses, and some of these other professions we have numerous data to 

show that the money they pay back as taxes more than compensates for whatever subsidies they got 

in getting an education. Yet there is great hostility here toward education and job training, and 

more of that is likely to happen as a result of the proposal that we laid down. 

 Why is it a success in your opinion, Dr. Primus? 

Mr. Primus. Well, I think as Congresswoman Davis indicated and as I said in my testimony, we 

have a remarkably strong economy. The last census data we have is for the year 2000, so it doesn't 

include the recession, but our unemployment went from about 7 percent to 4 percent. 

Mr. Owens. Was this the success of the program or of the economy? 

Mr. Primus. I'm saying that there were many reasons why the data I think unequivocally, to liberal 

analysts and conservative analysts, do show that the employment rate of never-married mothers did 

go up, and I'm saying that was due to a strong economy, and we actually had real wage increases at 

the bottom of the wage distribution. 
47

 We also increased childcare expenditures from 3 to 10 over this period of time. We 

increased the earned income tax credit from about 75 cents an hour, $1500 roughly, up to 4000 

today. Very important studies done at a university in Chicago indicate it really is the earned 

income tax credit that gets some of the credit for moving mothers into work. 

 Now having said that, the experiment I would have you go through, if we hadn't done the 

immigrant cuts in the '96 act, if we hadn't done the food stamp cuts, and if we hadn't done the time 

limits, we had done the block grant, we had given the states some flexibility, and everything else 

was left alone you would have seen the same employment increases, and you would have had much 

bigger reductions in child poverty. The reductions that we have seen and, yes, you would expect to 

see some reductions when the economy is strong. 

Mr. Owens. Thank you, I want to get my second question in. 

 The question is to Mr. Turner. Mr. Turner, as successful as this program has been, are there 

any comparisons with other federal subsidy programs? For example, the farm subsidy program is a 

tax-funded safety net. Do you think that these participants, these programs to farmers, should be 

limited to five years of federal safety net assistance also? Do you think that they should be subject 

to that? Should we give the program to the states for that sup plantation which you talked about a 

few minutes ago? 

 That sup plantation systematically has pushed people off the rolls to save money and that 

money has been used somewhere else. Wisconsin, according to the reports that I have read, has 

saved more than anybody else, and they used that to fund other state projects. 

 Do you have that same thing happening in farm subsidy programs? 

Mr. Turner. Well, I think that my point was that the 23 percent of the money that the states are 

using, because they have a fixed block grant even though the caseload has gone down, is going to 

other things and I'm not suggesting necessarily that all of the 23 percent is being misused. 

Mr. Owens. You are suggesting that they cut the amount of money that you give them? 

Mr. Turner. Right. 

Mr. Owens. The cost to be successful in conjunction with the caseload program? 

Mr. Turner. If we as a country are able to successfully reduce the number of people dependent on 

cash assistance by half. Well, I would say that in farm subsidy programs that if half of the people 

that you used to have receiving farm subsidy programs are no longer receiving them, you wouldn't, 

as a Congressman, want to fund it at the same level you did before. 

Mr. Owens. We don't fund the bill up to five years and give the state a benefit of getting it all. 

Mr. Turner. I ran the welfare program in New York City but I did not provide all of the education 

for everybody on welfare, nor should I. There are multiple incomes that go to funding community 
48

colleges, multiple income for childcare. What I'm suggesting is that the main thing that used to be 

spent by TANF was cash assistance. Cash assistance isn't there anymore to the same extent, so 

some of that money may be available for other uses by Congress. 

Mr. Owens. Mr. Chairman, can I make just one more comment? 

Mr. McKeon. Your time is way over. 

Mr. Owens. New York once had a program before TANF came together allowing people on 

welfare two years of college. They took that away in the TANF program. The Federal 

Government took it away. 

 Thank you. 

Mr. McKeon. Mr. Kildee? 

Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Wendell, it is good to see you here today. We appreciate 

your expertise. 

 I want to make a comment on what we know about barriers through employment and what 

should be done to help families with multiple barriers. 

Mr. Primus. That is a very good question, Congressman, and there actually has been some very 

interesting work in Michigan at the University of Michigan. Sheldon Danzinger and his colleagues 

have looked at, I think in Flint, some of the barriers that mothers face, and what we do know is that, 

as I said before, these mothers are heterogeneous, but if their number of barriers increase, they lack 

childcare, they have a substance abuse problem, they have a transportation problems, as the 

numbers increase the probability that they are making it into the labor force diminishes 

enormously. 

 And, you know, I think the state cannot have a one-size-fits-all for those kind of mothers 

and they've got to decide which barrier is the most important to address and go about it. And it 

requires individualized attention and resources to move those kinds of mothers into the labor force. 

Mr. Kildee. You had mentioned Flint, Michigan, my hometown. I appreciate you remembering 

that. We have multiple barriers and it is a heterogeneous group who are suffering and in addition 

to the multiple barriers, there are certain areas where there are enough jobs available and the people 

are unable to relocate. 

 For example in Genesee County, at one time we had 80,000 people employed by General 

Motors. Now we have about 20,000 employed by General Motors. They are right now in the 

process of tearing down the assembly plant. So you have these multiple barriers, they go out to 

look for a job and the job is not there anymore. 

 Is there any way we can treat those items legislatively in some way the rest of us can have? 
49

Mr. Primus. I don't know if I have a very good answer to that question, frankly. I think we've got 

to give resources to the State of Michigan so that they can use those resources differently across the 

state.

 In other words, Grand Rapids is different than in Flint, you know; those are decisions that I 

think, frankly, have to be made at the state level, about where to put the resources and where they 

would be used the most effectively. 

 Also don't forget the issue of incentives, the earned income tax credit. I don't think 

Michigan has a state earned income tax credit. You do have a pretty good way of combining work 

and welfare; but fundamentally, if there is not work available in the private sector, then you know, 

these programs are going to fail, and relocation bonuses or whatever, I think you've got to try all of 

those things. 

 I'm not sure I answered that very worthwhile. 

Mr. Kildee. I think you've been very helpful. In a place like Flint you find despair among people 

who really want to dedicate themselves, want to take care of their children. There is despair there.

Very often under the Unemployment Compensation Act, we would see unemployment in a certain 

area with a certain percentage and they would give you an extension of unemployment benefits. 

 Maybe you could consider that for welfare. Maybe there could be some kind of a standard 

extension for welfare on certain items. You might think about those, but you have to go. 

 Thank you very much. 

Mr. McKeon. Mr. Scott. 

Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and as chairman I appreciate your indulgence and I just 

wanted to ask I guess one kind of open-ended question. 

 One of the focuses in welfare reform is making sure that work pays. There are number of 

issues that I think could help accomplish that, the earned income tax credit, child support 

enforcement to make sure you get full credit for child support and that you don't lose it by going to 

work, food stamps, childcare, or medical coverage. 

 Would you comment on whether or not those are sufficient at this point or what we can do 

to improve those. 

Mr. Turner. Let me just ask Wendell the answer to that question because he is very familiar with 

the earned income tax credits since he was instrumental in many of the constructive changes to 

that.

 My understanding is even right now if a mom with two children takes a full time job at a 

minimum wage, which almost no one does anymore, she is out of poverty. 
50

Mr. Scott. This is because of the earned income tax credit? 

Mr. Turner. Yes. 

Mr. Primus. I think that is true, assuming she gets food stamps and assuming she also applies for 

childcare and her childcare expenses are taken care of. 

 But I want to go back to your question, if I may, and that is there one I think very important 

amendment that you could make. You passed in the House of Representatives by a vote of 405 to 

18, most of you I think voted for it, a Nancy Johnson-Ben Hardin child support bill in late 2000.

That would have done two things. It would have allowed states complete flexibility in how much 

child support actually gets through to the child. 

 Lots of time when the mother is on TANF and the dad is paying, it is a hundred percent tax 

credit. The dad must pay, as he should, but all of the proceeds go to government, none of it gets 

through to the child. Again, this bill, Johnson and Hardin, said the states have complete flexibility 

and they were given incentives to pass through. 

 There was another provision in that bill that said when we capture the refund of a noncustodial dad through the IRA system, when we collect a little over a billion dollars a year through 

that mechanism, if the mother is owed money and the state is owed money, the bill said it must go 

to the mother first. Well, the administration's bill is a mandate. It just says that it is up to the state 

and given their current budget crunches, I think you and I know the decision they are going to 

make. 

 So, I would argue, and this is actually Nancy Johnson's provision, it wasn't Ben Hardin's, to 

go back and do that, and that would help, among other things. And I think there is a whole series 

of things you could also do to help dads pay more child support, but that is really a whole other 

subject of conversation. 

Mr. Turner. I'm going to take this opportunity just to suggest that I believe there is plenty of 

money in the system currently, that the earned income credit is doing the job, and I would suggest 

that it's time to consider ways that we can as administrators manage our programs more effectively 

than we have been. 

 We have learned in New York that the level of success that we have been able to have is 

attributed to the three elements in running a program effectively, the policies, budget, and 

management. We tend to focus on policy and we tend to focus on budget. Really the next major 

improvements in helping people move from welfare to work will come as state and local 

administrators learn how to better manage their existing funding sources and their programs. 

Mr. Primus. Can I add just one thing and that is also a policy that I think is also in 

Congresswoman Mink's bill as well as in the Ben Hardin bill that says that there is a conflict today 

between time limits and work and if a mother is working steadily at 30 hours a week and 

combining work and welfare, why shouldn't the clock stop so that welfare there is acting as a 

waiver subsidy. It is supplementing her earnings and helping her move out of poverty. I think that 
51

that is an important provision that Congress should consider, and it would help both I think reward 

work, which you all want to do, as well as help that mother and children get out of poverty. 

Mr. Turner. I think the answer to that might be that you have got moms working and you know 

for sure that she is the most employable of all the people you have to work with. She should be 

encouraged to raise her number of hours and her wages so that she closes her case and we can focus 

on the rest. 

Mr. Primus. But that comes back to Congressman Kildee's point, because a lot of times there 

aren't the jobs available at a high enough wage, and that is why I think you want to supplement 

those kind of jobs. 

Mr. Scott. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I'd hoped we could add on the medical care to make sure 

that the people who are involved in this don't lose the medical coverage by going to work. 

 Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. McKeon. This is a very difficult subject. I feel ever since I've been in Congress there were 

times when we are grappling with issues and the rest of the country is going on. This is one that I 

know hurts, but we have law. We have a reauthorization coming up and it is our obligation to do a 

bill and we will do the best job we can. According to Mr. Primus, we have work to do but I think 

Mr. Ehlers was right. The real solutions to these problems are coming at the grassroots level. 

 I visited a program last week in my district and there was a mother that in 1995 was going 

through her second divorce and she was kind grappling with all these issues and having a lot of 

problems. Finally she ran a little ad in the Pennysaver newspaper and asked if there were any other 

women going through these same problems and if they would like to get together. Eight women 

came to her home. 

 And they were able to share their problems, and that little effort has grown now to where 

she is now on a full-time support basis for about 678 women. Now, she has a budget and she is out 

raising money, and in her office, the little storefront that she is renting, the back room is filled with 

food. Another back room office is filled with clothing and gifts for children, and then in another 

room she has computers that people donated and a copy machine where she can help women. 

 There was another lady who was divorced and left in a situation where, after 16 years of 

marriage, one day their business collapsed. She was helping her husband run it. She had nothing.

She had no education. She had nothing to turn to. She was in a useless situation and she finally left 

with her eight-month-old child and a shirt on her back. Now, he is eight years old. She is just 

finishing a nursing program to become an LPN. And she had another lady there that was on her 

board that had gone through similar problems. 

 One lady was doing fine. One morning she woke up and her 36-year-old husband died, she 

was left with two children and had totally different problems to face. But we cannot solve all the 

problems. We are trying to sit here and solve problems by the thousands and the millions. I hope 

when we go through the process we just don't make things worse. I hope that we are able to give 
52

them flexibility to solve these problems. 

 A lot of what really bothers me is the attitude. Discussions become based on party. You 

know, where we come from is where we are and we kind of attack these issues. We want to get 

people off of welfare and it is because we want to save money. You know, we are unhappy with 

these people being on welfare because it means we have to give them tax money. 

 You know, I just think, what is the real purpose, why do we really want to get these people 

off of welfare? And to me, I've heard enough people that have been on welfare that have gotten off 

of welfare that have told their stories and how much better they feel about themselves and how 

good they feel after they have gotten off welfare. 

 I wish we could just sort of change our whole frame of reference. I'm in total agreement 

with you, Bobby, on that. I think I've seen enough single women trying to support their families 

and the struggles that they go through. I know the struggles I have with a wife, full time. The 

struggles we have had just to make ends meet, and we didn't have to do it by ourselves. 

 I really feel for these people that do it on their own. I think when they go to work they 

shouldn't end up getting less than they were when they were on welfare. They should have these 

other benefits until they are totally able to do it on their own. I think this is instrumental on how 

we do this, but I appreciate you being here. 

Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. McKeon. There is a lot that you bring to the table, and I appreciate your coming. 

Mr. Scott. Can I ask a question just to Primus? Does EITC have a marriage penalty? If you have 

two single people with EITC, if they get married, do they get busted? 

Mr. Primus. In some instances it is a marriage penalty and in other instances it is actually a 

marriage bonus, so it really depends upon the situation. 

 I'll be sexist. With the guys earning 15,000 and the mothers at two, it actually acts as a 

marriage bonus. If you have two individuals at about 15,000 and they get married, it is a big 

marriage penalty, so it depends. 

Mr. Scott. I am asking about the earned income tax credit, not just in general. 

Mr. Primus. No, that's right. That is what I'm talking about. Again, if you have a mother that is 

earning very little and a dad at 10,000, then they are actually better off, I think, the point is there 

are marriage bonuses. If they are both at about 15 and they get together, then they are 30 and they 

lose all of their EITC, so it depends upon the situation. 

Mr. McKeon. Well, we can sit here and talk some more, I'm sure, but I appreciate you being here.

I appreciate the members being here with their questions and I think it's been very productive and I 

hope that it helps with the process. I hope you will continue to be involved. This is on a pretty fast 
53

track. We want to get this to the floor, hopefully, and passed. That is on the House side. The 

Senate, who knows, but I appreciate your comments. We will leave the record open in case you 

think of other things you would like to put in and other members have other things they would like 

to add. 

 If there is no further business, then that will conclude the session. The hearing is adjourned. 

 [Whereupon, at 5:40 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126

TABLE OF INDEXES 

Chairman Boehner, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16 

Mr. Andrews, 22, 23, 24 

Mr. Ballenger, 16, 17 

Mr. Castle, 20, 21 

Mr. Ehlers, 30, 31, 32, 41 

Mr. Hilleary, 27, 28 

Mr. Johnson, 24, 25 

Mr. Kildee, 48, 49 

Mr. McKeon, 17, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 41, 43, 45, 48, 49, 51, 52 

Mr. Miller, 3, 11, 12, 13 

Mr. Owens, 45, 46, 47, 48 

Mr. Petri, 5, 14 

Mr. Primus, 36, 42, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 

Mr. Roemer, 28, 29, 30 

Mr. Scott, 32, 33, 34, 49, 50, 51, 52 

Mr. Tierney, 25, 26, 27 

Mr. Turner, 38, 43, 44, 45, 47, 49, 50, 51 

Mrs. Davis, 41, 43 

Mrs. Mink, 3, 4, 17, 18, 19 

Mrs. Roukema, 34, 35 

Ms. Biggert, 35 

Ms. Woolsey, 15, 16 

Secretary Thompson, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 

28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36