U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

89–537 2016

REVIEWING HOW TODAY’S FRAGMENTED 

WELFARE SYSTEM FAILS TO LIFT 

UP POOR FAMILIES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 18, 2013

Serial No. 113–HR05 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means 

( 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
ii 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

DAVE CAMP, Michigan, Chairman 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas 

KEVIN BRADY, Texas 

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin 

DEVIN NUNES, California 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

PETER J. ROSKAM, Illinois 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

LYNN JENKINS, Kansas 

ERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota 

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas 

DIANE BLACK, Tennessee 

TOM REED, New York 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

JIM RENACCI, Ohio 

SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan 

CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York 

JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington 

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia 

RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts 

XAVIER BECERRA, California 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas 

MIKE THOMPSON, California 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

RON KIND, Wisconsin 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

DANNY DAVIS, Illinois 

LINDA SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

JENNIFER M. SAFAVIAN, Staff Director and General Counsel 

JANICE MAYS, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington, Chairman 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

JIM RENACCI, Ohio 

TOM REED, New York 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas 

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

DANNY DAVIS, Illinois 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
iii 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Advisory of June 18, 2013 announcing the hearing .............................................. 2 

WITNESSES 

Jeffrey Kling, Ph.D., Associate Director for Economic Analysis, Congressional 

Budget Office, Testimony .................................................................................... 7 

Lawrence M. Mead, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Politics, New York University, Testimony ................................................................................................ 18 

Jennifer Tiller, D.C. Director, America Works and Sada Randolph, Former 

America Works Client, Testimony ...................................................................... 31 

Casey Mulligan, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Economics, University of 

Chicago, Testimony .............................................................................................. 38 

Eric Rodriguez, Vice President, Office of Research, Advocacy, and Legislation, 

National Council of La Raza, Testimony ........................................................... 57 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Family Equality Council ......................................................................................... 85 

First Focus ............................................................................................................... 89 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING

joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
(1) 

REVIEWING HOW TODAY’S FRAGMENTED 

WELFARE SYSTEM FAILS TO LIFT UP POOR 

FAMILIES 

TUESDAY, JUNE 18, 2013 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:02 p.m., in room 

1100, Longworth House Office Building, the Honorable Dave 

Reichert [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

[The advisory of the hearing follows:] 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
2 

HEARING ADVISORY 

Chairman Reichert Announces Hearing Reviewing How Today’s Fragmented Welfare System 

Fails to Lift Up Poor Families 

Washington, June 11, 2013 

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

Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced that the Subcommittee will hold a hearing titled, ‘‘More Spending, Less Real Help: Reviewing 

How Today’s Fragmented Welfare System Fails to Lift Up Poor Families.’’ The hearing will review programs designed to assist low-income individuals and families, 

how the programs can create disincentives to increasing earnings, and how they 

often fail to address factors that caused individuals to seek assistance in the first 

place. The hearing will take place at 2:00 pm on Tuesday, June 18, 2013, in 

room 1100 of the Longworth House Office Building. This hearing will be the 

first in a three-part series of hearings on welfare reform issues. 

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

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

current Federal welfare programs, researchers who have studied the effects of the 

current system, and professionals working with low-income families to help them escape poverty. However, any individual or organization not scheduled for an oral appearance may submit a written statement for consideration by the Committee and 

for inclusion in the printed record of the hearing. 

BACKGROUND: 

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), ‘‘[t]he Federal Government 

devotes roughly one-sixth of its spending to 10 major means tested programs and 

tax credits, which provide cash payments or assistance in obtaining health care, 

food, housing, or education to people with relatively low income or few assets.’’ 

Those programs include the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Supplemental Security Income programs under the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on 

Human Resources, as well as the low-income subsidy for Part D of Medicare and 

the refundable portions of the earned income tax credit (EITC) and child tax credit 

(CTC), under the Committee on Ways and Means’ health and tax jurisdictions. Further, CBO notes that ‘‘[t]otal Federal spending on those 10 programs (adjusted to 

exclude the effects of inflation) rose more than tenfold—or by an average of about 

6 percent a year—in the four decades since 1972 (when only half of the programs 

existed).’’ 

A recent calculation by the Congressional Research Service indicated that there 

are at least 83 different Federal programs focused on helping the low-income population, and these programs are spread across more than a dozen Federal agencies. 

This broader list includes additional Human Resources programs such as the Child 

Support Enforcement program, Foster Care and Adoption Assistance, the John H. 

Chafee Foster Care Independence program, the Social Services Block Grant program, and the Child Care and Development Fund. 

While often individually and collectively called ‘‘work supports,’’ research has 

demonstrated how low-income individuals collecting such benefits may receive little 

economic reward from increasing their earnings, especially if they receive benefits 

from multiple welfare programs. Those with incomes at or near the poverty line may 

be especially prone to losing more in benefits and tax credits than they gain from 

additional work and increased earnings. Recent research suggests that this effect 

may be exacerbated by certain policy changes that will further lower individuals’ 

real financial gains from increasing their work and earnings. 

In addition to creating work disincentives, key Federal welfare programs provide 

assistance to low-income families and individuals without addressing factors that 

caused individuals to seek help in the first place. More broadly, of the 83 programs 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
3 

highlighted in the Congressional Research Service report, few Federal welfare programs require benefit recipients to participate in activities that help them find work 

or work more, escape poverty, and move up the economic ladder. Some programs 

provide assistance for indefinite periods, often without reviewing why the individual 

needs ongoing help. In some cases, benefits are provided without a representative 

of the program ever meeting the recipient in person. 

In announcing the hearing, Chairman Reichert stated, ‘‘Our nation’s welfare 

system should help people overcome their challenges and move up the economic ladder. Unfortunately, the current maze of programs not only fails 

to lift up many poor families in need, but it too often punishes those who 

work hard and do the right thing. It’s time to highlight how this increasingly expensive system fails to address the real needs of low-income individuals and families, so we can determine how to craft reforms that provide the actual help families need to escape poverty.’’ 

FOCUS OF THE HEARING: 

The hearing will review current programs designed to assist low-income individuals and families, how they can create disincentives to increasing earnings, and how 

they often fail to address factors that caused individuals to seek assistance in the 

first place. 

DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: 

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

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

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

would like to submit, and click on the link entitled, ‘‘Please click here to submit a 

statement or letter for the record.’’ Once you have followed the online instructions, 

submit all requested information. Attach your submission as a Word document, in 

compliance with the formatting requirements listed below, by Tuesday, July 2, 

2013. Finally, please note that due to the change in House mail policy, the U.S. 

Capitol Police will refuse sealed-package deliveries to all House Office Buildings. 

For questions, or if you encounter technical problems, please call (202) 225–1721 or 

(202) 225–3625. 

FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS: 

The Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing 

record. As always, submissions will be included in the record according to the discretion of the Committee. The Committee will not alter the content of your submission, 

but we reserve the right to format it according to our guidelines. Any submission 

provided to the Committee by a witness, any supplementary materials submitted for 

the printed record, and any written comments in response to a request for written 

comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any submission or supplementary item not in compliance with these guidelines will not be printed, but will 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by the Committee. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions with regard to special accommodation needs in general (including availVerDate Sep 11 2014 15:42 Jun 27, 2016 Jkt 089537 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\WAYS\OUT\89537.XXX 89537

joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
4 

ability of Committee materials in alternative formats) may be directed to the Committee as noted above. 

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

www.waysandmeans.house.gov/. 

f 

Chairman REICHERT. I call the subcommittee to order. 

Today is the first hearing in a series on what government does 

to help low-income families get ahead, whether that is effective, 

and how that can be made to work better. We will start with a review of our current system and how much we spend, but, more importantly, whether that spending is effective in encouraging work 

and higher earnings by low-income individuals. 

So let’s consider two facts. Fact one: We are spending more than 

ever to assist low-income individuals and families. According to the 

nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, last year the Federal 

Government spent about $600 billion on just the 10 largest programs, which is over 10 times the $55 billion we spent in 1972 

when half of these programs did not even exist. 

Fact number two: Despite all that spending, it is not clear that 

these programs are offering real help. For example, despite record 

spending, this is the slowest economic recovery in recorded history, 

with far too many families unemployed and living in poverty. 

Together, these facts make it hard for defenders of the status quo 

to say all is well, especially across the 83 programs the Congressional Research Service has identified as assisting low-income families. And these facts make it even harder still for the millions of 

American families without stable work and reliable incomes as we 

now enter the 4th year after the recession has officially ended. 

Today, we will ask whether there are features of today’s low-income programs that lead to little success in helping adults go to 

work and increase their earnings. 

As we proceed, I note we are intentionally taking a broader view 

than just those programs within our Subcommittee’s specific jurisdiction. Our programs are key benefits for low-income families, but 

they do not represent all that taxpayers do to help low-income families. To really understand what is going on, you have to look at 

the big picture. So that is what we are going to do today, and that 

is what we are going to do in subsequent hearings. 

We are pleased to have a number of experts on these programs 

with us today, including someone who can provide a firsthand explanation—and this is something I insist upon. I always like to 

hear from those folks who have received help or have been seeking 

help and didn’t receive help. We all can learn a lot from that kind 

of witness. And so we welcome Sada Randolph, a former client of 

America Works here in DC., to tell her important story. We are 

looking forward to that. 

Given the broadness of our topics, one hearing couldn’t possibly 

do them justice. So our next hearing will build on what we learn 

today by exploring what really helps families and whether that 

knowledge drives what we spend our taxpayer money on. 

Finally, we will consider options for reform, including how we 

can work with our State partners to better coordinate the current 

maze of government programs to better serve families in need. 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
5 

Our goal is to help more low-income families leave poverty and 

achieve the American dream. That is not the Republican goal, it is 

not the Democrat goal; it is the goal of every one of us on this dais 

and every one of us in this room, I am sure. And the fact that too 

many of our fellow citizens have seen that goal slip from their 

grasp in recent years is our call to action. 

The status quo is simply not good enough. Spending more money 

on current programs is not good enough. Reforming programs so 

they spend smarter to achieve better outcomes is what we all 

should be working for. That is the challenge ahead of us. 

And I thank you. 

Mr. Doggett, you are recognized for your opening statement. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We are all committed to making every government program work 

as effectively and efficiently as possible for both the beneficiaries 

and taxpayers. But any attempt to label programs that are designed to promote economic opportunity or help struggling Americans as ‘‘welfare’’ doesn’t move us toward that goal. 

I don’t think that most folks across America believe that nursing 

care for seniors, Pell grants to assure that young people can 

achieve their full God-given potential, tax relief for working families, the school breakfast program, Head Start, and foster care, to 

which we devoted considerable bipartisan attention in this Committee, that they characterize those as ‘‘welfare.’’ But there are 

some among our colleagues who do and did during the last Congress in a call for reducing welfare spending. 

What I think we need to be focused on is a very specific conversation about how to make those programs under our jurisdiction, specifically the TANF program, actually move more people 

with existing resources from welfare to work. And I am committed 

to trying to do that. 

The Congressional Research Service report that was referenced 

in the announcement for today’s hearing was put together at the 

request of Senator Jeff Sessions last October at the height of the 

Presidential campaign. He used that report to support the false 

claim that the United States spends more on Federal welfare than 

on any other program in the Federal budget. Now that the campaign is over with, I think we can probably leave that kind of rhetoric behind. It does not help us resolve these problems. 

I asked the Congressional Research Service very recently, in anticipation of this hearing, to do a further analysis of the spending 

in the top 10 programs that some Republicans have classified as 

welfare. Forty-nine percent of that spending goes to our senior citizens, the people that have built this country, and the disabled; 28 

percent supports working families and individuals; 8 percent is for 

education; 14 percent is primarily for medical and food assistance. 

And, of course, we know there are efforts under way this week 

to cut five times as much from food security as the Senate did in 

its farm bill. 

Of the entire total, only about 1 percent is direct cash assistance 

to the needy in the form of the Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families program. 

The written testimony submitted by some of our witnesses here 

today suggests that helping Americans during tough times will stop 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
6 

them from finding a job. One witness once even suggested that, if 

we just would have allowed more people to fall into poverty during 

the recession, they would be more likely to work. 

To me, that fundamentally misreads the character of the American people. I believe they want to work. They want to set an example for their kids and do right by their kids. And they want to 

engage in the struggle each and every day to do just that. We don’t 

need to push more Americans into poverty for them to want to 

work. 

This also ignores the many programs within the jurisdiction of 

our Full Committee, such as the earned income tax credit and the 

Child Tax Credit, increase the value of work for anyone moving 

into a job that pays low or moderate wages. These Tax Credits increase the take-home pay of a minimum-wage worker. That is not 

only a major work incentive, but it also lifts millions of Americans 

out of poverty, including over a million Texans. Furthermore, research indicates that the efforts to make work pay, like the earned 

income tax credit, also help reduce generational poverty by boosting school achievement as well as future earnings. 

While the earned income tax credit and other programs designed 

to promote economic opportunity help Americans of every race and 

in every region, I am particularly pleased that Eric Rodriguez is 

here today from the National Council of La Raza to talk with us 

about how critical these programs are in supporting many Latino 

families as they achieve and maintain economic independence. 

And in terms of recent effort to assist people dealing with the severity of the recession, it is worth remembering that much of that 

assistance is already being reduced. The temporary tax assistance, 

the Medicaid expansion, the duration of unemployment benefits 

has also been significantly reduced. And, of course, the sequestration across-the-board cuts are cutting into many programs in a significant way. 

We can do more to promote and reward work, and we should, including reviewing and perhaps improving the phaseout points for 

some of these programs. But we need to do it together with a realistic view of the difference between these opportunity programs and 

what has traditionally been called ‘‘welfare.’’ 

I yield back. 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you, Mr. Doggett. 

Chairman REICHERT. And as you can see from the opening 

statements, there is agreement that we want to move people from 

welfare to work and we want to help people become successful, and 

there is also agreement that we need to be more efficient in our 

programs and maybe measure them a little bit more accurately, 

but some disagreement, maybe, on how we get there. We will work 

on that. 

Thank you, Mr. Doggett. 

So, without objection, each Member will have the opportunity to 

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

Chairman REICHERT. I want to remind our witnesses to limit 

their oral statements, please, to 5 minutes. 

And I will also let you know a little bit of a secret. At about 2:45, 

2:50, you are going to hear some buzzers and bells go off. That 

means we will have to vote. So be ready for that. 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
7 

But, without objection, all the written testimony that you have 

will be made a part of our permanent record. 

And on our panel this afternoon, we will be hearing from Dr. Jeffrey Kling, Associate Director for Economic Analysis, Congressional 

Budget Office; Dr. Larry Mead, professor, Department of Politics, 

New York University; Jennifer Tiller, DC director, America Works; 

and Sada Randolph, former America Works client; Dr. Casey Mulligan, professor, Department of Economics, University of Chicago; 

and Eric Rodriguez, vice president, Office of Research, Advocacy, 

and Legislation, National Council of La Raza. 

Mr. Kling, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY KLING, PH.D., ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR 

FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE 

Mr. KLING. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Doggett, Members 

of the Subcommittee, thanks for inviting me to testify. 

I am going to do a review of what the spending has been on some 

of the major means-tested programs and tax credits, how it has 

grown over time, and what the Congressional Budget Office 

projects it is going to be into the next decade. 

The Federal Government devotes about one-sixth of its spending 

to 10 major means-tested programs and tax credits. They provide 

assistance for health care, cash payments and help obtaining food, 

housing, and education to people with relatively low incomes and 

assets. 

In 2012, Federal spending on those programs and tax credits totaled $588 billion. Medicaid accounted for more than 40 percent of 

that spending, followed in size by the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. 

Total Federal spending on those 10 programs rose 6 percent per 

year faster than the rate of inflation, or about a tenfold increase 

in the 4 decades since 1972, when half of those programs existed. 

As a share of the economy, Federal spending on those programs 

grew from 1 percent to almost 4 percent of gross domestic product 

over the period. 

Roughly half of that growth came from increases in spending for 

healthcare programs, Medicaid, and, to a far lesser extent, subsidies to help low-income people pay for prescription drugs under 

Part D of Medicare. That spending grew about fifteen-fold over the 

1972 to 2011 period, from $20 billion to $305 billion. People who 

were elderly or disabled accounted for about two-thirds of the Medicaid spending and all the Medicare spending in 2011. 

The primary reason for the growth in healthcare spending, which 

averaged about 7 percent a year above the rate of inflation, was increased spending per participant. General growth in healthcare 

costs, shifts in the composition of beneficiaries, changes in the services covered by the program, and the availability of supplemental 

payments to healthcare providers all contributed to that growth. 

Had the amount of spending per participant in Medicaid remain 

unchanged over those 40 years, total spending on healthcare programs discussed here would have been about $88 billion in 2011, 

or less than a third the actual amount. 

In addition to the increases in spending per participant, the 

number of participants increased from 17 million in 1972 to 53 milVerDate Sep 11 2014 15:42 Jun 27, 2016 Jkt 089537 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\89537.XXX 89537

joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
8 

lion in 2011 because of population growth and policy changes that 

increased eligibility for Medicaid. 

Growth in programs that provide cash assistance and programs 

that help people obtain food, housing, and education were about 

equally responsible for the other half of the total increase in spending over that period for those programs. 

Spending on cash assistance programs and tax credits, the largest of which is the refundable portion of the Earned Income Tax 

Credit, rose from $18 billion in 1972 to $151 billion in 2011, nearly 

6 percent a year above the rate of inflation. 

Spending on programs that help people afford food, housing, or 

education, the largest of which is SNAP, rose from $17 billion to 

$172 billion, also about 6 percent a year above the rate of inflation 

in their growth. Unlike growth in spending on Medicaid, which 

stemmed primarily from greater spending per participant, growth 

in those programs resulted primarily from increases in the number 

of participants. 

If current laws don’t change, total spending on these programs 

will grow faster than inflation over the next decade. But the differences between programs are pretty large. 

Spending on means-tested healthcare programs are projected to 

more than double, an average annual increase of 8 percent above 

the rate of inflation. That rise reflects expected growth in the cost 

of providing medical care. It also reflects expanded eligibility for 

assistance and new types of assistance to be provided under the Affordable Care Act. That law will not only make more people eligible 

for Medicaid but will also allow many low- and moderate-income 

people who do not qualify for Medicaid to purchase Federally subsidized health insurance. 

In contrast to spending on healthcare programs, total spending 

on the cash assistance programs and tax credits I have discussed 

is projected to fall over the next decade. That expected decline 

mainly stems from changes in the earned income tax credit and 

Child Tax Credit, which have changes that are scheduled to occur 

under current law. 

CBO also estimates that spending on nutrition and education 

programs will decline in the next 10 years, partly because spending 

on SNAP is projected to drop substantially as the economy continues to recover. 

There are additional details on these programs in a report that 

we issued in February of 2013, and I would be happy to answer 

any questions that you have about it. 

Thank you. 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you, Mr. Kling. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kling follows:] 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
9 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 144 here 89537.001
10 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 145 here 89537.002
11 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 146 here 89537.003
12 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 147 here 89537.004
13 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 148 here 89537.005
14 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 149 here 89537.006
15 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 150 here 89537.007
16 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 151 here 89537.008
17 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 152 here 89537.009
18 

f 

Chairman REICHERT. Mr. Mead, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE M. MEAD, PH.D., PROFESSOR, 

DEPARTMENT OF POLITICS, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY 

Mr. MEAD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this opportunity to testify about Federal welfare programs. 

And the question we are asking is what we can do to make these 

programs more effective in moving low-income Americans ahead. I 

think that largely means what can we do to promote work in welfare, because it is through employment that most Americans get 

ahead. 

I think the welfare reform of the nineties showed essentially how 

to do that. In the Personal Responsibility Act, we enforced work 

more firmly than before, but at the same time we provided new 

benefits in the form of wage subsidies and child care to make it 

possible for people to go to work. So we combined help and hassle. 

We enforced work; we also promoted work. 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 153 here 89537.010
19 

Equally important, the politics of reform was quite constructive. 

It was strongly bipartisan. Both parties contributed to the outcome. 

And the upshot was really not to downsize welfare but, rather, to 

change its nature so that it did indeed promote work. 

And I think my central message today is that we need another 

welfare reform that will do the same thing in some other programs. 

I recommend three steps, primarily. 

One is that we need to strengthen the work test in TANF. It does 

have some weaknesses, and especially the fact that States can 

sanction families that don’t comply only partially and allow the 

mothers who are not working to keep most of their benefits. I think 

that is a mistake. We should require that the case be closed in 

those instances, and I think we would have higher work participation if we did. 

We ought to have a firmer work test in the SNAP program, or 

food stamps. Food stamps has some requirements on the books, but 

they are not very strong and they are not well-implemented. We 

need to be more serious about that and require that States achieve 

certain activity levels, as they have to do in TANF. I would certainly require one parent in a food stamp family, if it is a two-parent family, to be employed. 

We should also consider similar requirements in housing and 

even in EITC, where we commonly think that the credit produces 

higher work levels. Actually, I don’t see persuasive evidence for 

that. EITC creates incentives both for and against work. I think we 

should consider an hours threshold, as we do in TANF. We should 

require, for people who get the EITC credit, they should have to 

work 20 or 30 hours a week rather than just whatever hours they 

choose. And if we did that, I think we would see more impact on 

work levels. 

The second thing we should do is institute a work test for men. 

Well, how do you do that when the men are not usually on welfare? 

Well, what we can do first of all is have a higher wage subsidy for 

single workers without children, most of whom are men. They 

should get a better subsidy. 

But, at the same time, we should enforce work for groups that 

are supposed to be working. And I am thinking particularly men 

who owe child support and aren’t paying and also men leaving prison on parole. These groups are supposed to work; they often don’t 

do so. And States have begun to institute work programs to enforce 

work for those groups. So, again, the combination of help and hassle, of benefits with requirements. 

The single best thing this Committee could do to promote that 

development is to allow the funding for child support work programs to be reimbursable under Title IV–D. This is, I think, an essential change which I hope you will consider. 

The third thing that we should do is rein in the disability programs. They are growing too rapidly. We have too many people on 

both Social Security Disability and especially SSI. We need to reconsider the idea that disability is open and shut, that either you 

are disabled or you are not. It would be better for the recipients 

and for society if we had partial disability, partial benefits, coupled 

with some activity requirements, where we expect people to work 

to a certain extent or engage in community service. 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
20 

We can’t simply create a massive disincentive to work by giving 

people a pension where they never have to work for the rest of 

their lives; indeed, they can’t work. We have to get away from that 

and both tighten up the rules for eligibility but also have some 

kind of activity requirement for those on these benefits. The Europeans, by the way, are ahead of us in this. They are starting to do 

this, and we need to do it, as well. 

Another thing they have done in the Netherlands is to require 

employers to be the initial funders of benefits for disabled people. 

So they don’t have an incentive, as they do now, to shift their 

workers onto SSI rather than unemployment insurance because 

they don’t pay anything for SSI and they do for UI. We need to consider requiring the employers to get some skin in the game. 

So I think disability programs are also important. 

In my written testimony, I consider a number of other impediments to people working that are often cited, disincentives lack of 

jobs inequality, a couple of others. And I want to emphasize that 

I think none of these are really very important, and we shouldn’t 

be distracted by them. We can talk further about disincentives. You 

are going to hear from Professor Mulligan about that. I don’t think 

it is very important. And we should focus instead on building an 

administrative work test where we actively tell people, you have to 

work, and we oversee to make sure they do it. 

Thank you. 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you, Mr. Mead. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mead follows:] 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
21 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 154 here 89537.011
22 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 155 here 89537.012
23 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 156 here 89537.013
24 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 157 here 89537.014
25 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 158 here 89537.015
26 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 159 here 89537.016
27 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 160 here 89537.017
28 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 161 here 89537.018
29 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 162 here 89537.019
30 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 163 here 89537.020
31 

f 

Chairman REICHERT. Ms. Tiller and Ms. Randolph, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JENNIFER TILLER, SITE DIRECTOR, AMERICA 

WORKS OF WASHINGTON, DC.; ACCOMPANIED BY SADA RANDOLPH, FORMER AMERICA WORKS CLIENT 

Ms. TILLER. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Subcommittee. 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 164 here 89537.021
32 

America Works started in 1984 as the first for-profit welfare-towork company in the United States. Operating for 12 years before 

welfare reform, America Works placed welfare recipients into private-sector jobs. 

Armed with knowledge and data, we lobbied Congress for nationwide welfare reform. After almost 30 years, America Works has 

broadened beyond welfare recipients to include returning prisoners, 

food stamp recipients, noncustodial parents, homeless individuals 

and families, veterans, those with HIV–A(IDS, and the disabled on 

Social Security Disability Insurance. 

Over the years, we have worked to get 350,000 people working 

in different States and cities throughout the country. As you can 

see from the document that was submitted on Friday, in New York 

City we are measured against all competitors and are consistently 

ranked as the number-one performer. We know that following is essential to our success. 

Over the years, America Works has taken on tough social problems which cost the taxpayers billions of dollars, with the belief 

that if a job is provided, dependency on the government diminishes 

and disappears. 

To that end, we have rapidly attached ex-offenders to work, 

therefore reducing recidivism to crime. We have taken people with 

a lifelong benefit of SSDI and gotten them employed and independent. America Works has taken people out of homeless shelters 

and showed that by providing jobs we vastly decrease the cost of 

homelessness. If work were the central social policy through which 

each problem is examined, we could create productive citizens and 

lower our expenses. 

America Works pioneered the work-first model. This has been 

critical to erasing years in which welfare recipients spent in and 

out of education and training programs which seldom led to jobs. 

When the regulations were being written for welfare reform, States 

were limited to a very small percent of people allowed to be in education and training programs. This forced employment first and 

training later for upgrading and improving prospects. 

America Works pioneered performance contracting, meaning you 

only get paid when and if you get someone a job and they actually 

keep the job. This technique forces greater productivity and outcomes. Unfortunately, most efforts still reimburse employment activities based uponline-item budgets, not job outcomes. Again, in 

the attached document submitted on Friday, you can see comparisons between America Works and various States’ one-stop centers. 

America Works has operated with voluntary and mandated programs. When we began, everyone was voluntary. In 1996, with the 

Welfare Reform Act, all of that changed for welfare recipients. Productivity and outcomes vastly increased. Over the years, in New 

York City we have seen an expansion into mandatory requirements 

not just for welfare recipients but also for noncustodial parents, 

food stamp recipients, and homeless shelter residents. 

America Works recommends the Committee to undertake an expansion of work requirements for the growing group of people who 

receive transfer payments and public subsidies. 

Thank you for your time and consideration. 

And I introduce Sada Randolph. 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
33 

Ms. RANDOLPH. Good afternoon. 

I attended America Works last year, May of 2012. During that 

time, it was the same time that I had a terminally ill dad and also 

was a single parent with a son. 

When I attended America Works, the staff members really 

helped me in so many ways, as far as interview skills, resume 

building, the way to properly fill out an application for a job. 

And in doing so, with their efforts and also my own determination, I became employed with Jemsek Specialty Clinic as a medical 

records clerk. I have been there for a year, and also I have purchased my first brand-new car. 

So I am forever grateful to America Works. 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you both for your testimony. 

And congratulations on your first brand-new car. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Tiller follows:] 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
34 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 165 here 89537.022
35 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 166 here 89537.023
36 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 167 here 89537.024
37 

f 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 168 here 89537.025 Insert offset folio 169 here 89537.026 Insert offset folio 170 here 89537.027
38 

Chairman REICHERT. Mr. Mulligan, you are recognized for 5 

minutes. 

STATEMENT OF CASEY B. MULLIGAN, PH.D., PROFESSOR, 

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO 

Mr. MULLIGAN. Chairman Reichert, Ranking Member Doggett, 

Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity and 

honor to discuss with you today how public policy has changed the 

reward to work. 

A basic economic principle is that the monetary reward to working has important effects on how many people are employed and 

how much they work. People without jobs or otherwise with low incomes sometimes receive benefits from social safety net programs. 

The benefits are rarely called ‘‘taxes’’ by laymen, but economists 

understand the benefits to have many of the characteristics of tax 

rates because a program beneficiary loses some or all of her benefits as a consequence of accepting a new job. 

I have illustrated the reward idea in Figure 1. The left bar measures the resources available when working, and the right bar measures the resources the same person would have if not working, including subsidies received net of taxes paid. The difference between 

the two bars is the monetary reward to working. 

Now, consider adding a new safety net program or expanding an 

old one. Exactly because it gives more help when not working, the 

new program reduces the reward to working. The combined effect 

of taxes and subsidies on the reward to accepting a new job can be 

summarized as a penalty—the effective amount that is lost from 

paying taxes and replacing benefits associated with not working. 

I like to express the penalty as marginal tax rate, namely as a 

percentage of employee compensation. If there were no penalty, 

then the marginal tax rate would be zero. Thanks to a labyrinth 

of tax and subsidy programs, the marginal tax rate can sometimes 

equal or exceed 100 percent, which means that at least as many 

resources are available when not working as when working. In 

such cases, a person might have more resources available to use or 

save as a consequence of working less. 

Legislation that cuts or credits taxes can nonetheless reduce the 

reward to working and increase the marginal tax rate if it cuts 

taxes more for those who work less than it cuts taxes for those who 

work more. High marginal tax rates are associated with small incentives to seek, create, and retain jobs. The consequences of high 

marginal tax rates are felt all over the economy, even by persons 

whose individual rates might not be all that high. 

At the same time the safety net programs implicitly tax job acceptance, they also implicitly subsidize layoffs, because the programs absorb some of the income and production an employer and 

employee together lose when an employee stops working. Layoff 

subsidies give employers and employees less incentives to take 

steps that might avoid or delay layoffs. 

America absolutely must have taxes and safety net programs 

even though they reduce the reward to working and even though 

they subsidize layoffs. But if this Congress wants to understand 

what is happening in the labor market or to the budgets of social 

programs, it would be counterproductive to approximate marginal 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
39 

tax rates as zero or to assume them to be eternally constant regardless of what incentives are embodied in new legislation. 

Of course, unemployment insurance program benefits are now 

available longer into unemployment spells than they were 6 years 

ago, but also don’t forget the new modernization provisions now 

provide unemployment benefits in a variety of circumstances, when 

they were formally unavailable. The food stamp program expanded 

in a variety of dimensions. The Recovery Act helped unemployed 

people pay for their health insurance. 

Figure 2 shows my estimates of 10 years of marginal tax rates 

coming from tax and subsidy programs, taking into account that 

some of the poor and unemployed do not participate in all or sometimes even any of the safety net programs. The combined effect of 

these and other changes through 2013 was to reduce the reward to 

work—that is, increase marginal tax rates for most of the non-elderly population. 

The reward to work will be further eroded beginning in January, 

when several significant provisions of the Affordable Care Act take 

effect. The new work disincentive provisions include: the sliding 

scale that sets premiums for people who buy health insurance 

under new marketplaces, a scheme for premium assistance that essentially resurrects the Recovery Act’s COBRA subsidy in a more 

comprehensive form, employer penalties, and hardship relief from 

the individual mandate. The cumulative effect of all of this legislation is to increase average marginal labor income tax rates by 10 

percentage points over what they were in 2007. 

A presumably unintended consequence of the recent safety net 

expansions has and will be to reduce the reward to working and 

thereby keep unemployment and poverty rates high and keep national spending low longer than they would have been if safety net 

rules had remained unchanged. 

Thank you. 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mulligan follows:] 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
40 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 171 here 89537.028
41 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 172 here 89537.029
42 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 173 here 89537.030
43 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 174 here 89537.031
44 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 175 here 89537.032
45 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 176 here 89537.033
46 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 177 here 89537.034
47 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 178 here 89537.035
48 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 179 here 89537.036
49 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 180 here 89537.037
50 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 181 here 89537.038
51 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 182 here 89537.039
52 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 183 here 89537.040
53 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 184 here 89537.041
54 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 185 here 89537.042
55 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 186 here 89537.043 Insert offset folio 187 here 89537.044 Insert offset folio 188 here 89537.045
56 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 189 here 89537.046
57 

f 

Chairman REICHERT. Mr. Rodriguez. 

STATEMENT OF ERIC RODRIGUEZ, VICE PRESIDENT, OFFICE 

OF RESEARCH, ADVOCACY, AND LEGISLATION, NATIONAL 

COUNCIL OF LA RAZA 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Doggett, and distinguished Members of the committee. For 20 

years I have worked on antipoverty issues. It is a great pleasure 

to be here just to share our perspective. 

I would just like to make a few key points in my testimony. 

The first is that many of the Federal programs that we are talking about here that are designed to assist low-income families are 

doing what we have asked them to do and what was intended, in 

many ways. 

The second is that some of the tax credits that have already been 

mentioned in particular really stand out in terms of their impact 

on rewarding work and stand out as a Federal policy to reward 

work over time. And it is well-documented and there is really substantial research to support that. 

Finally, there are a lot of ways that we can lift up families out 

of poverty through Federal initiatives if we choose to invest more 

in those key particular areas. 

So the great recession has been devastating, I think as we all 

know. The national unemployment rate now is 7.6 percent, down 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 190 here 89537.047
58 

from 10 percent in 2009. You have to go back to the early 1980s 

to see a nationwide rate at that level. Today, there are still more 

than three unemployed workers for every job available. 

At the same time, we have had a housing crisis that took a devastating toll on working families. Substantial declines in household 

income and wealth, particularly among Latino and African-American families, have eroded financial security for all American working families. 

The Federal social safety net includes a range of programs that 

we have mentioned here that serve nonworking elderly, of course, 

the disabled, children, but also working families—and increasingly 

working families. Programs such as SNAP, Medicaid, and TANF 

are designed to provide basic security and, in the aggregate, help 

provide broadly shared financial stability during difficult times. 

SNAP participation grew, as we have already mentioned, 27 percent between 2007 and 2009, but as a result of the recession. These 

programs and efforts are not designed to remedy macroeconomic or 

labor market issues, but rather to help families deal with the fallout from these macro trends. 

One of the most valuable and effective responses we have seen 

comes in the form of tax credits. In 2011, just by way of example, 

the EITC prevented 6.1 million people, including 3.1 million children, from slipping below the poverty line. The credit has also been 

proven to have other positive effects for working families. And, 

again, extensive research is there to support that. 

Expansions of credits and programs that assist low-income workers have been a central piece in economic recovery, as you have 

seen. In fact, the safety net reduced poverty by almost half in 2010 

by accounting for the positive effect of programs like SNAP as well 

as the low-income tax credits. 

Yet some argue that these programs discourage work. In general, 

benefits decrease as earnings rise, and we know this. But, as in the 

case of the tax credits, policymakers can mitigate those effects 

through properly designed phaseout rates. 

But, by and large, increasing employment, boosting wages, lifting 

up income and earnings, and improving levels of wealth for families, as we all want, can be best achieved when jobs and economic 

opportunity are plentiful. Stabilizing families during an economic 

downturn is certainly a sensible first step, and needed. 

The evidence is clear that means-tested antipoverty programs 

have served as foam on the runway that Main Street needed to 

soften the harsh effects of our financial crisis. But American businesses are still hesitant to hire. It may take years for the labor 

market to return to help without further interventions. 

Targeted efforts to create jobs, such as funding for infrastructure 

repairs and rebuilding in low-income neighborhoods, are smart, 

commonsense solutions. Raising the minimum wage, expanding access to paid leave, affordable child care, are also all important at 

rewarding work and important during this time. 

However, policy does seem to be moving in a different direction, 

and let me just give you three quick examples. 

The Federal budget sequester, of course, has been devastating on 

complementary programs. An estimated 270,000 people will be cut 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
59 

from Federal job training programs that serve youth. Latinos will 

lose about 25,000 slots in Head Start programs. 

The recent version of the farm bill also raises great concerns. 

SNAP has been proven to be highly effective, yet we are seeing $4 

billion in the Senate and possible cuts of $20 billion in the House 

version of the farm bill—again, issues that we are really concerned 

about. 

And the Budget Control Act, recently signed, made permanent a 

lot of the tax credits that were put in place in 2001, but the EITC 

was only expanded or extended for 5 years and not made permanent, so a major concern. 

So, in summary, most of the programs that we are talking about 

have served the purpose that they were intended to serve. Tax 

credits remain crucial in this regard. And policy options are in 

front of us if we can invest in those areas. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rodriguez follows:] 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
60 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 191 here 89537.048
61 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 192 here 89537.049
62 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 193 here 89537.050
63 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 194 here 89537.051
64 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 195 here 89537.052
65 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 196 here 89537.053
66 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 197 here 89537.054
67 

f 

Chairman REICHERT. Well, now we will move into the questionand-answer phase. And I would like to begin by asking Ms. Randolph a couple of questions. 

Have you testified before Congress before? 

Ms. RANDOLPH. No. 

Chairman REICHERT. Isn’t this fun? 

Ms. RANDOLPH. Yes. 

Chairman REICHERT. Well, good. I am glad you are having fun. 

So we are just going to have a conversation, okay? 

Ms. RANDOLPH. Okay. 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 198 here 89537.055
68 

Chairman REICHERT. We just want to learn from you, because 

I think it is really important. You have been there, done that. You 

have been through the system. I mean, all these guys are smart 

guys and gals that are sitting here, but you are the one with the 

wisdom and the experience, as far as I am concerned, okay? 

Ms. RANDOLPH. Okay. 

Chairman REICHERT. So you went to the Department of 

Human Services in New York, right? 

Ms. RANDOLPH. No, in DC. 

Chairman REICHERT. In DC. 

Ms. RANDOLPH. Yes. 

Chairman REICHERT. I am sorry, in DC. And you were provided with some benefits—— 

Ms. RANDOLPH. Yes. 

Chairman REICHERT [continuing]. Right. And then you went to 

America Works. 

Ms. RANDOLPH. Yes. 

Chairman REICHERT. What was different? What was your experience? What is the difference in the two? How did you find yourself becoming successful through what America Works does versus 

the Department of Health? 

Ms. RANDOLPH. Basically, the support from America Works, 

both as far as finding employment but also in personal. Because, 

at that time, I was going through a personal matter. 

They helped me with so much as far as building my confidence, 

helping me with finding employment and staying determined, staying on track. Even though I had all this going on in my personal 

life, I had them to come to every day to talk to, also for them to 

support me in any way possible. 

When I got there, it seemed it was just great. I loved it there. 

I really did. 

Chairman REICHERT. What didn’t you get at the Department 

of Human Services in DC.? 

Ms. RANDOLPH. Just the benefits. 

Chairman REICHERT. Just benefits. 

Ms. RANDOLPH. Yes. So what you really were looking for was 

someone who could tell you, you know what, Sada, you can do 

this—— 

Ms. RANDOLPH. Yes. Yes. 

Chairman REICHERT [continuing]. To build your self-confidence, 

you can get a job like this, you can have a dream. 

Ms. RANDOLPH. Yes. 

Chairman REICHERT. So how did they help you build that confidence? What were some of the things that they did? 

Ms. RANDOLPH. Every day I would come in, they would sit 

down and talk with me. If I had any personal issues as far as 

transportation or anything that would keep me from getting to 

America Works, they would help me with that. Also, helping me 

with my resume, my interview skills, whatever I needed help with. 

Also, searching jobs with me. One-on-one time was most important 

to me, and I received that when I got to America Works. 

Chairman REICHERT. And when you were working with Human 

Services, how did you feel? I mean, you were just getting benefits. 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
69 

Were you frustrated? Were you anxious? Were you looking for 

work? 

Ms. RANDOLPH. I was looking for work, because I know I am 

a smart girl—— 

Chairman REICHERT. Yes. 

Ms. RANDOLPH.—and I knew that was not where I wanted to 

be. But I also had a child feed. So, I mean, with them I did become 

frustrated, but I also was grateful— 

Chairman REICHERT. Sure. 

Ms. RANDOLPH [continuing]. Because I had a way to feed my 

son. 

Chairman REICHERT. Right. 

Ms. RANDOLPH. Yeah, so I just became a little frustrated, 

but—— 

Chairman REICHERT. You would rather be where you are 

today—— 

Ms. RANDOLPH. Yes. 

Chairman REICHERT [continuing]. With a job versus—— 

Ms. RANDOLPH. Yes. 

Chairman REICHERT. Yeah. Good. 

Ms. Tiller, what would you say to someone who might look at 

Ms. Randolph and say she represents a few people who are easy? 

She is obviously a very bright young lady, someone who may be 

easy to find work for, as opposed to many other people on benefits 

who can’t be put to work right away without years of education or 

training or similar services. 

Ms. TILLER. Generally, everyone who comes to any of our America Works offices are people who, before they met us, were not believed in. So regardless of the duration on TANF or any types of 

services before, it is building that confidence that Sada referenced. 

It is advocating on their behalf when it comes to their housing 

situation or additional benefits needed or childcare subsidies. It is 

making sure that anyone who walks into our office is matched appropriately to a job. You know, work first works best. 

So we make sure that any individual—we look at their wraparound services that are needed. We offer them a comprehensive 

approach. But, really, it is just building their confidence. 

Chairman REICHERT. Yeah. Well, thank you so much for what 

you do and America Works does. 

And congratulations to you, Ms. Randolph. 

Ms. RANDOLPH. Thank you. 

Chairman REICHERT. You are welcome. 

Mr. Doggett, you are recognized. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thanks to all of our witnesses. 

Mr. Kling, I know that the CBO has studied a number of times 

the earned income tax credit, I think most recently in your November 2012 marginal tax rate report. 

Does the research indicate that the EITC has helped pull people 

into the labor market by increasing the value of work? 

Mr. KLING. Yes, Congressman, it does. We have a report that 

was specifically on the refundable tax credits that is even more recent, from January. And that is clearly spelled out there. 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
70 

Mr. DOGGETT. The report I looked at said it makes work more 

appealing and that studies have found that expansions of the EITC 

between 1986 and 1996 significantly increased the movement of 

single mothers into the work force. 

Mr. KLING. Those are our findings, yes, sir. 

Mr. DOGGETT. And by boosting the value of work, has the EITC 

also reduced poverty rates for Americans in low-wage jobs? 

Mr. KLING. That is correct. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you. 

Mr. Rodriguez, what will be the effect on poor families of significantly changing the earned income tax credit? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Well, if the changes are meant to lessen the 

credit in some way or—— 

Mr. DOGGETT. Yes. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. —cut back on eligibility in some particular 

way, I think it would be devastating. I think as many of you know, 

the effects of the credits, I think, are proven to reduce poverty. 

But, also, on an individual level, many families, you know, they 

go to work. They look forward to their tax refunds at the end of 

the year. They use it to pay off bills and other basic necessities. 

The notion that we will be reducing refunds in some way, I think, 

could have a very, very devastating impact and certainly set us 

back with respect to the recovery. 

Mr. DOGGETT. And, Mr. Kling, on the issue of food security and 

the SNAP program, I believe that CBO projects that the overall 

spending on SNAP will drop substantially in real terms over the 

next decade under existing law, if we just maintain the existing 

law. 

Mr. KLING. That is correct. 

Mr. DOGGETT. And this is based on the premise that the program grew when the recession was the deepest, and we think that 

is changing. And it accounts for the fact that the food stamp benefit 

levels will drop some this fall because of changes that are already 

set to take effect in the SNAP law. 

Mr. KLING. Yes, sir. We think that the economy is on a path toward recovery. And, over the next decade, that will have a substantial impact on reducing the amount of expenditure in the SNAP 

program. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you. 

And, again, Mr. Rodriguez, in terms of what the impact will be 

on Latino families and other families if the House were to enact 

the bill that is before us this afternoon—in fact, that is what the 

bells were ringing about, to bring that up—that involves five times 

as much of a cut in the SNAP program as that made by the Senate. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yeah, as we discussed, SNAP and the EITC 

work pretty closely together to assist families who are working. 

And, as you know, the State and local impacts of the EITC, SNAP 

payments are tremendous on local economies. You know, in Texas 

alone, 2.7 million households claim the EITC. That is over a million 

families that are receiving those benefits. I think SNAP has very 

similar overlays, and so you are looking at deep impacts in similar 

places. And I think we should be very concerned about that. 

Mr. DOGGETT. We have heard substantial criticism of some of 

the existing programs today from some of the other witnesses. 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
71 

What do you believe are some of the strategies that we need to pursue in order to get long-term reductions in poverty? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Well, I certainly think, you know, looking at 

the EITC, for those who may be concerned about some of the work 

incentives or discouraging, again, I think the phaseout rates offer 

some, I think, pointers in that direction. 

I think further work support investments—transportation subsidies, childcare subsidies—that help workers either stay in the 

work force or expand their hours seems to me to be a good direction 

to go in, in addition to some of the job-creation and job-growth elements that I have mentioned before. And they are in my testimony. 

Mr. DOGGETT. And is early education and avoiding these 

across-the-board cuts in Head Start a part of that also? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Absolutely. Part of the research that we have 

seen talks about intergenerational poverty and how that affects 

families. And we certainly have seen research that shows that children of recipients of the tax credits do better in terms of educational outcomes and college attainment. And so I think we would 

be definitely concerned about the effects on the longer-term implications for families, as well. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you, Mr. Doggett. 

Mr. Young, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing. 

I thank all of our panelists. 

Ms. Randolph, your testimony was incredibly inspiring to me. 

And I think the idea here is to try and figure out ways to reform 

the programs at issue today so that our social safety net does not 

become a cage for many Americans; instead, it becomes what it was 

intended to be, to my mind: a springboard to go out and realize 

your capabilities, put those to use, and make a better life for yourself and your family. And you certainly embody that, so thanks for 

being here today. 

Times are tough. Some of the solutions I have already heard put 

forward today with respect to improving the lives of people on the 

margins of our society involve greater expenditure. I know that argument can be made, but I would like to invoke the old British saying which is, ‘‘Now that the money has run out, we shall have to 

begin to think.’’ It is time for us to think creatively about how a 

number of these programs are structured. And to do that, I think 

in some cases it would be helpful to have more information. 

Prior to 1988, it was impossible to determine what percentages 

of AFDC recipients were actively engaged in workfare, job search, 

training, or other efforts to reduce dependence. States actually 

competed with each other in disseminating misleading data, which 

implied that most of those who made up their caseload were engaged in serious efforts to leave the government rolls. 

With the passage of the 1988 welfare reform legislation, States 

were required to report accurately the activities of their AFDC recipients. It was soon revealed that only a tiny fraction of recipients 

were actually engaged in job search and training. And that information, garnered through those 1988 reforms, led to the intellecVerDate Sep 11 2014 15:42 Jun 27, 2016 Jkt 089537 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\89537.XXX 89537

joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
72 

tual foundation for later welfare reforms which incorporated a work 

requirement, to the benefit of people like Ms. Randolph. 

So my questions pertain to evidence-based policymaking, and 

they will directed toward Mr. Mead and Mr. Mulligan. 

In terms of other Federal programs, such as SSI or SNAP, which 

programs currently require States to report on the activities of government benefit recipients? 

Mr. MEAD. To my knowledge, TANF is the only program that 

has detailed requirements of reporting on what recipients are engaged in. I don’t believe we have that in food stamps or SSI. 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Mulligan, would you agree with that assessment, to your knowledge? 

Mr. MULLIGAN. The SNAP program has a quality control sample that I believe comes from each of the States. I don’t know exactly the administrative role of the States in that, but each of the 

States is represented there. The Department of Agriculture makes 

it available every year. It is a yearly sample of people who are actually on the SNAP program, the type of household they live in, 

whether they are working—— 

Mr. YOUNG. Right. 

Mr. MULLIGAN [continuing]. Those sort of issues. 

Mr. YOUNG. So we have 83, by my last count, what some call 

welfare programs. Others characterize that as an unfair term, although I think just about every panelist used that term. We will 

call them means-tested Federal benefit programs. 

Just about all of them require no sort of work requirement or 

even requirement that there be some reporting on the activities related to work or job search of the recipients. 

Should the Federal Government extend these reporting requirements to other means-tested government programs, in your estimation? And if we should extend these requirements, should we 

also apply rigorous evaluations to determine the effectiveness of 

these programs on benefit recipients? 

Mr. Mead. 

Mr. MEAD. Well, in principle, I would favor that, but let’s remember there are administrative costs associated—— 

Mr. YOUNG. Sure. 

Mr. MEAD [continuing]. With this kind of reporting. 

I don’t know that all the programs need it. It seems to me that 

the major programs are those that most of the recipients are likely 

to be on, including food stamps, TANF, EITC. We should content 

ourselves with getting good reporting on those programs. And if, in 

those connections, people are working, fulfilling the requirement, 

then that is going to take care of the others. So I don’t think we 

need to see this as a general problem— 

Mr. YOUNG. I will interject, due to limited time. 

And, Mr. Mulligan, I believe we have spoken offline about this 

issue, and you share that perspective; we should focus more on 

where most of the money goes, frankly, on reporting requirements 

for those programs. Is that correct? 

Mr. MULLIGAN. Yes, start with the big pieces. And I also recommend that—the Census Bureau runs some surveys of the population, especially the poor population, the SIPP and the Current 

Population Survey. Those could be cleaned up and improved for the 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
73 

purpose of measuring program participation more completely. And 

that would be made administratively more cheap and valuable for 

research. 

Mr. YOUNG. And, finally, based on these findings, this information gathered, should the Federal Government incorporate evidence-based funding criteria into these well-intentioned programs? 

Yes or no, if you can, because my time has expired. 

Mr. MEAD. In principle, yes. But we have to sometimes carry 

out studies to determine what the effects are. 

Mr. MULLIGAN. Yeah, I would say yes. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you. 

Chairman REICHERT. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Young. 

Mr. Lewis, you are recognized. 

Mr. LEWIS. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank each and every one of you for being here. 

Except for the Associate Director of CBO and Ms. Randolph, 

have any of you been without a job or known someone without a 

job after 2007, known someone that didn’t have a job or couldn’t 

find a job? Make it brief, please. 

Mr. MEAD. Yes. I have friends who have been unemployed. 

Mr. LEWIS. Okay. 

Ms. TILLER. Yes, I have had friends who have been unemployed. 

Mr. LEWIS. Okay. 

Yes, sir. 

Mr. MULLIGAN. My wife was laid off at the beginning of the 

year. She is still unemployed. 

Mr. LEWIS. Okay. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Likewise, yes. Not my wife, but, you know, I 

have had—— 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you. Did any of the people that you know, 

any of your friends try to take relief or seek relief from any of these 

Federal programs? 

Mr. MEAD. In the cases I know, I don’t know, but I don’t believe 

so. 

Mr. LEWIS. Okay. 

Ms. TILLER. I wouldn’t be made aware. 

Mr. LEWIS. Okay. 

Yes, sir. 

Mr. MULLIGAN. I am not sure I understood your question. 

Mr. LEWIS. I think my question is, did anyone you know try to 

seek out benefits of these Federal programs? 

Mr. MULLIGAN. Well, my wife looked at unemployment insurance, which is a State program. 

Mr. LEWIS. Okay. That is okay. I think some of the resources 

come from the Federal Government. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. The answer is yes, but—yes. 

Mr. LEWIS. Well, let me—are any of you taking the position that 

we should just de-fund these programs and get rid of them and let 

people fend for themselves? 

Mr. MEAD. I am not in favor of that. My concern is that we require people to work in return for benefits, but I am not in favor 

of cutting the benefits. We still need to help people. 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
74 

Mr. LEWIS. So you are not in favor of abolishing the program, 

that the Federal Government get out of the business of helping 

people, throwing people a lifeline. 

Mr. MEAD. I don’t think the problem in welfare is that we are 

helping people. The problem is sometimes that we are not expecting people to help themselves. 

Mr. LEWIS. Okay. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield the balance of my time to 

Mr. Davis. 

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

And thank you, Mr. Lewis. 

Chairman REICHERT. If I could just interrupt, Mr. Davis, very 

quickly. We have 2 minutes to get over to vote. 

Mr. DAVIS. All right. Then I will just say that the line of questioning I think that we are seeing pursued in some way is this 

whole business of, are people likely to not seek work because of the 

benefit that they might be receiving? 

The benefits that I have seen people receive generally were not 

enough to be the kind of reward that might say to a person, I don’t 

really need to go out and seek work as assiduously as someone 

thinks because I am receiving a benefit that is rather minimal. 

And I will continue to pursue that. Our time is obviously up, and 

we have to run and vote, but when we return. So thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you, Mr. Davis. 

Thank you, Mr. Lewis. 

And I apologize to the witnesses. We are going to disappear for 

a few minutes. We will be back as soon as we can. If you could 

please remain, we have just a few more Members to ask questions, 

so I would ask your patience. 

The Committee hearing now will be in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman REICHERT. The subcommittee will come to order, 

please. 

So thank you for your patience. 

We will begin questioning again, and we will recognize Mr. 

Renacci for 5 minutes. 

Mr. RENACCI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank the witnesses for your testimony. 

Ms. Randolph, I want to congratulate you for what you have 

been able to do. I think that is one of the positives of these programs, and we need to have more of those. So, congratulations. 

It is interesting because, in my previous history, I used to always 

have staff come up to me and say, well, the more money we spend, 

the better off we will be. And I used to try and tell them that there 

comes a time when the more money you spend sometimes, you are 

just wasting it. 

And I think what we really need to do is make sure that the programs that we are spending money on, that the return is there and 

that we are getting people back to work. That has to be the key, 

just like Ms. Randolph was able to do. Those are the keys to these 

type of programs. 

Mr. Mead, I want to direct a question to you. In December of 

2011, approximately 193,000 individuals received TANF benefits in 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
75 

my home State of Ohio. Although shocking to me at first, this number was small in comparison to the 2 million individuals receiving 

SNAP benefits. 

In your testimony, you mentioned that other programs could benefit from similar work tests used in the TANF program. Can you 

tell us more about some of the benefits of a work-first approach to 

our welfare system, just a little more in detail? Because I think 

that is the direction we should go in. 

Mr. MEAD. In order to get welfare recipients to work, you have 

to have an administrative structure where you say to them that 

they must work and you arrange it. You help them get it together 

by arranging child care, finding a job, actually working, staying at 

the job, et cetera. It has to be mandatory, it has to be a condition 

of eligibility that they do this. 

And it is not as if—I am not suggesting they don’t want to work. 

They do. But, typically, they have to get organized to actually do 

it. And so you need to have a program structure that brings that 

about. 

We have that structure in TANF, but we don’t have it in food 

stamps. That is the big difference. In food stamps, there are formal 

requirements on the books, but we don’t actually have a program 

standing behind it. We don’t actually have in most localities—there 

are some exceptions —but we don’t have an actual program on the 

ground where people are faced with an operational requirement to 

do something. That is the big difference. And we need to move that 

way in SNAP. 

Mr. RENACCI. Sir, do you believe that we are providing the real 

help necessary to get to that point? Or, do we have to revise the 

system? 

Mr. MEAD. I think we have to revise SNAP to provide a program 

structure like what we have in TANF. Now, I don’t mean the rules 

would be identically the same. Food stamps covers a wider population, with many different types of families. We have to think seriously about who exactly would have to work and how much and so 

on. So there are issues there that you wouldn’t face in TANF. 

But we need to do that, we need to set up a structure. That is 

what is now missing. And then you can combine practical help, 

which people need and I am in favor of, like the benefit, with a requirement that people also help themselves. So you have this joint 

effort where the government and the recipient together work on 

going to work. 

Mr. RENACCI. Ms. Tiller, if you speak to those out of work, most 

will tell you they want a chance to earn more money, help their 

family, improve their situation in life. Getting individuals back to 

work really must remain the goal of the public assistance programs. 

You have assisted a variety of individuals in your organization. 

Do you come across individuals who are not willing to work? 

Ms. TILLER. Of course we do, but it is all about rebuilding confidence and making folks more self-aware and then helping them 

with the tools to get them to a point of employability. 

Mr. RENACCI. What are some of the things your organization 

does to help people realize the benefits that they can gain from 

working? 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
76 

Ms. TILLER. We show them mathematically that work pays; it 

pays more than receiving TANF benefits. We do countless trainings 

that focus on rebuilding their self-awareness, including talking 

about family structure. Then, also, pre-employment initiatives: resume building, confidence building, presentation, aesthetic presentation, things of that nature. 

Mr. RENACCI. Ms. Randolph, your goal, it sounds like, and I 

just want to confirm that, was really to get back to work. You 

wanted to get to work. 

Ms. RANDOLPH. Yes. 

Mr. RENACCI. So you were just looking really for the tools to 

help you move in that direction and be able to find a job and find 

employment for yourself and your child; is that correct? 

Ms. RANDOLPH. Yes. 

Mr. RENACCI. Very good. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you. 

Mr. Reed, you are recognized. 

Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you to the panel. 

I am very interested in having a conversation this afternoon 

about an issue that is very important to me, and that is to focus 

on the working poor. 

Because, to me—and, Mr. Rodriguez, you kind of talked about it 

a little bit in the phaseout situation—is that we have policies now, 

in my opinion, at the Federal level that don’t reward the people 

that are going to work, the ones who we want to stand with that 

are pulling themselves out of the turmoil that we all agree that we 

want to address here from Washington. 

So, Ms. Tiller, from your experience, what are the barriers to reemployment that you come across on a regular basis? 

Ms. TILLER. Some of the barriers include limited experience, 

limited education, limited knowledge of current events. So we work 

to work with our participants to make sure that they are trained 

in pre-employment initiatives to get back to work, and then we address additional education and whatnot. 

Mr. REED. So are we talking about, when you say education, are 

we talking about, like, skill sets—— 

Ms. TILLER. Uh-huh. 

Mr. REED [continuing]. Workforce development—— 

Ms. TILLER. Soft skills, hard skills, yes. 

Mr. REED. Soft skills and hard skills. Now, when you say that— 

because I have heard that numerous times, and I am interested in 

getting it on the record—soft skills, what are you referring to? 

Ms. TILLER. Presentation, how you articulate. Also, your overall 

being, your self-awareness. That is what I would consider soft 

skills. Your communication skills, are you organized. 

Mr. REED. And when you say that, have you ever asked anyone 

that you have come across in your experience in that situation 

where you are helping them develop those skills why they didn’t 

have those skills to begin with? 

Ms. TILLER. Sure. 

Mr. REED. And why was that? What was their response? 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
77 

Ms. TILLER. A variety of reasons. Household composition, limited education. 

Mr. REED. Okay, household composition, limited education. That 

is a nice D.C. term. What do you mean by that? 

Ms. TILLER. How they grew up. 

Mr. REED. How they grew up, their home environment. 

Ms. TILLER. Yup, what their family structure was like. 

Mr. REED. Okay. And then have you ever come across folks that 

maybe have a drug problem or an alcohol problem? 

Ms. TILLER. Uh-huh. 

Mr. REED. Is that something—if you could verbally state for the 

record that you have? 

Ms. TILLER. Yes, we have. 

Mr. REED. And is that something that is a big issue, or is that 

a relatively small, insignificant issue, in your experience dealing 

with—— 

Ms. TILLER. Well, it is an issue. Again, we look at work as the 

central activity, and then we focus on all of the other barriers that 

need addressing. And we make sure to warmly refer participants 

to the appropriate services so that they get complete wraparound 

services. 

Mr. REED. And just so I have a sense for the record, is that 

something that you occasionally come across or is that something 

that you regularly come across? 

Ms. TILLER. Regularly. 

Mr. REED. Regularly. 

Ms. TILLER. Uh-huh. 

Mr. REED. Because I am finding that, talking to my work force 

development directors and others in the district and to employers, 

that that is a real issue to re-employment. And so I am glad to 

hear that verified by you here today. 

Ms. Randolph, I want to talk about—your story is really—you 

know, we could spend a lot of time with the experts here, but your 

story is really something I want to explore. 

Clearly, you are setting an example. You are out there doing it 

right. How does what you do impact your son? Could you state that 

for the record? 

Ms. RANDOLPH. It impacts him greatly. I want to set an example for him to show him that the sky is the limit. He can do anything he puts his mind to. 

Mr. REED. And have you had a conversation with him along 

those lines, or is it—— 

Ms. RANDOLPH. Yeah. Well, not—— 

Mr. REED [continuing]. Just, not do what I say, but do what I 

do? 

Ms. RANDOLPH[continuing]. Not quite because he is only two. 

Mr. REED. Okay. 

Ms. RANDOLPH. So we haven’t got there yet. We haven’t got 

there yet. 

Mr. REED. Well, I would tell you, you know, I am the father of 

a 12- and 14-year-old, and I can tell you—and I am the youngest 

of 12, so I have 11 other older brothers and sisters. And I can tell 

you that I remember the adage, it is only about 2 percent of what 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
78 

your parents say that you do; it is what they do that you incorporate and become. 

And, Ms. Tiller, you talked about it on household composition 

and being reflected in the next generation that is coming down. 

And, Ms. Randolph, could you describe your household composition when you were growing up? 

Ms. RANDOLPH. Well, I grew up in a single-parent home with 

just my mom. I had my dad in my life, but it wasn’t a marriage 

or a two-parent home. 

I grew up kind of rough, but I always knew that education, and 

keep pushing, that I will be okay, I will be fine. So I never let my 

surroundings discourage me or turn me around from what I wanted to do and the dreams that I wanted to come true. 

Mr. REED. And who taught you that education was key? 

Ms. RANDOLPH. My mom. 

Mr. REED. That is what my mom taught me. 

Ms. RANDOLPH. Yes. 

Mr. REED. She was a single mother after my father passed when 

I was 2. And she taught that lesson to me very, very directly. So 

I appreciate that. 

Because that is an issue, I think, that gets lost in our conversation. We talk a lot about the benefits and the cash that we could 

give to individuals, but we are not talking about the cycle of dependency, the cycle of poverty, and how you break that. 

And I am very interested in—and, Ms. Randolph, I applaud you 

because you are setting an example for that 2-year-old that I can 

assure you, in my humble opinion, will pay huge dividends not only 

for him but his kids and your grandkids. So God bless you. Keep 

up the great work. 

And, with that, I yield back. 

Ms. RANDOLPH. Thank you. 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you, Mr. Reed. 

Mr. Davis, you are recognized. 

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

And I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here this 

afternoon. 

Ms. Randolph, let me congratulate you for the progress that you 

have made. It seems to me that I know thousands of individuals 

like yourself. I have lived and worked in the inner city of Chicago 

all of my adult life, and so I have seen individuals. 

Do you have friends and family Members, perhaps, who had 

similar experiences and are having similar success to yours? 

Ms. RANDOLPH. No. 

Mr. DAVIS. No? 

Ms. RANDOLPH. No. 

Mr. DAVIS. Ms. Tiller, let me ask you, do you know other agencies and organizations that are having the kind of success that you 

are having with your programs? 

Ms. TILLER. I can only speak to America Works. 

Mr. DAVIS. So you don’t check other programs and how effective 

they are or read literature about what they do? 

Ms. TILLER. Sure, I read about them. I know of others in existence. But today I am only speaking to America Works. 

Mr. DAVIS. Okay. 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
79 

Mr. Kling, I note that spending for the kind of programs that we 

are talking about has increased tremendously over the years. Are 

there any societal conditions that may have spurred some of this? 

Or do we see any results, like a difference perhaps in life expectancy since 1972, since much of this has gone to health care? 

Mr. KLING. There are some important societal trends. Population growth is a big driver of why the number of participants has 

gone up in many programs. In the healthcare programs, there is 

a general rise in healthcare costs per participant that affects the 

Medicaid program that reflects a societal trend, yes, sir. 

Mr. DAVIS. And I note that in some communities, especially 

where there have been certain kinds of programs, that the infant 

mortality rates, for example, have been reduced—that is, that people not only live perhaps longer but they live a bit better. And so 

I am thinking that some of that might be accounted for as a result 

of the increased expenditures. 

Dr. Mulligan, let me thank you for being here. You come from 

one of my favorite, most favorite institutions. One of the things I 

bemoan a little bit sometimes is that the University of Chicago is 

not in my congressional district, although I have a large number 

of other colleges and universities, but not the University of Chicago. 

Let me ask you if you have observed the impact of the availability of work opportunities on whether or not people are employed. Or what does opportunity have to do with unemployment 

in some settings? 

Mr. MULLIGAN. Maybe a good way to answer your question 

would be the Figure 1 in my testimony, where I view the reward 

to work as a comparison between what you can get when you are 

not working and what you get when you are working. 

And I think what you meant by ‘‘opportunity’’ is what would happen if you could get more while working, if you could get a better 

job or a more high-paying job. And that increases the reward. And, 

on average—not every single individual responds this way, but, on 

average, when people have a bigger reward, they respond to it by 

working more. That is fairly clear as an average proposition. 

Mr. DAVIS. On the availability of work, in my mind, I am reminded that when I came to Chicago and the community that I live 

in, there were solidly good-paying manufacturing jobs all over the 

place. I can name at least 20 major corporations and companies 

that were located there. And so the individuals in the community 

where I lived basically had jobs. Hotpoint, Motorola, General Electric, International Harvester, Sears—you name it, they were there. 

And so my question really was about the impact of job availability. I see that my time has expired, Mr. Chairman, so—— 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you. 

Mr. Kelly is recognized. 

Mr. KELLY. Thank you, Chairman. 

And thank you all for being here. 

I think, Ms. Randolph, what you said was probably the most important thing. And I know that you are actually the person doing 

these things. You have actually been through it, you have been 

through the programs. Because I think what Ms. Tiller did—when 

you said, they gave me confidence, I think that is the key to it. I 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
80 

can’t imagine waking up in the morning and having no reason to 

get out of bed. 

Now, I know we come up with programs, and they are well-intentioned. But when you disincentivize people to go after something, 

when you take away their hopes and dreams, you are kind of reinforcing that we are going to give you enough money to stay where 

you are. 

These programs were not designed to keep people in poverty. 

They were designed to lift them out of poverty. The skills that you 

learned, though, gave you the confidence to go in and apply for a 

job. 

The town that I am in now has seen heavy, heavy unemployment. And I have young people coming up to me all the time saying, you know, ‘‘Mr. Kelly, are there any jobs that you know 

about?’’ I say, ‘‘Go to the work force people. Talk to them.’’ ‘‘I don’t 

know how to do those jobs that are available.’’ 

So you wonder about what are we doing with folks, because if the 

idea is to help them, give them a bridge from where they are to 

where they want to be, that works. I mean, that is what worked 

for you. I can see it in your eyes. You are a confident young lady. 

You said, ‘‘I knew I was a smart girl.’’ And so you had the confidence, but then they helped you build it so you could go when you 

were seeking a job and speak with confidence and get the job. And 

that is really—I mean, you are doing it. 

How many more people would you say fall in that category but 

they just don’t have that confidence yet to go out and look for a 

job or to interview for a job? Either one of you, because you are 

both working with great numbers of people. You created 350,000 

jobs, or at least got people jobs, right? 

Ms. TILLER. Uh-huh. 

Mr. KELLY. Okay. 

Ms. TILLER. So, thousands. Thousands per month in offices nationwide. 

Mr. KELLY. Okay. All right. 

See, I get the confusion, because sometimes we think, well, you 

know what, our hearts are willing, but sometimes our wallets are 

weak. And we talk about how we want to help people, but then we 

say there is only so much we can do. See, I don’t believe for 1 

minute by disincentivizing people that you are helping them. I 

don’t want to give people enough money to stay where they are. I 

want to give them an opportunity to dream again. 

Mr. Mead, availability of jobs. Are there not enough jobs out 

there for folks? Or where are we with that? 

Mr. MEAD. There is no definitive proof, but I would say jobs of 

a low-skilled, low-paid variety are widely available in America 

today. The indications are that low-income people can get jobs 

quickly. The problem is more keeping the jobs. Their problem is far 

more obtaining an adequate wage to enter the middle class. 

That has been true for decades. This is not a new problem. But 

the major difficulty, though, for this group is not that they are 

working at low wages. Two-thirds of the poor didn’t work at all in 

last year. And it isn’t because they can’t get a job. It is that they 

are doing other things. Their lives are preoccupied with other concerns. 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
81 

They are not saying in survey studies that I can’t get a job. Only 

12 percent of the nonworking poor adults in 2011—or 2012—no, 

well, but the latest year, anyway—12 percent say that the reason 

is they can’t find a job. Vastly more important are concerns in private life. They are retired or taking care of the family, they are ill, 

they are in school. Those are much more important. 

So people are not saying they can’t get a job. 

Mr. KELLY. Okay. 

Now, going back to Ms. Randolph, okay, you have a little boy? 

Ms. RANDOLPH. Yes. 

Mr. KELLY. All right. Two years old? 

Ms. RANDOLPH. Yes. 

Mr. KELLY. See, when I was growing up—I mean, the central 

part of who we are as a people has always been the family. It has 

always been centered around the family, the family unit, the ability 

of the mother and father to work together to provide a future for 

their children, to provide wellbeing for them. 

And I look at some of these programs and I am saying, well, why 

are we telling people that, you know what, if you are married, we 

are going to penalize you for being married? It seems to me like 

we don’t reward good behavior, but we make people think about, 

well, maybe it is better if I am not married, I can benefit more 

from not being married. I would just say maybe short term but not 

long term. 

Ms. RANDOLPH. Uh-huh. 

Mr. KELLY. I heard you talk about your family and the way 

your family was structured. So, I mean, you all see it every day. 

Ms. RANDOLPH. Yes. 

Mr. KELLY. We see it in this country. As our families continue 

to crumble, as we don’t have that family nucleus, we lose what it 

is that is uniquely American, and that is to provide for those coming after us with a great deal of heart and a great deal of passion. 

Is that not happening? I can’t believe the numbers that we are 

looking at now of unmarried people with children. It is a tough row 

to hoe even when you are married, but unmarried? Unless you 

incentivize it. 

Could we change it? Would that help? 

Mr. MEAD. I don’t believe, as I have said, that incentives are the 

core problem. The core problem is the lack of a structure that promotes and enforces work connected to these welfare programs. We 

need to have a program in which there are case managers who 

make sure that those who want to work actually do it and help 

them sort out the problems and so on. 

It is not going to happen automatically, and it is not going to 

happen in response to incentives. Incentives are, I believe, a distraction from the main difficulties, which are actually administrative. 

We need to do with food stamps and these other programs what 

we have already done with TANF. Set up a structure where, if you 

get support, you are reliably required also to work. We have to do 

that. And when we do that, we will see results. 

Mr. KELLY. Getting up with a purpose every morning is the key 

to it. You have to have that, whether it is that 2-year-old little boy 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
82 

who is driving you or just wanting to be part of a society that continues to make things better for those coming after us. 

I have used up my time. Thank you all for being here, and thank 

you so much for what you are doing. 

Congratulations. Keep up the good work. 

Chairman REICHERT. Mr. Crowley. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Randolph, it is a pleasure to have you here before us this 

afternoon, and congratulations to you on all your success. And I 

wish you nothing but more success in the years to come for you and 

your little boy and for your family, your overall family. 

I just have a couple of questions for you, though, if I could, just 

to get a better sense of your situation and how we can apply that 

to others. 

Ms. RANDOLPH. Okay. 

Mr. CROWLEY. When you were moving into your position last 

year, you apparently were aware of the Earned Income Tax Credit; 

is that correct? 

Ms. RANDOLPH. Yes. 

Mr. CROWLEY. And how did you find out about that? 

Ms. RANDOLPH. For the tax year? I found out about it once, I 

guess, I applied for my taxes. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Okay. So did your accountant tell you or did—— 

Ms. RANDOLPH. Yes. 

Mr. CROWLEY. So they told you. Did you receive any information about continuing medical coverage under Medicaid, if needed? 

Ms. RANDOLPH. Did I receive any information? 

Mr. CROWLEY. Yeah, that if you needed to continue health care, 

that you would have access to Medicaid if you needed it? 

Ms. RANDOLPH. Yes, I did. 

Mr. CROWLEY. And did you receive any explanation about getting any help with daycare expenses for your child? 

Ms. RANDOLPH. Yes. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Are you now receiving any of these supports like 

EITC or transitional Medicaid or childcare subsidies? 

Ms. RANDOLPH. Yes. 

Mr. CROWLEY. You are receiving those subsidies. 

Ms. RANDOLPH. Yes. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you. 

Ms. Tiller, when one of your clients leaves the TANF program for 

a full-time job but receives assistance with child care or transitional Medicaid or, in fact, gets EITC, do you think of that person 

as a welfare recipient or as a worker? 

Ms. TILLER. As a worker. 

Mr. CROWLEY. As a worker. 

Ms. TILLER. Uh-huh. 

Mr. CROWLEY. I appreciate your response because I think that 

gets, in part, to the crux of what we are talking about here, those 

who would imply that EITC or even on transitional Medicaid or receiving even childcare subsidies so that they can work and their 

child can be in an enriching environment, that that is a form of 

welfare. Some on this Committee believe that that is another form 

of welfare. 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
83 

I don’t believe so, Ms. Randolph. I think what you are doing is 

more than admirable; it is heroic. It is heroic, what you are doing. 

And I hope that there are millions more like you out in the world. 

It is what makes America great. So thank you. 

Ms. RANDOLPH. Thank you. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Rodriguez, in your testimony, you mentioned some of the benefits of EITC, including long-term gains in 

education and earnings by recipients. 

Can you elaborate a bit more on the broader economic benefits 

of the EITC program and other tax credits for working families? 

When families receive these credits, what impact does their resulting spending have on our overall economy? 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Yeah, sure. Thank you. 

I mean, I think there are, as I mentioned, some really good studies out there that really show, not to mention the anecdotal evidence of people who are working directly with families to get tax 

credits each year, it pumps millions of dollars, billions of dollars 

into the economy, millions of dollars into local economies; as well, 

these help families to certainly pay off bills but also do employment-related things like buy cars that take them to work and pay 

for other transportation, childcare costs, other kinds of things that 

I think have tremendous employment effects, as well. 

And I think the research that we cited around long-term effects 

on families and kids in families who are receiving the tax credits 

I think stands for itself. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you. 

So it seems that we are talking about programs that not only 

strengthen the individual but strengthen all of us, lift all boats, 

and also improves the overall economy of our country. 

I hope that the benefits of these valuable programs and the very 

real need for these resources are not overlooked in a rush to claim 

credit for cutting so-called ‘‘welfare.’’ Don’t forget, our Constitution 

has in it to provide for the general welfare. When did the word 

‘‘welfare’’ become so maligned? When did it become a negative and 

a pejorative, as opposed to something positive, as apparently our 

Founding Fathers had thought so when they included that line in 

the preamble of our Constitution? 

I particularly want to thank Ms. Tiller for your comments when 

I asked the question about whether you thought that those programs, as applied to Ms. Randolph, were for welfare and you said 

they were not. And I think that is a very honest answer, and I appreciate that very much. Because I think it goes to the heart of 

what we are talking about here today, that these programs are not 

forms of welfare. They are helping lift people up who are struggling, who are working in this country and trying to make ends 

meet. 

That is what Ms. Randolph is doing every day. She is working 

in this company, this healthcare company. And I applaud her, and 

I applaud you for your forthright answer. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman REICHERT. I thank the gentleman. 

Thank all of you for being here today, and thanks for your patience as we left for a few minutes to vote. 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
84 

I would like to especially thank Ms. Randolph for her appearance 

here today. Sometimes Congress can be a little intimidating for any 

of us, but especially for someone who has not been here before. 

We are excited about your progress. People have mentioned that. 

You have been sort of the focal point. You are sitting in the center, 

and everyone is kind of drawn to you and your smile and your success. 

And, the Federal Government, I think we would all agree, does 

have a role in helping people get back on their feet. We must be 

there. 

And I hope that you continue to receive these benefits and you 

continue to move on in your life and look for promotions and not 

only buy your first car but end up buying your first home. And I 

can see you are already planning that, by nodding your head. 

So we are just honored to have you here and appreciate all the 

work that all of you in the panel have done. We want to get this 

right. We want to be able to be here as a help to people, but we 

want to have people like Ms. Randolph, who stand up, too, and 

take responsibility, who want to move forward with their lives. 

And the government is here to help you move forward. And 

maybe 1 day you might even work for the Federal Government and 

you can say to people, ‘‘I am from the Federal Government, and I 

am here to help.’’ Maybe not. 

Thank you all very much. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:56 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Submissions for the Record follow:] 

f 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARING
85 

Family Equality Council 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 199 here 89537.056
86 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 200 here 89537.057
87 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 201 here 89537.058
88 

f 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 202 here 89537.059
89 

First Focus 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 203 here 89537.060
90 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 204 here 89537.061
91 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 205 here 89537.062
92 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 206 here 89537.063
93 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 207 here 89537.064
94 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 208 here 89537.065
95 

Æ 


joloto on DSKB35BYQ1 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 209 here 89537.066