U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

42–530 CC 1997

FEDERAL HIRING FROM THE WELFARE ROLLS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

AND OVERSIGHT

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

APRIL 24, 1997

Serial No. 105–30

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT

DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York

J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico

CHRISTOPHER COX, California

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

STEPHEN HORN, California

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia

DAVID M. MCINTOSH, Indiana

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South

Carolina

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire

PETE SESSIONS, Texas

MICHAEL PAPPAS, New Jersey

VINCE SNOWBARGER, Kansas

BOB BARR, Georgia

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

ROBERT E. WISE, JR., West Virginia

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

GARY A. CONDIT, California

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,

DC

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

JIM TURNER, Texas

THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine

HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

KEVIN BINGER, Staff Director

DANIEL R. MOLL, Deputy Staff Director

JUDITH MCCOY, Chief Clerk

PHIL SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman

MICHAEL PAPPAS, New Jersey

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland

CHRISTOPHER COX, California

PETE SESSIONS, Texas

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,

DC

HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee

EX OFFICIO

DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

GEORGE NESTERCZUK, Staff Director

NED LYNCH, Senior Research Director

CAROLINE FIEL, Clerk

CEDRIC HENDRICKS, Minority Professional Staff Member

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on April 24, 1997 .............................................................................. 1

Statement of:

Hantzis, Steven, national executive director, National Federation of Federal Employees; Robert Rector, senior policy analyst, welfare and family issues, the Heritage Foundation; James Riccio, Manpower Development Research Corp.; and Charles G. Tetro, president, Training and

Development Corp ......................................................................................... 79

Johnson, Hon. Eddie Bernice, a Representative in Congress from the

State of Texas ................................................................................................ 152

Koskinen, John A., Deputy Director for Management, Office of Management and Budget; James B. King, Director, Office of Personnel Management; Diane Disney, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Civilian Personnel, Department of Defense; and Eugene A. Brickhouse,

Assistant Secretary for Administration, Department of Veterans’ Affairs, accompanied by Joyce Felder, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Resources, Department of Veterans’ Affairs ................ 17

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Brickhouse, Eugene A., Assistant Secretary for Administration, Department of Veterans’ Affairs, prepared statement of ...................................... 43

Disney, Diane, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Civilian Personnel,

Department of Defense, prepared statement of ......................................... 34

Ford, Hon. Harold E., Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Tennessee, prepared statement of ........................................................... 4

Hantzis, Steven, national executive director, National Federation of Federal Employees, prepared statement of ....................................................... 83

Johnson, Hon. Eddie Bernice, a Representative in Congress from the

State of Texas, prepared statement of ........................................................ 154

King, James B., Director, Office of Personnel Management, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 25

Koskinen, John A., Deputy Director for Management, Office of Management and Budget, prepared statement of ................................................... 20

Mica, Hon. John L., a Representative in Congress from the State of

Florida:

Letter dated April 30, 1997 to James King ............................................. 74

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 9

Morella, Hon. Constance A., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Maryland, prepared statement of ............................................................ 51

Rector, Robert, senior policy analyst, welfare and family issues, the Heritage Foundation, prepared statement of ...................................................... 93

Riccio, James, Manpower Development Research Corp.:

Information concerning schedule of Federal awards .............................. 147

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 115

Tetro, Charles G., president, Training and Development Corp., prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 122

(1)

FEDERAL HIRING FROM THE WELFARE

ROLLS

THURSDAY, APRIL 24, 1997

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE, COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT, Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:37 a.m., in room

311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. John L. Mica (chairman

of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Mica, Morella, Cox, Sessions, Pappas,

Norton, Cummings and Ford.

Staff present: George Nesterczuk, staff director; Ned Lynch, senior research director; Caroline Fiel, clerk; and Cedric Hendricks,

minority professional staff member.

Mr. MICA. Good morning. I’d like to call this meeting of the

House Civil Service Subcommittee to order. This morning’s hearing

will deal with Federal hiring from the welfare rolls, an important

subject, and a proposal by the President and this administration.

First, however, I would like to take just a moment and welcome

to our subcommittee a new ranking member. As some of you may

know, Mr. Holden from Pennsylvania had served since the begining

of this session as ranking member, and has transferred to the

Transportation Committee. But we’ve had the honor of Mr.

Cummings serving on this panel during the past year, and he’s

moved to the ranking position, Elijah Cummings from Maryland.

I’m delighted to have him move in this important position of responsibility and would like to welcome him as the ranking member.

I don’t think that he’s all signed and sealed yet until there’s approval from the full committee, but we’re delighted to have him on

board. I know he shares our interest in the welfare of those who

are employed by our Federal Government and also has a very keen

interest in serving the people of his district and the people that we

represent from our American family.

So with that, Mr. Cummings, you’re most welcome to join us and

serve as ranking member.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I’m honored to act as the ranking member on the subcommittee with such

important, such an important constituency. Decisions that we make

as a collective body have broad and meaningful implications for

thousands of Federal employees and retirees in my congressional

district in Baltimore and across the Nation.

I pledge to work with you, Mr. Chairman, in a bipartisan fashion

and the various groups that are here today so that we represent

2

Federal workers and retirees who have dedicated their lives to the

service of our country.

I’ve tried to pay particular attention to legislation affecting Federal employees. The Baltimore area is home to thousands of Federal employees and retirees. I’m a member of the Federal Government Service Caucus, which is a group concerned with the issues

facing Federal employees. And I am committed to the fair and equitable treatment for Federal employees and retirees.

Mr. Chairman, the President is to be commended for committing

the Federal Government, the Nation’s largest employer, to the goal

of moving Americans from welfare to work. By challenging agency

and department heads to focus their recruitment efforts upon welfare recipients, they have identified more than 10,000 job opportunities which can be dedicated to this initiative. This represents our

fair share toward the achievement of his larger goal of moving

700,000 adults off the welfare rolls and into the workforce over the

next 4 years.

The President has issued a similar challenge to the private sector

as well as nonprofit and religious organizations across the Nation.

As they respond in kind, sufficient jobs should become available to

make welfare reform work. I did not support legislation which became law last year because, among other things, it abandons our

poor families and children who need us the most.

I believe in reforming our current welfare system, including putting an end to waste, fraud, and abuse. I’ve always believed that

we must reward work and put an end to a welfare system that perpetuates dependency. However, we must reform our welfare system

with compassion. We must continue to provide food, clothing and

shelter for our most defenseless citizens, our children.

However, I believe that every effort must be made to ensure that

those individuals who will soon lose their safety net that food

stamps and Medicaid provide, have the means to support themselves and their families.

I recognize that some concerns have been raised about how realistic the goal is that the President set for Federal job opportunities.

One is raised that the launching of a targeted hiring program to

fill 10,000 jobs at the same time we are in the midst of an ongoing

effort to reduce the Federal workforce by 272,000 positions does

present a conflict.

What must be remembered, however, is that despite the

downsizing, there are positions which become vacant that are being

filled every day. In fact, last year the Government hired 58,000

permanent and 140,000 temporary employees. Whether there are a

sufficient number of Federal job opportunities at the entry level remains to be seen, but what is important is that we put forth the

effort to find them.

Other concerns have been raised about the negative impact this

initiative could have on the current Federal workforce. Based on

what I presently know about how this program will be managed,

no current employees will be displaced, and all existing priorities

and preferences will be respected. I plan to fully explore this issue

with the witnesses representing the administration. I want to be

assured by them that my understanding is correct.

3

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I believe, as does my colleague Congresswoman Norton, that we in the legislative branch of Government

should also commit to providing jobs for welfare recipients. She has

introduced a bill urging individual Members to do so. I support her

bill. And I have someone working in my district office that was

once on welfare. In fact, she has worked for me for many years,

even before I became a Member of Congress. She is an outstanding

employee. There is more than a paycheck that comes with employment. It is self-esteem and self-respect that extend to the children

and the family.

Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate your scheduling this hearing so that we might learn more about the President’s initiative.

I look forward to hearing the testimony of today’s witnesses, and

I want to thank you again for your very kind words.

Mr. MICA. I thank you. And, again, welcome you as ranking

member.

We also are privileged this morning to have with us a new Member of the panel recently appointed. And I would like to recognize

Mr. Harold Ford, Jr., from Tennessee, and delighted to have you

serve with us on this important subcommittee, and we welcome

you.

Normally the chairman leads off with a statement, but this being

Mr. Cummings’ first opportunity as a ranking member and your

first meeting with our subcommittee, I would like to recognize you

at this time and welcome you.

Mr. FORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me also thank our

ranking member, Mr. Cummings and to Ms. Holmes Norton and to

all of my other colleagues on the committee.

Let me begin by thanking Mr. Waxman of the Democratic Steering Committee for providing me with an opportunity to join this

very important committee as we grapple and wrestle with some of

the tough issues of the day. I’m delighted to see this panel here.

I will refrain from long opening remarks or comments out of deference to allowing those who have come to speak to have an opportunity to speak. So thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, my

ranking member.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Harold E. Ford, Jr., follows:]

4

5

6

Mr. MICA. Thank you, and welcome. And as I always say, that

whether you’re a freshman or ranking member, you have a full access to service and all of the information and opportunity to participate. So we’re delighted to have you and look forward to your service.

I will begin with my opening statement now and then recognize

Ms. Norton. We haven’t forgotten you, Ms. Norton, but I wanted to

defer to our new panelists, and we will get to you next.

Again, ladies and gentlemen, today’s hearing is called for the

purpose of examining President Clinton’s directive to Federal agencies to hire as many as 10,000 former welfare recipients for civil

service positions in the next 4 years. We recognize the importance

of assisting former welfare recipients to become self-sufficient.

That’s an important goal. But we also have a responsibility to ensure fair and equitable treatment for thousands of current and

former Federal employees. That’s one of our most important responsibilities on this subcommittee.

Our subcommittee’s oversight of the civil service requires us to

make certain that in implementing the President’s plan, Federal

agencies did not compromise the basic tenets of the merit system.

The taxpayers must also be assured that the high standards for experience and integrity in public service and employment are maintained.

There are three basic concerns that I’d like to address today in

our hearing. First, should Federal employment provide a solution

to resolve the social welfare problem? Sort of a basic question in

again, our role as Federal employers and representatives of the

people. The administration’s initiative appears to fly in the face of

extensive experience that we have learned to date on this panel.

Federal agencies have been involved in Welfare-to-Work Programs

for nearly 30 years and have vast experience in this area.

That experience, as witnesses will demonstrate today, teaches

that making the welfare-to-work transition a success requires intensive training, demanding supervision, a high level of discipline

and also a firm commitment on the part of, both, the people making the transition and their employers.

This can be a laborious and extensive proposition. In such States

as Wisconsin and Oregon, where welfare caseloads have been reduced substantially, the President’s approach may be simply irrelevant to these success stories.

My second area of concern is for the thousands of capable and

dedicated public servants who have been separated from their jobs

and are currently awaiting re-employment on priority placement

lists. We have tens of thousands of temporary employees in our

Federal workforce that are hired each year without the right to

participate in the retirement system.

The subcommittee has received many letters from individuals,

and I, as Chair, have also heard from many folks in Federal employment who worked as long as 8 years as temporary employees;

for example, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. During

the resolution of our Nation’s banking problems, a lot of these folks

put in a tremendous amount of service. They never became eligible

to enter the retirement system. Yet that particular benefit is, in

fact, being proposed to be extended to welfare special hires. The

7

President’s plan could create some serious inequities among Federal employees.

I received numerous letters, but let me read, if I may, from this

particular letter from a Social Security employee, not to be identified, which illustrates the dilemma we face.

‘‘As a temporary employee hired by the Social Security Administration, I have no benefits. You lose your life insurance, and health

insurance is limited to 18 months. Also, you’re dropped from the retirement rolls.’’ And, this individual said, ‘‘I have 21 years of Federal service, and my contributions to the retirement fund is

stopped. Sir, you are a Federal employee. How would you assess

this situation I now endure?’’

So these are questions that are posed to me. And, again, just one

example that I’ve received which illustrates the dilemma we face.

After many years of bipartisan efforts to reform the management

of Federal agencies, we’ve entered the reinvention era 4 years ago.

We’ve reduced the number of managers and supervisors in the

workplace. We’ve reinvented jobs to get rid of some of the occupations and moved to greater reliance on technology. For example,

out of nearly 2 million jobs, fewer than 300 positions are now at

the GS–1 level, where much of the welfare-to-work hiring is to

occur. That’s my understanding.

The Department of Defense has drawn down over 200,000 positions since 1989, and may lose another 100,000 positions in the

next few years. Between 1994 and 1996, Federal agencies spent

close to $3 billion paying buyouts to almost 130,000 Federal employees, 92 percent of whom retired with tax-supported pensions to

supplement that golden handshake that we provided. So these situations do raise some various—very serious questions.

In response to the administration’s demands last year, Congress

extended the $25,000 buyouts into fiscal year 1998. So here we are

in a situation where we’re buying out people’s jobs, we have folks

by the thousands that are in temporary positions, we’re limiting

benefits, and then we’re hiring folks from the welfare rolls onto the

Federal payroll. So it raises, again, many questions that need to be

addressed.

OPM reports that about 27,000 employees were involuntarily

separated by reductions in force in 1993. Because of the administration’s insistence last year, we continue to pay the $25,000

buyouts to reduce or reinvent the current workforce. After all these

initiatives to reform, reduce, and reinvent the Federal workforce,

how can we justify the welfare hiring program? It’s likely to cost

about $200 million per year in salaries and benefits. Simple math

can get you to that startling figure. In fact, I think it’s close to a

quarter of a billion.

Why are we placing such a prominence on efforts to hire new unskilled employees when recently RIF’d employees still, in fact, need

jobs.

I look forward to exploring these questions and receiving response from the administration and others involved in this proposal because it does, as I said, pose some very serious questions

that should have a firm and adequate response before we move forward.

8

With those long remarks, I don’t have a lot of folks on my side,

so I took a little of their time.

[The prepared statement of Hon. John L. Mica, and the letters

referred to follow:]

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Mr. MICA. I’m delighted to recognize Ms. Norton, who does such

a great job on behalf of the people of the District of Columbia. Welcome. You’re recognized.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. They were

not long, but they did raise important points, and I trust that this

hearing will clarify some of those points. I regret that, because of

an obligation at 10 o’clock, I’m not going to be able to stay after

my opening statement. But this is an issue of considerable moment

that in a real sense challenges us on the question of whether we

really know how to make public policy, because we are going to be

called upon to reconcile sometimes competing goals. And I believe

that it can be done, that appropriate safeguards can be put in

place.

Mr. Chairman, you have called this hearing soon after the President’s announcement of his directive to hire 10,000 welfare recipients. You deserve our appreciation for initiating a hearing so soon

that will bring out both the advantages and the potential problems

of the President’s directive. We should not expect that efforts to

hire people not normally within the preferred labor pool would be

without problems. Yet Congress has asked private employers to do

exactly what the President is asking our own agencies to do.

If it may be difficult for us, it will also be difficult for the private

sector. It is hard to argue that the Federal Government, the largest

employer in the country, should be excused from hiring welfare recipients while even small businesses are exhorted to do so. If we

simply catalog potential problems, we will be doing no more than

writing the future testimony for private employers who want to

avoid the same responsibility.

At the same time, if the President’s directive is to work, some of

the problems inherent in his initiative need to be explored so they

can be eliminated. Potentially among the most serious are displacement of employees who have not resorted to welfare or of others

who we have promised priority placement, and the grant of benefits

otherwise unavailable to some Federal employees.

These issues are further complicated by the ongoing downsizing

and reinvention of government. Yet if the President can avoid unacceptable repercussions, such as displacement of present or future

employees, he will be doing the right thing.

As we hold this hearing concerning the Clinton initiative, the

Congress must also be prepared to do what is right. To encourage

Members of the House to employ welfare recipients, I have written

a bill that arrives at the same place as the President does, yet

avoids the problems, in part because unlike our Federal agencies,

each Member is a small employer with an uncomplicated workplace.

In March, I introduced H.R. 1046, which would help facilitate

and encourage Members to hire welfare recipients in their DC, or

district office by increasing the staff allotment from 22 to 23 within

Members’ present budgetary allocations. Thus H.R. 1046 would neither add costs for the Government nor displace other employees or

potential employees.

Some Members have already hired welfare recipients, as the

ranking member has indicated he has, but others may feel constrained by the limit on the number of employees each Member

16

may now hire. Under current rules, House Members are limited to

22 staff in their Capitol Hill and district offices combined. My legislation would increase the maximum to 23 staff, but only if a Member has reached the maximum of 22, and only if the 23d is a fulltime worker who was a welfare recipient at the time of hire.

Members would continue to be able, and indeed would be encouraged, to hire welfare recipients within their 22 staff member allocation, as some do now. At the present time, Members whose districts

are spread over many miles, or who need their full complement for

other reasons should not be barred from doing their part to help

make welfare reform work when they have the funds but lack the

authority to hire.

As Members, we have the ability to allocate or reprogram available money, depending on the needs of our offices. Many Members

have the funds available and indeed return money each year. My

bill removes the potential barrier to hiring welfare recipients. H.R.

1046 also conforms to the spirit of the Congressional Accountability

Act, where we seek to apply the laws we enact to congressional

Members, in this case as employers, as we have the laws or the obligation would apply to other Americans. H.R. 1046 provides Members with the flexibility to lead by example and to act in the spirit

of the new welfare reform law.

The Congress that was serious about welfare reform last year

must be serious about making the reform work this year. That, of

course, is what the President is seeking to do. His effort has pitfalls, but they can be avoided if we or he include the necessary

safeguards. Ours has no pitfalls.

In the end, it is the Congress that argued that welfare reform

would be successful. It is time for us to prove it and help the President do the same. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. I thank you, Mrs. Norton.

And we’d now like to recognize the gentleman from New Jersey,

Mr. Pappas.

Mr. PAPPAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to hear from these witnesses this morning. And as someone

who before coming to Congress served as chairman of my county

welfare board for over 10 years, I have a deep appreciation for

those that have found themselves on public assistance and look forward to hearing what these folks have to say. And I thank you for

holding this hearing.

Mr. MICA. I thank you.

And there being no other Members present, we will include the

opening statements, without objection, as part of the record.

I would like to call on our first panel this morning, and introduce

them.

Our first panel today is headed by John A. Koskinen, who is a

very frequent witness on this panel. And he serves as the Deputy

Director for Management at the Office of Management and Budget.

Welcome back.

We also are pleased to welcome this morning the Honorable

James B. King, who is recently reappointed by the President to

serve as Director of the Office of Personnel Management. He served

with distinction the last 4 years, and we enjoyed working with him.

Welcome back, Mr. King.

17

Also, we have with us another frequent witness from the Department of Defense, the Honorable Diane Disney, who serves as the

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Civilian Personnel, and

who represents, in fact, the Government’s largest employer.

And we have two additional panelists, the Honorable Eugene A.

Brickhouse, Assistant Secretary for Administration at the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, who is accompanied by Joyce Felder, the

Department’s Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Resources.

I welcome our panelists. As most of you know, this is an investigations and oversight committee and subcommittee, and it is customary that we swear in our witnesses. So if you will please stand,

and raise your right hand.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. MICA. And the record will reflect that the witnesses answered in the affirmative.

Mr. MICA. I would like to welcome our panelists and witnesses

today. And we’re going to start by hearing the administration’s justification for this proposal from Mr. Koskinen, Deputy Director for

Management at the Office of Management and Budget. Welcome.

And you’re recognized, sir.

STATEMENTS OF JOHN A. KOSKINEN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR

MANAGEMENT, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET;

JAMES B. KING, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT; DIANE DISNEY, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY

OF DEFENSE, CIVILIAN PERSONNEL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; AND EUGENE A. BRICKHOUSE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, ACCOMPANIED BY JOYCE FELDER, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR HUMAN RESOURCES, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS’ AFFAIRS

Mr. KOSKINEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I always enjoy having

the opportunity to discuss significant issues with you and your subcommittee. I particularly appreciate the opportunity to discuss the

Federal Government’s role in one of the most important issues facing America today: welfare reform. With your approval, I will submit my prepared testimony for the record and briefly summarize it

here this morning.

Mr. MICA. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. KOSKINEN. Welfare reform has been a priority for the administration and Congress. As the President recently announced, by

working with State and local governments, we were able to move

2.8 million people off the welfare rolls in the last 4 years. That represents 20 percent of all people on welfare in 1993. In 4 years we

helped move as many people off of welfare as had gone on it in the

previous 25 years.

But we must do more. Last summer, Congress passed landmark

welfare reform legislation. This provided a new framework for moving an additional 2 million people off the welfare rolls by the year

2000. But, as the President has noted, reform didn’t end with the

granting of waivers or with the signing of the bill into law. For reform to take hold and last, we must move people off of welfare and

into the workforce.

18

That’s why, since signing the bill, the President has urged employers to play a part in this next, critical phase of welfare reform.

We have a growing economy that is creating 200,000 jobs each

month. The President is asking corporate America to provide opportunities for those who want to make better lives for themselves

and their families by finding employment.

The President recognizes that the Federal Government is itself

a major employer. And, as an employer, it has a role to play in

helping move people from welfare to work. That’s why he asked the

Vice President to head up the effort to have the Federal Government, as an employer, do its fair share.

On April 10, the Vice President presented agency plans that

could result in the hiring, during the next 4 years, of more than

10,000 people coming off the welfare rolls. These plans were put together by the agencies and were the product of consultation with

personnel specialists, government unions, the National Partnership

Council, and front-line managers.

These plans were put together in just 30 days, and they are likely to go through some refinements and improvements. Some of the

jobs provided through the plans will be permanent. Some will be

temporary. But each of them will give welfare recipients who want

to change their lives new skills and experience that will help them

hold jobs and move into new ones, in Government or in the private

sector.

Today, you’ll hear directly from some of the agencies about their

specific plans. So, I would like to present a brief overview.

First, let me explain how we determined the Federal Government’s ‘‘fair share’’ of jobs. The President’s goal is to move 2 million

people off of welfare by the year 2000. The average size of the welfare family is 2.8 people. So, those 2 million people translate into

about 700,000 adults needing to move into the workforce.

The Federal Government now employees about 1.5 percent of the

Nation’s workforce, and it’s appropriate that we take the responsibility for hiring that percentage of people coming off of welfare.

This translates into about 10,000 jobs.

Second, let me explain how this is possible—even as we

downsize. As we downsize, we are still hiring to fill vacancies. Last

year, in fact, we hired about 58,000 permanent and 140,000 temporary employees. So, when you put it in perspective, a goal of hiring 10,000 welfare recipients over 4 years is reasonable.

Third, I’d like to stress that the bottom line of this effort is commitment, starting with the President and the Vice President and

extending throughout the entire Federal Government. It’s about

completing the job of welfare reform. The President and Vice President see an opportunity for the Federal Government to galvanize

the national push to take the next steps in welfare reform.

And finally, I would like to explain what the President’s program

is not. It is not a new preference program. There is no new category of work being set aside for welfare recipients, and there will

be no displacement of those who might enter the government

through veterans’ preference or other such programs. Welfare recipients will go through the same tests and procedures as any other

prospective employee. Further, it is not a make-work program. Jobs

provided through this initiative will be real jobs, providing welfare

19

recipients with real skills, and the Federal Government with real

results.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my oral statement. I’ll be happy

to respond to any questions you may have. And, on behalf of the

administration, I look forward to working with you and all in Congress to keep welfare reform moving forward. Thank you.

[Note.—The ‘‘Federal Welfare-To-Work Commitments—A Report

to President Bill Clinton by Vice President Al Gore, 1997’’ can be

found in subcommittee files, or can be obtained by calling (202)

632–0150.]

[The prepared statement of Mr. Koskinen follows:]

20

21

22

23

Mr. MICA. I thank you for your testimony and would now like to

recognize the Director of OPM, Mr. King, for his statement.

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I thank you for

this opportunity to speak on behalf of President Clinton’s welfareto-work program. I would, with the committee’s approval, like to

submit—— Mr. MICA. Mr. King, I’m not sure if your mic is on. We can’t hear

you too well.

Mr. KING. Mr. Chairman, that’s the kindest thing anyone has

ever said to me.

Mr. MICA. When I can’t hear you audibly, I become concerned.

Yes, that’s a good idea. Thank you.

We have interagency cooperation here.

Mr. KING. I would never use Mr. Koskinen’s mic.

Mr. MICA. The question is how many people does it take to

change a mic?

Mr. KING. It depends whether they’re from OPM or OMB.

Mr. KOSKINEN. We’ll just adjourn to the outside hall for a

minute.

Mr. MICA. This interagency conflict must stop. Go right ahead.

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was asking that I might

submit my full statement for the record and give a brief summary

of my—— Mr. MICA. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As you know, the President and Congress agreed to end welfare

as we have known it, and President Clinton has set a goal of moving 2 million people off of welfare in the next 4 years. The President has asked the private sector to hire Americans who are leaving welfare, and he believes that the Federal Government, as the

Nation’s largest employer, has an obligation to provide opportunity

and leadership in this area.

We at the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, are working

with the National Performance Review staff, the White House Domestic Policy Council, the Office of Management and Budget and

other agencies in this initiative, Mr. Chairman. We have convened

meetings at which the officials of the National Performance Review, the Office of Management and Budget and the Department

of Labor and other agencies briefed Federal personnel directors on

welfare to work.

OPM has provided written guidance to the agencies on hiring options for these programs. We are working to involve the Federal

Executive Boards and the Federal Executive Associations at the

local level.

OPM is developing a program to track welfare hires governmentwide, and we will use modern technology to get job information to

people who often have not had access to it in the past.

We at OPM have identified 25 positions that have been targeted

for the possible recruitment of welfare recipients in fiscal year

1997. We will consider welfare recipients for every position for

which we recruit outside the agency. These will include temporary,

term, and permanent positions, often at the entry level, such as

clerks, laborers, and custodial workers.

24

Mr. Chairman, we are not creating jobs. The jobs exist. We are

creating opportunity. We do not start with stereotypes about the

people we hire. Some may have more skills and experience than

the stereotypes would suggest, Mr. Chairman. For example, approximately 42 percent of welfare recipients have high school

equivalent degrees, 16 percent have attended college, and 70 percent have recent work experience. But we recognize that some will

need training and basic work habits and skills. Others may need

child care and transportation assistance.

I believe we can learn a lot from programs such as the STRIVE

program that’s operating in New York, Boston, Chicago and Pittsburgh that has prepared some 14,000 people for entry-level jobs in

the past 5 years. Strive reports that about 35 percent of a typical

class quits after the first 3-hour orientation.

A nationally respected private sector program in Kansas City reports that about 50 percent of the 1,500 welfare recipients placed

in jobs in the past 2 years are still at that same job. That statistic

calls to mind a glass of water that is half empty or half full, depending on how you perceive it. A 50 percent success rate may be

a good one when we consider the obstacles that many of these

Americans have faced during their lives.

Also, Mr. Chairman, a 50 percent success rate shouldn’t just be

counted on the initial job entry. We’re talking about starting a career. And that entry-level job may not be the career the individual

chooses, so they have moved on to bigger and better things.

As we reach out to these women and men and bring them into

Federal jobs, we must welcome them and at the same time make

clear our expectations. We may offer them part-time or temporary

jobs in some cases, knowing these can be important milestones and

lead to a better job later on.

As OPM Director, I am fully committed to maintaining the merit

system principles. We will continue to support and enforce the Veterans’ Preference Act. We must continue to fulfill our legal and

moral obligations to displaced Federal employees. Understanding

and supporting all of this, I believe we can meet the President’s

welfare-to-work goals.

We are not proposing special hiring. We are proposing to bring

new people into the pool of those who apply for Federal jobs and

then treat them like anyone else.

The key is opportunity; not make work, not a guaranteed career,

but an opportunity to compete and learn and make it in the world

of work. We look forward to working with the Congress to meet

this important goal.

And, Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to respond to any questions

from you or any other Members of the subcommittee, and I do

thank you for your courtesy.

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. King. We will withhold questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. King follows:]

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Mr. MICA. I would like to recognize now Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Civilian Personnel, Diane Disney. You’re recognized.

Ms. DISNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the subcommittee

members.

I think we need some more interagency cooperation here.

Mr. MICA. These mic’s are not going on.

Ms. DISNEY. Are we all right now?

Mr. MICA. Thank you.

Ms. DISNEY. Well, I’m very pleased to be here today to describe

the efforts of the Department of Defense to support the President’s

welfare-to-work initiative. And as my two colleagues, I would like

to submit my written testimony with your permission and just provide a summary.

Mr. MICA. Without objection, so ordered.

Ms. DISNEY. Thank you.

DOD is committed to taking an active role in this effort; in President Clinton’s words, demanding high performance from workers,

but going the extra mile to offer opportunity to those who have

been on welfare and want to do something more with their lives.

Over the past decade, as you know, the Department has reduced

its active duty ranks by over a third and its civil servants by more

than 27 percent. The Department plans to eliminate another

90,000 civilian positions over the next 5 years for an overall reduction of 35 percent.

This planned drawdown constrains but does not curtail opportunities for additional employment, as DOD continues to hire some

20,000 civilians for permanent positions each year to meet essential needs and another 23,000 for temporary slots.

The Department of Defense is deeply committed to its workforce,

as demonstrated through attention to quality of life, training, and

transition programs. Successes in these areas include the innovative Troops to Teachers program, Partnerships in Education, and

Partnerships in Vocational Rehabilitation. These and similar programs evidence considerable experience in reaching out to disadvantaged populations.

Within the defense community, welfare-to-work positions will be

available in all of three concentric circles: the Department’s civil

service workforce, the nonappropriated fund activities, and the contractor environment.

Our initial surveys indicate that DOD should be able to provide

about 1,000 civil service positions for this program over the next

4 years at the rate of 160 to 330 a year. Eighty-five percent of the

projected civil service vacancies are in General Schedule positions,

primarily in clerical areas. The 15 percent in wage grade positions

will fall mostly in the areas of laborer and maintenance worker.

The Department recognizes the importance of the welfare-towork initiative; however, requirements from several other constituencies must be honored. First the Department must honor the employment preferences required by law for both the veterans and

military spouses.

In addition, there’s a long-established hiring preference for DOD

employees facing job loss through no fault of their own. For the

past 3 decades, this Priority Placement Program has enabled DOD

32

to retain its investment in human capital while enabling talented

individuals to retain employment. President Clinton has expanded

this concept to provide preference as well to all Federal employees

facing job loss.

To determine the probable impact of these requirements, we examined hiring records by type of position, grade level, and hiring

preference. Collectively, these suggested that approximately 10 percent of the General Schedule positions and 30 percent of the wage

grade positions would be filled by individuals other than welfare

recipients once they became available. The difference stems from

the higher representation of preference-eligible veterans among

those who qualified for wage grade positions. Therefore, the Department expects welfare recipients to be able to fill about 900 of

these civil service positions over the next 4 years.

Supporting the Department’s core operations, there are approximately 150,000 nonappropriated fund activities (NAF). These are

at facilities nationwide, located in military resale and morale, welfare, and recreation (MWR) activities, such as post exchanges, military clubs and bowling alleys.

Unlike their civil service counterparts, NAF positions are not

funded with congressional appropriations of taxpayer dollars. Instead they’re supported by funds generated through the MWR and

resale activities. They differ as well in their hiring rules.

For many years, NAF employees have worked with State employment service offices to find individuals to work in positions such as

those I’ve just identified. The high percentage of wage grade equivalent positions here makes it likely that about 73 percent of the

openings identified will be filled by welfare recipients. It’s also

noteworthy that the positions here are more likely than their civil

service counterparts to be part-time.

Finally, the Department of Defense relies heavily upon contractors for a wide range of goods and services. As partners in the defense economy, contractors provide items as diverse as airframes,

ships, and medical supplies and services ranging from construction

to food preparation. We do not intend to establish a requirement

or an incentive for contractors. Rather, the Department will encourage its contractors to support this vital initiative because of its

inherent value.

Combining these three major elements of the defense community

while accommodating people with legal and regulatory hiring rights

would yield nearly 2,900 positions over the next 4 years. A third

of these would be civil service positions; a quarter would be in nonappropriated fund activities; and the balance would be located with

contractors.

Given this committee’s charge, the remainder of my remarks will

focus on civil service positions. DOD does not have many positions

at the GS–1, wage grade 1, and wage grade 2 levels.

As of December 31, 1996, we employed about 4,400 people in

such positions, about half in permanent slots, half in temporary

ones. Typically the level 1 positions in both categories are temporary, and in great part, because of the prevalence of temporary

status, occupants of level 1 positions tend not to receive buyouts.

Indeed, no more than a dozen have received a buyout in any given

year.

33

The Welfare-to-Work Program will focus on areas where there is

an employment need. This could result from an unexpected departure, additional work, or a changed mission. In any event, the participants will be hired individually. Even under the best of circumstances, moving from welfare to work presents major challenges. Therefore, the Department will develop mechanisms to provide the necessary workplace and skills training and take steps to

help the recipients address the constraints that have kept them unemployed in the past.

In response to your written question, I must note that over the

past 7 years, our number of supervisors has fallen 29 percent, a

rate that is only slightly higher than that for the civil service workforce as a whole. Therefore, we anticipate no problems in this area.

The Welfare-to-Work participants will receive the same consideration as other employees at the same grade level for available opportunities for continuing education and training. They will also be

subject to the same requirements as all other employees. Indeed,

our objective is to ensure that they become integral parts of the defense workforce.

In Joint Vision 2010, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

points out America’s enduring goals, including providing for the

well-being and prosperity of the Nation and its people. Within the

Department of Defense, we believe that helping to end welfare as

we knew it is an important step toward achieving those goals.

Therefore, we’re committed to doing our part to encourage welfare

recipients and all other disadvantaged populations to become productive members of our society.

That concludes my remarks. I thank you again for this opportunity to present the overview, and we will be pleased to answer

questions.

Mr. MICA. I thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Disney follows:]

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

Mr. MICA. We will defer questions, and I’ll now recognize Eugene

A. Brickhouse, Assistant Secretary for Administration, the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. You’re recognized, sir.

Mr. BRICKHOUSE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr.

Chairman, with your permission I would like to submit my written

statement for the record.

Mr. MICA. Without objection so ordered.

Mr. BRICKHOUSE. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased

to appear before you today on behalf of Secretary Jesse Brown to

testify about VA’s welfare-to-work initiative. Our purpose as a Department, and our primary goal for the welfare-to-work initiative,

is to serve veterans. In developing VA’s plan, we identified work

that needs to be accomplished and positions that could be filled by

entry-level applicants.

Although VA is restructuring and streamlining, we have been

able to identify 400 potential opportunities in fiscal year 1997 and

the potential of 400 more in fiscal year 1998. These opportunities

are at grade levels 1 and 2 and include such jobs as receptionist,

file clerk, laborer, and food service worker. Although employment

in these and similar occupations has dropped by 5,000 since March

1993, we continue to have significant numbers of employees, approximately 17,500, in these occupations. And while we are reducing overall employment levels, VA still has employees who leave

each year and must be replaced. In the jobs which provide most opportunities for welfare recipients, the regular turnover rate is from

15 to 25 percent.

The entry levels for these positions require little or no experience, and we believe that welfare recipients will have no difficulty

qualifying for them. In addition, many veteran candidates will

meet the minimum qualifications by virtue of their military service.

We are, as you know, a Department which exists to serve veterans. Therefore, we think it only proper that VA’s targeted recruitment strategy has two important elements that focus specifically on hiring veterans. First, we will recruit candidates from

among the graduates of our Compensated Work Therapy Program

and our Vocational Rehabilitation and Counseling Program. These

programs provide clinically based job training and vocational rehabilitation to veterans and are already successful in moving veterans

from dependency to self-sufficiency.

The second key element is a local community-based recruitment

effort targeting veterans through a broad array of community-service organizations, including Veterans Organizations.

In hiring candidates, we will use all available appropriate hiring

authorities. We will continue to meet all Title 5 and Title 38 requirements, including veterans preference, as well as adhere to

rules governing re-employment for separated Federal workers. This

means that no veteran and no employee who has been RIF’d will

be disadvantaged by the welfare-to-work initiative.

For welfare recipients who secure VA employment, a key component of success is training. VA has already developed training

guidelines for these new employees and their supervisors. In addition, local facilities will have full authority to work with other FedVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:02 Jul 17, 2002 Jkt 099010 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\42530 pfrm09 PsN: 42530
42

eral agencies and community service organizations to provide group

training and coaching experiences.

Local VA facilities will provide access to a variety of human and

social services to support welfare recipients’ successful transition

into the workplace. For example, each VA facility already operates

an employee assistance program which provides counseling and referrals for a range of problems that might affect job performance.

With regard to child care, we will be encouraging expansion of

sliding-scale fees of child care centers associated with VA facilities.

The Department is also looking at costs and options for an appropriate transit subsidy policy.

We also agree with your assessment that workers at the GS and

wage grade level 1 require extra efforts in supervision and training. VA is well prepared to meet these requirements. With regular

turnover in the types of jobs to be filled under the initiative, we

already have in-house instruction programs for new employees in

these occupations.

We expect that former welfare recipients will fill entry-level jobs,

and we believe those jobs would continue to be needed and have

high turnover and will be difficult to fill, rather than those eliminated from other initiatives.

In addition, given current funding and budget levels, our facility

managers simply cannot afford to develop make-work positions.

They have real work to be performed and need committed staff to

fulfill these tasks.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,

VA has one mission and one mission only; that is, service to veterans. Welfare-to-Work can help support that mission by bringing

into focus opportunities for veterans to participate in the dignity of

work, and they put to use the training they have received through

established VA training programs.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. We would be

pleased to answer any questions you may have.

Mr. MICA. Thank you, and I understand Ms. Felder will not have

any opening statement.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brickhouse follows:]

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

Mr. MICA. I would like to recognize now the gentlelady from

Maryland, Mrs. Morella, who’s joined us.

Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I would like to ask

unanimous consent that an opening statement be included in the

record.

Mr. MICA. Without objection.

Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Constance A. Morella follows:]

51

52

53

54

Mr. MICA. And Mrs. Morella also announced at this time that

House Concurrent Resolution 13, a joint resolution, I guess it is,

that you’ve introduced in opposition to the proposal to delay Federal retirees’ COLAs, will be heard next Tuesday immediately following the subcommittee’s hearing on the DC Retirement Proposal,

probably about 4 o’clock. I’m sorry that we’ve had to put that off

a week, but we will hear that immediately following our DC Retirement Proposal hearing.

Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you.

Mr. MICA. Tuesday afternoon in room 2154, Rayburn.

Mrs. MORELLA. I will mark that in big letters on my calendar.

And thank you for your leadership, Mr. Chairman in pursuing that.

Mr. MICA. And thank you, it is a very important issue before this

subcommittee and before the Congress, and we thank you for your

leadership and bipartisan cooperation on that important issue.

Mrs. MORELLA. I thank you for having this hearing. And I’m

going to have to be excused to handle two bills on the floor for the

Science Committee.

Mr. MICA. We recognize the double duty that our Members sometimes serve.

We have finished our panel and our comments from Members. I

would like to begin now with several questions. This proposal to

hire some 10,000 welfare recipients on our Federal payrolls does

raise a bunch of questions.

One of the questions that recurs, and I don’t know what the status of the administration’s proposal is and how far they developed

this working with OPM, but we have had some reports that some

of the requirements as far as complying with the merit system

might be changed; that, in fact, there may be some fast-track access to employ these welfare recipients.

Mr. Koskinen, could you tell us the status of any of those proposals, or Mr. King?

Mr. KOSKINEN. I think Mr. King is the better responder.

Mr. KING. Well, the measures that OPM will take to ensure that

this will advance merit and all that entails will include competitive

aspects from whether they are permanent and time limits are accepted, veterans readjustment employment, student employment,

special appointment for readers, interpreters, special assistants,

special appointment for the severely handicapped persons, and

other appropriate agency-specific authorities. And these authorities

encompass all competitive aspects of the merit system principles

which include applying veterans preference and displaced employee

entitlements. And the worker trainee are filled by TAPER appointments, which require public notice and the application, again, of

veterans preference and a priority referral of displaced Federal employees.

Mr. MICA. What percentage of positions would you anticipate

would fall into those exceptional categories?

Mr. KING. Right now, in the Federal Government as a whole,

about 70 percent of the positions are what would be considered

competitive, if you would. The rest come under the other special

authorities.

55

Mr. MICA. So this would be under existing authorities that would

create no new openings or exceptions, you are saying? About 70/30

percent?

Mr. KING. Yes, Mr. Chairman. And in this, what we haven’t

done, we have used are all existing, and what we are emphasizing

is using existing and not creating anything new. As you mentioned,

Mr. Chairman, that the authority that is being talked about in the

training was first instituted by President Nixon, and it is counting

that authority that has been around now for almost 30 years and

continuing to use it.

But, Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that

at grade levels 1 and wage grade 1 and 2, there is an assumption

built in that the individuals applying for those positions will, in

fact, have little or no skills. So that is an understanding we had

and it has been on the books from the beginning. And so I thought

that might be helpful.

Mr. MICA. I appreciate that. It is my understanding that the Vice

President, on April 10, presented plans and that in the meantime,

each agency has been responding on how they would implement

this. Have all the agencies presented their response, Mr. Koskinen?

Mr. KOSKINEN. That is my understanding, Mr. Chairman. They

all have presented plans.

Mr. MICA. So these will be meshed together by who? By OPM?

And is it accepted or are we setting up new rules?

Mr. KOSKINEN. No, these are not plans that they are asking for

waivers or changes, as Mr. King emphasized. These are their plans

in terms of how they plan to use the existing hiring authority to

hire the number of welfare people they think they can hire. No one

was assigned a quota. These were all numbers that the agencies

independently said were numbers they were confident over the

next 4 years they could hire under existing authorities and existing

programs.

Mr. MICA. Have you shared those totals with the subcommittee?

Mr. KOSKINEN. I don’t know if we have, but we would be

happy——

Mr. MICA. Could you do that? I think that is important, because

when we are discussing buyouts, when we are discussing

downsizing, when we are discussing RIFs, and the administration

has plans from these agencies to employ welfare recipients or

former welfare recipients, we need to see what their proposals are,

how this fits into the larger scheme.

Now, in the area of buyouts, how many buyouts did we do last

year and what are anticipated this year, Mr. King?

Mr. KING. Well, our total——

Mr. MICA. From last year, 1996?

Mr. KING. What I have, I can get a disaggregate for the record,

but nondefense agencies did pay out about 36,000 buyouts.

Mr. MICA. 36,000 last year. What do you anticipate?

Mr. KING. No, no, it ended, as you know—this was acting on the

information we have in—the last full report we have from across

Government was the end of the fiscal year, and that was 1996.

Mr. MICA. Two-year total.

Mr. KING. Yes, that is over the period, the life of the buyouts and

the anticipated buyouts; 36,035 is what we have.

56

Mr. MICA. Is that civilian Defense, too?

Mr. KING. No, Defense had about 92,500, rounding up.

Mr. MICA. 92,000 over a 2-year period, it came to 128,500.

Ms. DISNEY. It is 92,000 since we have had the buyout authority

of 1993.

Mr. MICA. So yours is over 3 years and you are talking about

over 2 years.

Mr. KOSKINEN. I would stress that those numbers are predominantly, if not totally, the buyouts used under the first buyout authority under the Workforce Restructuring Act, and as the chairman knows, we have had a lot of conversation back and forth, but

that buyout ended as of decisions made in the spring of 1995 with

some carryover for a 2-year period thereafter.

Mr. MICA. What I am trying to get at is some round figures as

to what we are buying out.

Now, the other thing that we do not want is the agencies coming

back to us, or reports to this subcommittee where a position has

been bought out that it is filled by a welfare recipient. Is there any

protection to make certain that this is not going to occur?

Mr. KING. Mr. Chairman, I was just looking at—I got a

disaggregate of the numbers for the record. The fiscal year 1994

was 14,531 on the non-DOD. It was 18,203, fiscal year 1995, nonDOD. And 3,300. But I think, Mr. Chairman—— Mr. MICA. But my point is, though, you are going to have some feathers of Congress ruffled if we are buying folks out for $25,000,

and they are being replaced with a welfare recipient, or that we

have, as my first line of questioning, are we bringing folks in in

some extraordinary fashion to fill slots?

So, we have to be concerned that we are not creating any great

exceptions, that people whose position has been bought out is not

going to be filled by a welfare recipient and that we have some

rhyme and reason across the agencies in the manner in which this

is conducted.

This is a hard sell from any standpoint when we have got thousands and thousands of people who have lost their jobs and try to

explain to them that we are filling the position with welfare recipients.

Mr. Koskinen.

Mr. KOSKINEN. Those are two important questions and I think

the answer should be clear. First of all, as Mr. King has noted,

there are no new programs or exceptions being created to hire welfare recipients. They will, in fact, apply as any other American citizen will apply for the jobs. That should be clear. I hope it is understandable to everybody.

Your point about buyouts is a good question. OPM has the detailed numbers, but the experience that the vast majority, if not all

of the buyouts, were at levels of GS–8 and above, generally, managers and senior people able to retire. The expectation and most of

the agency plans are that welfare workers, to a large extent, will

be hired at the very low end of the wage grade. Whereas virtually

no buyouts have been given.

Mr. KING. Of the thousands that have been bought out, we have

records of 503 of employees at the wage grade that we are talking

about or GS–1.

57

Mr. MICA. Do we have any plan to make certain that those positions—again, if you all come back here and these positions are

filled with any of these folks, the dome will be raised a few inches.

Mr. KOSKINEN. The limitations on the first buyout program was

that agencies, in fact, could not buyout someone and replace—there

were protections against replacement. The second buyout program

is limited, as you know, to an overall decline in agency FTEs, so,

in fact, the agencies are not going to be growing as a result of hiring welfare people if we are engaged in a second buyout program.

A number of agencies are not engaged in that program.

Mr. MICA. Mr. King just testified that 500 would be possibly in

this range. That is 5 percent of the 10,000 figure, so we just want

to make certain that, again, we do not put ourselves in that situation or expose ourselves.

Mr. KING. Mr. Chairman, but I think it is interesting to note, as

Mr. Koskinen said, the average was a GS–11, roughly, that we

bought out that is about $38,000. Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like

to think—well, as long as it is done fairly, we certainly would not

be replacing a $38,000 individual with a person coming in an entry

level at around $13,000.

Mr. MICA. That is right, but you told me there are about 500 positions that will fall into the category.

Mr. KING. No, Mr. Chairman what we are talking about here is

skill mix. The skill mix is that we may be deciding that something

is going to be removed, but we need someone with a different set

of skills to come in. An entry level at this level has little or no skill,

by the way, whether they are coming in—this program is an existing program, Mr. Chairman. I don’t mean to be contentious. I get

excited.

Mr. MICA. I thank you. I just have one more question. I am running over my time, but on our priority placement program in DOD,

and we have a re-employment priority list, how many folks do we

have that are waiting for Federal employment, former Federal employees that have been RIFed or that have lost their position? Ms.

Disney, what kind of numbers are we looking at there?

Ms. DISNEY. When we look at the three grade levels that we are

talking about here, GS–1, wage grade 1, wage grade 2, we have

about 830.

Mr. MICA. And what is the total that are waiting for placement?

Ms. DISNEY. That are waiting for positions at any level, approximately 18,000. What we did was look for carefully at how many

had been placed in these positions through priority placement,

through veterans preference, through spouse preference in the past

couple of years in order to discount the figures as mentioned earlier.

Mr. MICA. Well, I want to get back to these numbers and issues,

but I have taken more time than I should. I will now recognize our

ranking member for an extended period. You are recognized, Mr.

Cummings.

Mr. CUMMINGS. First of all, I thank you all for your testimony,

and I want you to, first of all, understand that my questions come

from a perspective that I literally live in an area which probably

has about 50 percent black male unemployment. And I would guess

58

about 20 percent, somewhere between 15 and 20 percent female African-American unemployment.

I am wondering where are these jobs? Where are they? In other

words, all of these jobs—I mean are they going to be in Mr. Ford’s

district? Are they going to be in the District of Columbia? Where

would most of these jobs be?

Mr. KING. They are nationwide. They are nationwide, they are located where the Federal Government is. Eighty-six percent of Government jobs are outside of the Washington metropolitan area, so

that you could almost pick a location, go from place to place, and

we can give you the numbers, if you would like that, on a

disaggregate basis of where these positions are located.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I would like to know, I guess one of the things

that I am concerned about is that I don’t want us to be in a position where we are painting a picture that is a 10,000 rosy job picture, when in fact it is not. And that is why I want to ask you some

of these other questions. Don’t get me wrong, I want to see people

employed. It is very important to me. But I also—I want to make

sure that we are saying that we are providing jobs, that there are,

in fact, jobs. Because I think one of the worst things we can do is

make a promise of something that really does not exist or that is

not what it is supposed to be.

You all talked about, one of you talked about training. Tell me

about what kind of training you are planning on providing these

welfare recipients. There have been a lot of recent articles in various papers throughout the country that talk about the intensity of

training that is necessary for people, many of whom have never

had a boss, many of whom, unfortunately, have been in situations

where maybe they never saw somebody get up and go to work

every day, and that is real. And I am just wondering, talk about

that training, because you don’t want to put people in positions

where they are destined for failure.

Mr. KING. First of all, they are real jobs and I will give you, if

you would like, for your own office or for the committee, we will

give you a WorldWide address where most of the jobs are published. And I think if the chairman and this committee’s bill goes

through on veterans preference and the RIF regulation, H.R. 240,

it says all jobs will be published. On the Web you will see every

Federal job published. We have made this available to the State organizations and the other organizations that will actually interface

with welfare recipients so that they will see all of the jobs that are

available, period.

Again, we are not stereotyping. We are using, where the worker

trainee would come into being, an existing authority that has been

there for years that is an intake for those folks, and I am using

virtually a quote, ‘‘those with little or no skills.’’ There is opportunity there. And those jobs turn over, I think, on an average when

I was looking at them I think my average attrition rate was about

18 percent.

So if you just take the number of jobs at that entry level, and

we are not talking everyone is at entry level. Again, avoiding the

stereotype, at an 18 percent turnover, that would be in a 4-year period we are talking about. We are talking about 18,000 jobs turning

over. They turn over. Folks move on to other careers. They may

59

enter and move on, promote upward, stay in an agency or go somewhere else to work.

Once they go into a job, the agency itself takes over the training

because it is agency-specific. And I think if you talked to VA or you

talk to defense or you talk to any agency, when you bring in people

you know when they are coming in they have little, few skills, and

you work within the ethos of your own agency so the training responsibility is taken over by that agency. They have been doing

training because they have been intaking people at the GS–1 and

the wage grade 1 and 2 level for years. They are familiar with that

and that is one of the things that I was talking about, so that it

is a decentralized system and it is a job specific.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Other than the Net, how do you get this word

out? Because the people that I know don’t access computers.

Mr. KING. Every State employment office has been notified, and

at this time I am being told that they are wired in. They all have

the equipment to wire in.

Mr. CUMMINGS. So in other words, it would go through the social

service agency.

Mr. KING. That’s correct, the agencies who actually touch the

people. I am not being naive and suggesting that a welfare family

has a PC with a modem at home. It is the folks that the agencies

are interfacing with that are looking for jobs. What we want to do

is broaden our recruitment, broaden and deepen our pool of applicants for these jobs that we know are real, that are necessary to

be filled, and for which we must hire someone. And we would like

to give these folks an opportunity. And that’s what this does.

Mr. KOSKINEN. Let me add, because the Congressman has focused on an important issue that goes to the heart of what we are

talking about. Congress and the administration decided last year

that we needed to change the culture of our approach to welfare.

We need not to consign people to welfare and assume they will always stay on welfare. What we needed to do was, in fact, to reach

out to them and encourage them and move them back into the

workforce.

What we are talking about here, and the private sector companies have the same experience and as the Congressman said you

have people who are unemployed on welfare often anxious to work

who do not have access normally to the employment pools because

employers do not have a history of reaching out to those communities and affirmatively encouraging them to work in their enterprises.

What the President has done is challenged the private sector and

the private sector companies to work with all of us to, in fact,

change that set of assumptions. And what we are talking about

here, and I think the Congressman has his focus on exactly the

right point, is not creating new jobs, not changing the standards

for jobs, but reaching out to a constituency that historically we

have not reached out to, in fact, advise them of the jobs and encourage them to apply for those jobs.

We’re creating over 200,000 new jobs a month in this economy,

but many of those jobs are not available to people because there

is not an outreach program, so I think, as you will see in the agencies and with OPM work, the major focus of this program is not

60

creating new jobs. The major focus of this program is reaching out

to people we are now encouraging to enter the workforce and making available to them the opportunity to apply for those jobs. It

won’t be easy. The Congressman is right. We ought not to hold out

a will-o-the-wisp. Many of them will not succeed.

But we need to recognize that the glass will either be half full

or half empty. We can look at those who didn’t succeed or look at

those who did who otherwise would not have been offered the opportunity. And that is the core of what we are talking about here.

We are talking about energizing Federal agencies and private sector companies to reach out to a core of people who historically they

haven’t reached out to offer them meaningful employment.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Let me ask you this, talk about benefits, what

do you anticipate with regard to benefits? We are talking about, in

many instances, temporary jobs. Our experience in Maryland has

been that State government has hired a number of temporary employees. They don’t have any—when Christmas comes, they don’t

get paid. They have no insurance benefits. A child gets sick, no

kind of leave whatsoever.

And I am just trying to figure out, we are talking about moving

people from welfare to work, I am just wondering exactly how that

works, especially when I hear all of this temporary jobs. In one of

your statements, it talks about the census jobs, which we know are

temporary. Someone mentioned part-time jobs. In other words, I

am trying to make sure that whatever picture you are painting, I

want to make sure that I have an accurate understanding of what

it is. In reality.

Mr. KING. Your question goes to really this training coming in

through the worker trainee authority, because if you are brought

in that way, you are treated as a permanent employee. And that

means you are treated like every other Federal employee who is

hired as a permanent, there is no exception made.

Mr. CUMMINGS. So, therefore, across the board are you saying

that people will, whatever the benefits at the appropriate levels are

for other employees——

Mr. KING. They will receive the same. In the category. I think

that says it.

Mr. CUMMINGS. The reason why I ask, in Maryland I have some

concerns, I have talked about it many times, that we have certain

agencies that will bring people in and these people in many instances are placed in a position where they do not have any benefits. So the State gets off pretty good, because they have got a

whole group of people over here who are getting benefits which do

cost money and then they can bring in folks to replace them or

whatever who don’t have any benefits.

Therefore, it enures to the benefit of the State to have people

who are basically called temporary employees with no benefits.

Mr. KING. There is one other thing in the training though, we

should understand. The only thing that is unlike and where these

folks are treated differently from other employees is, if you were

a regular permanent employee coming in, you would have 1 year

of probation. Basically, these folks have 3 years of probation before

the permanent job is offered and available to them.

Mr. CUMMINGS. That is the only difference.

61

Mr. KING. That is if they are coming in under the worker-trainee

authority, there is a 3-year oversight period before the job is offered finally. And so your rating, then, is important as you

progress.

By the way, just as a quick aside on your State issue, I think

it is interesting to note, to add a bipartisan touch to this, that the

State of South Carolina, under the leadership of its Governor, has

determined that it is important that welfare to work be appropriately covered, so in instances there they have provided free child

care, transportation stipends, where people needed uniforms, they

bought them uniforms. So the State has been extraordinarily supportive on their end of individuals who are trying to be a success

in this workforce, and who have no basic resource to get into this

mainstream, as you suggested. So I think the States have a role

to play, but that is not my role in speaking to this. I am merely

responding to an article that I read.

Mr. CUMMINGS. In a recent article in the Washington Post, they

state that about 40 percent of the jobs that President Clinton is

hoping to offer would be in the Department of Commerce, and that

they are temporary jobs and they are needed because of the census.

And I was just wondering, again, I am going back to my point trying to paint the picture as it actually is and not as we want to

make it appear. These jobs will be over by 2000; is that right?

Mr. KOSKINEN. Yes, the point is that I think it is important, and

I think all of our testimonies note, that some of these jobs will be

permanent and some will be temporary and people need to understand that. But even in temporary jobs for people who have not

held jobs before or have a difficult employment history, to have a

job for 6 to 12 to 18 months, now have a re ́sume ́ that shows that

you have work skills and are able to hold a job, it is important. We

should not overemphasize that everyone who fills these positions

will be permanent.

As Mr. King noted, they will fill positions in the same way that

other Federal employees fill them, and if they have benefits, they

will have benefits in the training program. If they are in positions

that don’t have benefits, then they will not have benefits here either.

Secretary Shalala announced with her plan and other agencies

understand it, that these initiatives now, as we look at them in

terms of how to deal with new employees, will apply across the

board. As she said, what we need to do is look at our low-income

workers, not whether they are just coming off of welfare or not, but

let’s see what our programs are for all of the people who work for

us at very low-graded wages. People making $12,000 or $15,000 or

even $18,000 a year with families are obviously going to have a

very difficult time making ends meet, and we have to look at what

are our relationships and provisions and support for people in those

grade levels and wage levels wherever they came from.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I agree with you. I think just to have the opportunity to work, to develop new friendships and working relationships, certainly helps one’s self-esteem, no doubt about it. And

probably will enable them to go on and do some better things, but

I am just wondering do you agree with the Washington Post number that 40 percent is accurate?

62

Mr. KOSKINEN. Forty percent is the commitment by Commerce,

and it is tied primarily to their census. And so as you say, the 2000

census and at end of the census, the bulk of those jobs will go

away, both for welfare workers and others who are hired. There is

2,000 people that are hired as part of the census operation.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much.

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman. You raised a number of questions and points that we need to get additional information on the

administration’s plans, because the reason people are on welfare is

they do not have the education, they do not have the job training

skills, they do not have available day care. And if we are not prepared—and you are going to get into this program to address some

of the fundamental problems—we are not doing the right thing.

So, we are going to ask you for written testimony. And please

keep this subcommittee posted on what your plans are in those

areas as this proposal moves forward. With those comments, I yield

to Mr. Pappas from New Jersey.

Mr. PAPPAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. King, I am wondering if you would be the one to clarify for us the overall pool of

potential Federal job vacancies that the 10,000 would fit into?

Mr. KING. I can—you mean the types of jobs?

Mr. PAPPAS. No, just the number.

Mr. KING. The logical number that would turn over? First of all,

the 10,000 were designated by the agencies themselves and sent

forward, I believe, through OMB. They were identified by each

agency.

Mr. PAPPAS. No, what I am saying is out of how many job vacancies within the Federal workforce would the 10,000—excuse me, we

have been told that it is a small number out of—— Mr. KING. Last year we hired, in the Federal Government,

58,000 permanent full-time new hires, and 142,000 temporaries.

That is while we were downsizing.

Mr. KOSKINEN. And that was just last year. This is a 4-year program. You are talking about a goal of hiring 10,000 over a 4-year

period. The 58,000 permanent and 144,000 temporary hires was

our experience last year.

Mr. PAPPAS. Thank you. My next comment, I guess it is not so

much a question, is for Ms. Disney. In your written testimony, you

indicate that there will probably be over the next 5 years approximately 90,000 civilian positions eliminated, and the Department of

Defense continues to hire 20,000 civilian personnel a year.

Within my district, there is a facility called Fort Monmouth, and

I would like to forward to you, and not pose the question to you

here, but a letter that I sent with another Member from my region

of New Jersey trying to get some clarification as to how folks who

are being in one sense, the position is being eliminated, yet the

function shifting from I think the Department of the Army to the

Department of Defense and their inability to apply for those positions. So I would like to forward that to you, and I appreciate your

assistance in getting that clarified.

Ms. DISNEY. I look forward to it. Yes, sir.

Mr. PAPPAS. The other comment, I want to agree with the gentleman who questioned you folks earlier, besides welfare recipients

not having the training or the access to learning what positions

63

may be available, many of them have just not had an orientation

to work, have not had any opportunity to have good work experience.

In New Jersey, there is a program which I don’t know if you

folks are aware of it is called the Community Work Experience Program. And we in my county found it very helpful to many welfare

recipients in that they were given an opportunity to work, if you

will, in quotes, for a county agency and were given the opportunity

to report to work on time, to just gain some work experience. And

this was not an effort to displace employees that we had. We did

not reduce the workforce in an effort to save money. It was really

an effort to help those that wanted some experience and could then

be given a letter of reference as they were really entering the job

market. Is there any kind of a program that we have in the Federal

Government that is similar to that?

Mr. KING. Under this authority, no. What it is, though, again, is

the operating assumption of little or no skills on the part of employees entering these two lower grades. We use numbers a lot,

and I have done it, so forgive me. When we talk about 42 percent,

for example, have high school or high school equivalency, that is

800,000 people. That is a pretty good pool of talent that can be

hired above a GS–1 or wage grade 1. Those are not the only jobs.

So what we are saying is that even for people of very humble circumstances who are motivated, there is opportunity through this

training program as an entry. That entry level, the commitment to

all of the organizations who are hiring at that level understand the

folks that they will be working with, who they will be, and will try

to organize programs around them. I don’t believe it is any surprise. I yield to the operating agency. VA has had probably as

much experience as any organization in the Federal Government,

and I will yield to VA.

Ms. FELDER. Mr. Pappas, the question you raised about the

training for welfare recipients, I think, as we have begun to look

at developing plans and programs, we have learned, and I think

Mr. King referred to this earlier, these are going to be local, community-based programs. The actual implementation will occur at

the local level.

The local facilities are going to work with their communities. In

fact, here in Washington, we have already had a presentation by

the State of Maryland. So we are aware that the local welfare jurisdictions will be looking at ways of transitioning their own people

from welfare to work. And as a part of that, there will be training.

There will also be access to community resources such as the one

you just described. And the VA, as an organization itself, already

has a tradition of doing two kinds of training. There is one, training that we provide as a part of our rehabilitation of veterans so

that we can move dependent veterans back into the workforce and

we have a program called our compensated work therapy program.

And as a veteran benefit, these people are given the opportunity

to have work experiences, to go through training and counseling.

And then they are moved into paid employment as a part of our

service to veterans. And as a part of our own organization, because

we have a workforce which has in it a lot of entry level jobs, we

do traditionally have a development orientation kind of program.

64

And we would anticipate moving the welfare recipient into these

programs and that they would be mentored where that is necessary.

Generally, we are only looking at hiring one or two or three at

a facility. And that number can be incorporated into our normal

workforce and given special attention when necessary. But we do

intend to provide them the training and support that they will

need and to work with the local communities to identify resources

available to them.

Mr. PAPPAS. We have found through the CWEP program, where

some of these welfare recipients have worked in a sense for nothing, many of them have been actually hired as vacancies have occurred, so our experience has been very, very positive.

And I guess my last two comments is following up on that, which

I had mentioned to you, Ms. Disney, is that there are many very

loyal Federal employees who are either being displaced or are soon

to be displaced. And I just hope that we will take great steps, important steps, to keep a balance between what we are trying to do

to help those who are not employed and those that may find themselves unemployed.

And my last comment is that this is the Federal Government’s

part in this effort to assist those that seek gainful employment, but

I also think it is important to keep in mind actions that we take

with regard to reducing taxes, I think, could help the private sector

in creating new jobs that would be more permanent and I think

have a better and more secure future for those that would gain

that employment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Pappas. I would like to recognize now

the gentlewoman from the District, Ms. Norton.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much. I would like to let Mr. Ford

go ahead of me since he heard all the testimony, and then I would

go after him.

Mr. MICA. All right, Mr. Ford, you have been here and heard it

and welcome again to the panel. This is your opportunity for questioning. You are recognized, sir.

Mr. FORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me say to my colleague, Mr. Cummings, and the panelists, we will take all the jobs

that you want to create in the city of Memphis. My colleague didn’t

know where the jobs would be created. We would certainly want

them there.

Let me ask a few questions. All of the Members have spoken to

some of the issues that concern me as well. But in reality, we are

talking about, if I am not mistaken, about 100 Federal agencies

that have at least expressed an interest or willingness to participate. And we are talking about 10,000 jobs. So certainly we are

only talking about each agency nationwide creating 25 jobs per

agency over a 4-year period, if I am not mistaken. Am I correct in

that analysis or that calculation?

Mr. KING. I think what you are hearing is from the major executive agencies. We have focused in the conversation first on a GS– 1, which is probably one of the smallest percentages of all the Federal job classifications as far as actual employees. And then wage

grade 1 and 2, which is fairly small, but still significant. But it

pales in comparison.

65

Let me set the context, if I am correct. Those jobs would be,

again, for those folks with little or no skills. What we want to do

and what we wanted to make very clear—and we emphasized

this—is that we wanted to provide opportunity.

I think Mr. Pappas was kind enough to indicate where in his

community they were working on those skills that would prepare

people to enter work. It is interesting to note that 70 percent of our

group of 2 million have had previous work experience. That is almost 11⁄2 million of the 2 million that are going to go forward.

So, we are not—what we are saying is there are a number of jobs

available. We don’t want to stereotype. What we did say to the

agencies, I believe the President said, and I yield to Mr. Koskinen

on this. The President asked the agencies, what would be the level

that you could best look at at these particular levels that provided

opportunity for those with few, if any, skills? And that is really

what you are seeing, if I am not mistaken.

Mr. KOSKINEN. Probably there are over 100 agencies, but a number of them have very few people. We focus the 10,000 and the surveys are basically the 22 largest agencies, and if you look at what

percentage of their workforce this is on average, it is six-tenths of

a percent of their workforce. So agencies are talking about 50 to

2,000 people over a 4-year period would be their commitments with

the exception of Commerce, as we talked about, with about 4,000

because of the decennial census and the Defense Department,

which, of course, is larger, but its percentage is the same. It just

has a larger number of people as a result. It is half of a percent

to six-tenths of a percent is the average that agencies are talking

about and that is over 4-years.

Mr. FORD. I stress also, underscore the point that my ranking

chairman said, Mr. Cummings, and I am not being critical, but

really trying to ferret out some of the germane issues. In terms of

the temporary and permanent employee status, in terms of I have

heard Mr. Secretary you talk a little bit about exposing workers to

the rigors and habits of work and perhaps providing some experience so they can put on a resume and at least provide them with

some job-related experience. How is that compatible in terms of the

implementation strategy for this moving people from welfare to

work? How do you sort of reconcile those two different strands of

thought?

Maybe I am not being clear. If you are hiring some folks to expose them to the rigors and habits of work, and you are hiring

some folks for permanent employee status, how do you convey that

to workers? And I guess it speaks a little bit to what Congressman

Cummings has spoken about. I don’t see how the two of those reconcile and perhaps you can explain that to me a little better or

maybe one of the panelists can elaborate on that point.

Mr. KOSKINEN. As everyone in the private sector has discovered,

as well, probably the concept of what is a permanent job has

changed a lot over the last 20 years and if you look at particularly

the employment experience of young people or people entering the

workforce in the private sector, they move on in very short periods

of time.

Mr. FORD. I understand that certain people move on, but it

seems that the approach of the Federal Government is that some

66

folks we are hiring for permanent and other folks we are hiring for

temporary.

Mr. KOSKINEN. And the agencies all look at what their needs are

as we have tried to stress, these are all real jobs. They are real

openings. Some agencies, as with Commerce with the census, has

real openings in the census board that are temporary. They will

run from 6 to 18 months or longer, but they are temporary in the

sense that there is a beginning and the middle and an end. That

is a temporary program.

Other agencies will have vacancies, some of which will be in temporary jobs, others will be permanent and it is up to the agency

to figure out where is the work that needs to be done and what are

the programs and the positions that are open? So that we have not

limited them to one program or another.

We have said here is what we need to do, how many jobs do you

think over the 4-year period can you comfortably commit you can

hire? Most of the agencies are focusing that effort where they can

on permanent positions, but it depends on what their situation is.

Mr. FORD. In closing, let me say I know my colleague from New

Jersey made the point about lowering taxes and, hopefully, being

able to invigorate job growth and other opportunities. I am going

to salute this administration, salute our President and those of you

here. So often, those of us in Congress, and I was not here in the

104th Congress, we showed a lot of courage and temerity to poor

people to say that we can be tough and eliminate a guarantee to

poor children.

So I salute this President for stepping up to the plate and creating some jobs and some opportunities and I would hope that the

private sector would pay attention. I am a proponent of private sector and small business and I would hope they pay attention to the

travails and advantages and disadvantages and the strengths and

weaknesses of this plan and would look to the Government for

leadership in these areas. And with that, I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Ford, and I recognize now Ms. Norton.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, let me indicate that a real sense that what the President

proposes to do is unavoidable. The question is when would you do

it? Would you do it after public pressure or do it on your own initiative, because you can’t go around the country saying you all

have to hire the welfare workers and have the biggest employer up

here exhorting, but doing very little. So you would have been

slashed about the head and shoulders if you had not moved up and

we ought to all recognize that there was no way for them to avoid

what they have done. And I commend you on doing what you have

done.

My concern is more to avoid perverse effects which often occurs

with even the best of intention and the best of efforts. And, therefore, I am interested in the existing workforce and priority placement which I fought hard for in the 104th Congress, and with displacement, which I think is inevitable in the way in which some

of the welfare reform will be carried out.

I do not have a problem with the temporary nature of the jobs.

Hey, you know, we’re not trying to manufacture some Cadillacs

67

here. We are trying to give people, at the very least, a work history. So that if you can say you worked for 6 months in the Federal

Government as a census taker or whatever you give the person to

do, and I got satisfactory or outstanding in that, and I was a GS– 2, you got something that you can go to town with. And these are

folks that are starting with nothing, so I am not worried that you

are not providing him a lifetime guarantee of a job.

We have to really face what we are facing in the workforce.

Being on welfare is the functional equivalent of having a criminal

record today. I mean, maybe all you have had is a child, but the

fact is, with two similarly situated people before an employer, the

likelihood that he will go for the welfare recipient, not welfare

worker, but the welfare recipient over somebody else is not very

likely. And so, I regard this as kind of giving people a push or a

start since it is so difficult to go straight from welfare and get a

job at all.

At the same time, the Federal workers are a largely white collar

workforce. You don’t have to work with what some other sectors do.

This was going to be difficult under the best of circumstances. So

I am not discouraged by the difficulties. What did we expect? That

when we flood the market or try to flood the market with hundreds

of thousands of people who never had a job, it would be easy or we

shouldn’t have to try to struggle to find what the problems are and

eliminate them?

Most people get off welfare themselves within 2 years. So, what

we’re doing here may make it easier to stay off of welfare because

you have a work history and all kinds of problems that we can’t

deal with, like some of the people who will have child care and

other kinds of things that are not going to come with this initiative.

My first question is about the 10,000 number. Could you describe

to me where the 10,000 number came from?

Mr. KOSKINEN. We started without a number. The Vice President

asked the agencies to develop their plans. People then began to

come back and ask what number overall are we shooting for, and

we kind of, consistent with Congressman Ford’s point of view, was

that the Federal Government had to be a leader. It had to be out

saying we will do our fair share. It is going to be tough and difficult, but the vast number of these jobs will be in the private sector and that is appropriate.

And as I noted in my testimony, if you look at the goal of moving

2 million off of welfare into the workforce, and look at the average

size of the welfare family, that means you have about 700,000 people who will need to find jobs. The Federal Government employs

about 1.5 percent of all people in the United States and therefore

1.5 percent or 10,000 people would be in effect our fair share.

But we were doing those calculations while the agencies were

doing their plans, and there is some slight difference in terms of

what the final calculations turned out to be. But it turns out that,

in fact, about 10,000 is the number of jobs that agencies feel comfortable they can fill over the next 4 years, either on a temporary

or permanent basis.

Ms. NORTON. Well, it is a nice round number, but my concern is

while it is a good fair share number, some of the questions raised

here go to the realism of the number in light of the nature of the

68

workforce, and, of course, the literally unprecedented times in

which we find ourselves.

The Federal Government has been growing all of my life as a native Washingtonian, and I never expected to see the day when we

would really be cutting the workforce. I realize the difficulty here

and I believe the number has to be adjusted as necessary as time

goes on. I hope it will be adjusted upward, but I would hate to see

us fail to meet it or meet it in a way that brought us great criticism, but I think you have done right to set a number that is not

minimal and that is in keeping with the size of your workforce.

I am concerned about displacement for two reasons. We simply

don’t want to send the message to people at lower levels of the

workforce that the way to get a job with the Federal Government

is to get on welfare. Nor do we want to displace people who would

ordinarily go out to get a job even at the lower levels. And I recognize this is difficult to do. But this—we are already seeing displacement of Mr. Cummings, and I read in the paper about some displacement that has gone on in Baltimore in the hospitality industry. It is almost natural and the only way to avoid it is, in fact,

try to keep it from happening. Particularly, if there is a number

and an agency is supposed to meet anything or try to meet it.

What I would like to know is if you have thought through what

safeguards exist or you would be willing to put into place to keep

displacement from occurring or to keep a situation from occurring

where people at a certain level of the workforce find that they simply can’t get a job unless they have been on welfare, which, again,

is not the message that I know you want to send.

Mr. KOSKINEN. Well, we are not proposing that people on welfare

will move to the top of the queue. These are vacant jobs. Last year,

we had a total of 200,000 positions that had to be filled in the Federal Government. Nobody is being displaced. By definition, these

jobs are open.

The welfare recipients will apply with others interested in those

jobs, and as noted, both the Defense and the Government, generally all of the existing priorities and preferences will be protected. So veterans preference will be protected, and those who

have priority placement rights will be protected.

As I was saying to Congressman Cummings, what we are doing,

and what we are asking the private sector to do, is to reach out

to a different constituency. We are advertising vacancies to encourage people who otherwise did not know of the vacancies or didn’t

view them as appropriate or relevant to them to focus on these vacancies as jobs they can fill.

Ultimately, we have all benefited from the economic impact of

the programs that Congress and the administration have put in

place. These programs have allowed us to generate over 12 million

new private sector jobs since 1993. Our unemployment rate is

lower than it might otherwise be, and the economy is more vibrant.

But ultimately, what we’re talking about here is not creating special jobs, not displacing Federal workers. We are saying we have

jobs, can we reach out to a constituency, in this case welfare workers, and encourage them to apply on an equal footing with others

who are available to apply.

69

Ms. NORTON. I recognize that there are already remedies in place

for abusing existing legal entitlements such as veterans preference

and priority placement. I am less sanguine that for people walking

through the door there would not be displacement. The examples

that were reported from Baltimore happened to simply be people

walking in the door and, of course, there are some incentives that

are involved.

Mr. KING. Did that happen at a Government agency?

Ms. NORTON. No, no these were in the private sector. And the

point is to get the early warnings now of how this operates or may

operate in particular settings.

Now, if in fact it is as you say, that there are very limited 1’s

and 2’s in the first place, and many of these workers or recipients

will be inclined to be in the lower levels, what I am saying is that

you could get to the point where people want to, in fact, with every

good reason to meet their goals for people in this lower level to be

welfare workers and the perverse effect would be you didn’t go on

welfare, you could have gone on welfare, you went out here and you

got your own job, but you found out that every job at your level

in the Federal Government is going to go to a welfare recipient.

Mr. KOSKINEN. You have to be careful with it. It is a very important question. We are not obviously suggesting to the business

where the bulk of these jobs are going to be filled that they should

only fill jobs with welfare recipients where there is absolutely nobody else in the country applying for that job. What we’re saying

is that we need to expand the group of people to whom we reach

out, that we need to, in fact, if we are going to require welfare recipients to work, we need to give them a fair opportunity, not a

special opportunity, but a fair opportunity to know where those

jobs are to be able to apply for them.

Ultimately, somebody will have a job. Theoretically, you could

argue any time a welfare worker has a job that means somebody

else doesn’t have that job, but as I say, it seems to me the perverse

result would be that if we said that our process is going to be that

the only job a welfare worker is eligible for is a job that we could

establish no one else is interested in.

Ms. NORTON. Well, my only warning is that this is a zero sum

game. This is not an expanding workforce. And one of the things

I think you should do is to monitor, especially the low level jobs

and see who, in fact, is getting them. Obviously, I am not arguing

for not giving these jobs or large numbers of them to welfare recipients. But, again, when we try to do something good, an unintended

consequence could result, and something that we would not endorse.

There is some concern among employee organizations about this.

Less, I think—I don’t think there needs to be a great deal of concern. I think the protections are in place. Have you met with all

of the employee organizations?

Mr. KOSKINEN. We have had meetings. Mr. King chairs an organization called the National Partnership Council, which has the

heads of the four largest employee organizations. We had a full

presentation of this program with them with a set of Federal managers so they are well-acquainted with what the nature of this program is. And specifically, these same questions have come up there,

70

and I think they are comfortable that we are not providing special

jobs or special benefits for people who come off welfare to the Government as opposed to anyone else who comes into the Government.

Mr. KING. But the concerns were legitimate, and they were very

profound, to the point, and very well taken, as you well know.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, one more

question. It really comes with the experience I had with a temporary employee. You may even remember it. Just a few years ago,

there were stories in the paper about a man who scrubbed out the

Lincoln Memorial, had seven children, dropped dead on a very hot

day, literally from overwork. He had been working around the

clock.

And because he had been a temporary employee at the Park

Service for 7 years and had never been made permanent, he had

no benefits. Ultimately, literally, I went on the floor and was able

to get the other side to agree to what was no more and no less than

a special bill for the wife and seven children. By the way, they’ve

now bought a house. And that’s one story that turned out all right.

And, of course, there were promises made about how to deal with

temporary employees, and I know that there has been an attempt

to try to deal with temporary employees. Nevertheless, I do note

that it appears that some temporary employees would not get at

least some of the benefits that welfare recipients would get, and I

wish you’d clarify that for me.

Mr. KING. Whatever authority and whatever circumstances the

individual is hired under, everyone will be treated the same.

Ms. NORTON. So that what; what? So that, for example, a welfare

recipient simply gets what anybody else gets?

Mr. KING. Welfare recipient, as far as we’re concerned, is an

American citizen. But they have been in many ways—because of

the situation, have been—not had the opportunity to be even aware

of the kinds of things that we’re talking about. And this is an opportunity to join that pool of candidates for employment.

Within that pool, we have talked about just really one authority.

There are several authorities that are available. You can use any

one of those authorities to come in. You can come in as just a regular citizen and apply for a job at any level, and be competitive,

and be tested, and compete within that and get the same benefits.

I think the emphasis has been on people who were really just

starting out and had no real work record and no educational background. What we’re talking about, by the numbers that we’re looking at, are overwhelmingly people who have enough basics, but we

are talking about those who are the exception, not the rule.

Ms. NORTON. Well, it is the worker training program where you

could convert to civil service status, are there benefits at that

level——

Mr. KING. Yes.

Ms. NORTON [continuing]. That there are not now?

Mr. KING. The assumption on coming in is that you will be a permanent employee.

Mr. KOSKINEN. If you’re in that program. That’s not a program

just for welfare recipients. That’s a program that applies across the

board. Those in that program will have whatever benefits that proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:02 Jul 17, 2002 Jkt 099010 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\42530 pfrm09 PsN: 42530
71

gram provides. Those who are hired in other programs will have

the same benefits that employees in those areas have.

As we discussed earlier, one of the things we need to focus on

when we look at the status of temporary employees is not whether

they’re temporary welfare employees or temporary employees. The

issues about temporary employment are appropriate—as I said,

Secretary Shalala noted that one of the things this initiative is

having as a positive impact is agencies looking at how our lower

graded employees, whether permanent or temporary, are and how

are they faring, and what additional support and resources can we

and should we provide to them.

So the goal here is not to have a special welfare program. The

goal here is to have a special outreach program to encourage welfare recipients to apply for jobs. They’ll apply on the same basis as

others. The existing preferences will apply. And to the extent that

we focus on the status of temporary employees in the Federal Government, if there are issues raised about that, we should address

those. We should, in fact, make sure that we’re providing the same

support and benefits for people in similar classes within the Government.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say, as I have finished my questions, that I think the questions you have raised and

the questions the Members have raised have been very legitimate

questions. We’ve raised them, however, at the outset before there

is any experience. And I hope that those who have testified have

heard the questions, because I believe that the chairman will want

to hold a hearing in the near future when there has been some experience to see if some of these problems have been avoided. And

I should think you would want to monitor this program very carefully, because if you succeed, you will encourage the private sector.

If, in fact, problems develop, you will have the opposite effect. I

congratulate you on trying.

Mr. MICA. Thank you for your questions.

A number of points have been raised today. Let me just follow,

if I may, on the gentlelady’s line of questioning. You did describe

that these folks, many of these folks, or you did testify today that

many of these folks would be temporary employees, I think, probably the Census Department, some of those jobs, many of those——

Mr. KOSKINEN. Yes.

Mr. MICA [continuing]. That we’re talking about. What concerns

me, too, is that we aren’t really addressing the problems or the

needs of welfare recipients even in this program. Then, in fact, they

won’t have health care benefits.

Most—many of these folks are single mothers with dependent

children. They need day care. They need transportation. They need

education. So it creates the same dilemma that you see in the private sector that we’re doing in the public sector. We’re offering

part-time, low-paying jobs with no benefit, no opportunity.

And the alternative in my State, I come from Florida, and they get $7.75 an hour equivalent—multiply that out, that’s about $300

a week times 50 weeks is $15,000—and health care benefits if you

stay on welfare versus what’s a GS–1 make, $13,000 entry?

Mr. KOSKINEN. Give or take a little, yes.

Mr. MICA. Yes. Or temporary positions with no benefits.

72

We want to monitor this program. We don’t want to say we’re

doing something when we’re not. Of course, providing some work

experience is better than none, but are we providing an alternative? What would your choice be if you get no benefits and more

money versus working and less benefits? So we need to monitor

this very carefully.

I’m also concerned, now, Ms. Disney, you said that one-third of

the positions you thought would come from private contractors. Is

that——

Ms. DISNEY. Well, slightly higher than that, yes, sir.

Mr. MICA. Well, I have no problem. We’re asking and we’ve been

involved in this for 4 years of moving Federal employees into the

private workforce, RIF’ing them and putting more contracting positions in and privatization. Is there a directive going out now to all

the private contractors? I think I had heard they were asking the

private contractors to pull their fair share.

Mr. Koskinen.

Mr. KOSKINEN. Yes, we have not made a requirement in any procurement regulation. What we have done is encouraged all Government procurement officers to advise contractors that this is a nationwide effort, that the administration and the Congress are committed to hiring welfare workers, and that everyone ought to pull

their fair weight, and that we are encouraging. But it’s moral

assuagement more than anything else. We’re encouraging Federal

contractors to look hard at their ability to hire welfare recipients.

The advice we’ve reminded them of is any employee training due,

to the extent they train new employees for the jobs they are performing, those costs are acceptable costs for reimbursement if

you’re on a cost reimbursement contract. But basically we have not

required it. We have simply stated this is a goal. We’re asking all

private sector companies to participate, and we expect that Federal

contractors will pull their fair share.

Mr. MICA. Well, the other final caution is Mr. King, who’s talking

about maybe 500 positions, Ms. Disney is talking about 800 positions that would fall into these categories for which there may be

buyouts, have been buyouts overall. And, again, I caution you. If

we hear instances where there had been buyouts of these positions

filled by these folks, again, it’s going to raise a tremendous ruckus.

One final point per chairman’s prerogative, Veterans’ Administration representative, and the point of buyouts, I was accosted

yesterday by Mr. Everett from Alabama, I guess he’s with the Veterans’ Committee, about buyouts and issuing buyouts to a veteran

agency employee who had a sexual harassment charge against that

individual. That is not what we intended. So Mr. King is gone, but

we need to have some very specific guidelines that prohibit the

awarding of any buyout to any Federal employee who has some

type of charges pending against them, not that they may not be entitled to it, but if they are, and we want due process here.

But it is not pleasant for me as Chair of this subcommittee to

find out that these instances where there may be individuals who

violated personnel ethics and codes and responsibility, and then be

awarded a buyout. So we need to make sure we’re all on the same

frequency and this is properly approached.

Do you want to comment?

73

Mr. BRICKHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, you’re correct. That did happen

in our agency. I might add that, and I’m not making excuses, but

the person who took advantage of the buyout took advantage of it

before charges were brought. So these allegations weren’t confirmed, if you will, and he retired and took advantage of it.

But I might add you make a good point. We will look at that. We

will monitor that, and we understand.

Mr. MICA. Well, these things do happen, but they can’t be repeated. Mr. King is gone, and I direct staff to make sure he gets

a letter to this. And then we are held responsible. With that, I’ll

yield to the ranking, Mr. Cummings.

[The letter referred to follows:]

74

75

Mr. CUMMINGS. I just have a few questions. First of all, I want

you all to understand, I agree with Ms. Norton. I think it is very

important that we do this. As a matter of fact, it’s imperative. The

question becomes, I guess, let’s make sure we do it. And I think

a lot of the concerns, as she stated, that we have voiced here are

the kind of things that we hope that you all will be looking out for.

Other than the private contractors, trying to encourage them to

hire people who are on welfare, and other than President, I guess,

using his position as a bully pulpit to try to get the various corporations, some of which he mentioned in his State of the Union

Address, to hire people off of welfare, what else is being done with

regard to the private sector? Because I think so often we look to

Government to do certain things, and 10,000 jobs is very nice, but

the private sector is where the jobs are. I’m just trying to—I just

wonder what else is being done, if anything, to try to get those

companies to do the—to help us out on this.

Mr. KOSKINEN. Well, as you noted, we have five companies that

have agreed to take a leadership role, and they are United Airlines,

Sprint, Monsanto, United Parcel Service, and Burger King.

Next month, the President will host a meeting at the White

House with business leaders from across the country to not only

encourage, but to hopefully get more of them committed not only

to work in their own companies, but in their industry groups, because I think this is not going to be—will not work if it’s a onetime initiative or exhortation. We need to have continued followup

and dialog.

I think thus far our experience is that the private sector is responding privately. Over the last 20 years, people have lamented

the problem with the welfare system, the inability on welfare to

find jobs in many cases, the stereotype that they’re not interested

in jobs. I think now we all have a chance and opportunity to, in

fact, see if we can change that culture.

So at that White House meeting next month, the President will

not only be exhorting the private sector, but hopefully signing them

up for major commitments on their part to assert leadership in the

private sector.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. King, I think it was you that said you identified 25 positions at OPM.

Mr. KING. Right.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I was just curious. How did you come to the conclusion that those, you know, those jobs were appropriate for people coming off of welfare?

Mr. KING. We did operate on the assumption that a number of

the folks that would be coming to us may have little experience and

few skills, and therefore we identified those positions at a career

entry level that would meet those criteria, and our hope is that we

will work and create a climate in which people will apply. If we

have a deep pool, we can select the best candidates from that pool.

Mr. CUMMINGS. My friends from the VA, we in Baltimore, of

course, we have a VA hospital, had a lot of interaction with the VA

Hospital, and one of the things that they continuously complain

about when we try to get them to hire people from the Baltimore

area, people who live in Baltimore, because it’s like a large percentage of their employees do not live in the area, and a lot of these

76

people will be the very folks that we’re talking about, but their constant complaint is that they—I think it’s Dennis Smith—— Mr. BRICKHOUSE. Yes.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes.

Mr. BRICKHOUSE. He’s the director of the hospital.

Mr. CUMMINGS. His constant complaint is that they RIF so many

people that they are worried about taking care of the RIF’d people

who are standing there on the sidelines.

I’m trying to put all this together to make sure what we hope

happens happens. And that’s my concern. I—I really want to see

this, this effort be successful. But when I hear things like that— and one of the other things that I hear is that people in my district,

the first thing they ask me, and I’m sure Ms. Norton probably

hears the same thing to some degree, most people ask me, can you

get me a Government job? I don’t know why that is, but that’s the

first thing they ask. I mean, if nine people ask me about a job, at

least four of them are going to say, well, can you get me a job with

the city of Baltimore?

In other words, I guess there is a feeling that that brings a certain level of security. And so, you know, people in my district would

be happy to take some jobs at the VA, I mean, because it’s a—it’s

kind of a clean-cut job, and they probably would really like that.

But you know what we found is that, like I said, in my efforts,

they’ve been hitting a brick wall, and I just want you to address

that.

Mr. BRICKHOUSE. Well, first of all, Congressman Cummings, we

do have some potential candidates to be hired in the Baltimore

area. I have a list of all of our facilities.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Good. We’ll have to talk right after this.

Mr. KING. As long as it’s under the context of the merit system,

this conversation is totally on the up and up.

Mr. BRICKHOUSE. Mr. King, we understand the merit system,

and we follow it.

I might add that, to answer your question a little further,

though, we have in the VA over 240,000 employees. And I will

admit to you we are in the midst of RIF’ing people, as we mentioned earlier to Mr. King and Mr. Koskinen, though primarily

those RIFs are at higher level employees and not down at the wage

grade or the GS grade. And as you very well know, in some of those

areas, for example, we do have consolidations. In other words if we

have two hospitals within 15 minutes of each other, why do we

need two pharmacy staffs, if you will? But most of those are targeted, in my estimation, at senior levels.

I think, as I have mentioned earlier, we targeted 400 jobs this

year and 400 jobs next year because we have such a large turnover

in those types of jobs in the VA. So I think, as you have mentioned,

though, we will continue and we do have some avenues to hire

some of these people, but at the same time my belief is that we will

still be conducting RIFs because of some of those consolidations

and some of those positions that we do not need in some of those

facilities, if you will.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Just one last question. When we have this 40

percent of the people going into the proposed positions with Commerce and Census, again I agree with Ms. Norton, it is important

77

to establish a track record, employment record. I’m just wondering,

though, is there any aim at sort of trying to guide folks?

We know that’s going to come to an end, and our objective, of

course, is to keep people employed. And we also know that people

have limited time that they can be on welfare, pursuant to legislation. And some of them will probably—once they get these jobs will

probably maybe, I don’t know, run out of their time or close to it.

And I guess all I’m asking you is there any—are you giving any

consideration to trying to make sure that people are at least

steered in the direction of some kind of other employment so that—

so that we don’t—and I understand that this is a program, you’re

trying to do something for people that is no preferences, understand all of that. But still, the Government will have taken these

people in and in many instances will have trained them, will have

invested in them, and will have placed them in a position whereby

we definitely are, you know, cutting into this whole welfare situation. The question then becomes do we allow them to fall off a cliff

without giving them some kind of guidance? That——

Mr. KING. Once they come onto the payroll and they are employees, we have historically bent over backward to accommodate our

employees, whoever they are and wherever they are. I would have

to yield to the Chair, who has provided enormous personal leadership in this area, when we talk about soft landing for Federal employees, the attempts that were made when we knew we were faced

with downsizing to have voluntary departures from Government so

that we didn’t force people on to the street, so that we are concerned.

That’s—I can’t think of any agency here as I’m looking at the

people here, I actually know their conduct and the work that they

have done to help people through that.

I think Ms. Norton made an excellent point that here we are in

Washington where we view Government as the business, and yes,

it is huge. But two-thirds of the jobs in this metropolitan area are

in the private sector. The eastern-Silicon Valley, the largest communication complex in high technology, is 5 miles from where we’re

sitting.

I mean, the world is changing as we’re talking, and what we

would like to do, as we’re saying, is we want every American to be

part of that world and that future. We think we can contribute in

the way we’re speaking, and we would like to think that we continue to support our Federal employees, whomever they are and no

matter what their grade level is, but there is an equity involved

there, and there is a commitment from all of us.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. And I wish all of you the

very best in what you’re trying to do.

Mr. MICA. Thank you Mr. Cummings.

I yield now to Ms. Norton.

Ms. NORTON. No further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. Well, I thank the panelists.

I have one final question. We’re going to have testimony in our

last panel from one of our Members, Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Congresswoman from Texas, to introduce legislation that would provide welfare recipients with a 3-point preference in Federal hiring.

78

Has the administration taken a position on H.R. 1066, or is there

any inclination toward supporting this type of a measure?

Mr. Koskinen.

Mr. KOSKINEN. We’re not taking a position. As I understand it,

it was only introduced very recently. As I say, our general approach

has been to treat our program not as a preference, but to treat our

program as an outreach program to try to encourage people to become aware of the opportunities in the Federal Government and to

have a commitment on the part of agencies to participate in that

outreach.

But at this point we have not in response, but really anticipation

of the concerns that might be raised, have tried to view this not

as a preference program. We are trying to view this primarily as

a program designed to fill available slots with people who are

qualified at whatever the level of qualifications are.

Mr. MICA. And, Mr. King, you went out for a moment, a personal

privilege, when I was lambasting the practice of giving buyouts to

individuals who had some pending personnel charges against them.

I’m not going to ask you to respond, but we did have an instance

that was brought to my attention yesterday in the Veterans’ Administration where an individual was charged with sexual harassment was getting a buyout. And we need to make sure—you know

the problems we’ve had in the past in defending that program, and

when you have instances like that, it doesn’t set well on the Hill.

I want to thank you. I think you all have helped, as Ms. Norton

said, at an early stage of helping us look at the administration’s

proposal.

We’re treading into some new water here. I think we’ve raised

many serious questions that need to be addressed as they proceed,

and it is very difficult as Chair of this subcommittee, when I’m involved in unprecedented RIFs, when we’ve been involved in incredible downsizing, consolidations, the buyout program, for me to look

these Federal employees in the face, or former Federal employees,

or employees that are waiting for a position to come back to work

with us, who have dedicated part of their lives, we are—the administration is proposing to employ welfare recipients or former welfare recipients in the Federal workplace.

So it raises many questions. We need to work together as you develop your plans to implement this. And we need to possibly revisit

this with another hearing.

In the mean time I’ll excuse the panel, and thank you for your

testimony and participation.

Mr. KOSKINEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. And I’ll call our second panel this morning. The second panel today consists of Mr. Steven Hantzis, and he is the national executive director of the National Federation of Federal Employees and will present the Federal employees’—represent the

Federal employees’ viewpoint on today’s panel.

We also have in this panel Mr. Robert Rector, who serves as the

senior policy analyst on welfare and family issues at the Heritage

Foundation, and he’ll provide the benefit of his expertise in studying various welfare issues.

79

We also have Mr. James Riccio, senior research associate at the

Manpower Demonstration Research Corp. in New York, and he will

provide his perspective on the issues facing our subcommittee.

And the fourth member of the panel will be Mr. Charles Tetro,

who is the president of the Training and Development Corp. in

Bucksport, ME. He has implemented welfare-to-work training programs for more than to 20 years and should be able to provide us

some insight based on his work.

As I mentioned to our previous panel that this is an investigation

and oversight subcommittee, and it is the custom and practice requirement that we swear in our witnesses. So if you will please

stand.

Raise your right hand.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. MICA. Thank you. The witnesses have answered and responded in the affirmative, and we’re pleased to have this panel

and welcome you as—I think you all are new witnesses. What we

do is allow you to summarize, if you can, or present your testimony

within 5 minutes, and lengthier statements will be submitted for

the record.

Now, I’ll recognize Mr. Steven Hantzis, national executive director of National Federation of Federal Employees.

STATEMENTS OF STEVEN HANTZIS, NATIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES;

ROBERT RECTOR, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, WELFARE AND

FAMILY ISSUES, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION; JAMES

RICCIO, MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH CORP.; AND

CHARLES G. TETRO, PRESIDENT, TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT CORP.

Mr. HANTZIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Steve

Hantzis, and I’m the national executive director of the National

Federation of Federal Employees. NFFE President James

Cunningham wanted to be here today to present NFFE’s views on

this important issue. Unfortunately, President Cunningham is in

California and can’t be with us this morning.

At the outset, I would like to make it clear that NFFE applauds

the efforts of the Clinton administration to set an example for the

private sector. Federal employees support the concept of hiring

former welfare recipients and help them make a better life for

themselves through hard work and opportunity. Our members

know very well the value of hard work and diligence.

However, as supportive as NFFE is of the conceptual underpinnings of the President’s plan, we have some significant concerns

with the manner in which his plan is being implemented and the

potential impact of the plan’s implementation on the Federal workforce.

NFFE is troubled by the fashion in which this plan was created.

It appears to be another example of policymaking by headline. The

President announced his goal of hiring welfare recipients to the

media and the Nation with no concrete plan in place to accomplish

the task. The administration then required Federal agencies to rapidly develop and implement this program with little thought apparently being given to the long-term effects of their actions. NFFE is

80

concerned that the hasty and potentially short-sighted method in

which the plan was developed will harm the administration’s previous efforts to reform the Federal Government.

Additionally, NFFE is concerned with what many of the members have termed the hypocrisy of this plan. To many Federal employees, the fact that the Clinton administration, after eliminating

over 300,000 Federal jobs, has decided to suddenly create jobs in

order to accomplish the goals of this plan is outrageous.

NFFE understands that the administration claims that no new

jobs will be created and that these employees will just be considered for existing jobs that need to be filled. At the same time, however, the administration has stated that most of these jobs will be

at the GS–1 and GS–2 levels.

According to the Office of Workforce Restructuring at the Office

of Personnel Management, the Federal Government had a total of

677 GS–1 and GS–2 employees on the payroll as of September

1996. If no new jobs are to be created, and the new employees are

slated to be GS–1’s and 2’s, NFFE asks where these new positions

are going to come from?

NFFE is also concerned that former welfare recipients may be

swiftly placed into Federal positions while some involuntarily separated employees remain on displacement lists. NFFE maintains

that the Federal Government has a responsibility to first help

those employees who have faithfully served their fellow citizens,

and that these employees should be the first to be considered for

all job openings.

There are currently 21,000 employees on the stopper list at the

Department of Defense. Unfortunately, since OPM does not maintain a governmentwide re-employment priority list, it is unclear

how many Federal employees remain on displacement lists.

The employees on these lists are hard-working, dedicated individuals who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. If the

administration is going to make extraordinary efforts to find jobs

for any group of individuals, hiring displaced employees should be

their No. 1 priority.

Additionally, there is a question of equity between current Federal employees and employees that will be hired under this proposal. It is NFFE’s understanding that the employees hired under

this plan will be eligible to convert to permanent career status

after 3 years. If this is true, NFFE is deeply troubled.

Currently there are tens of thousands of temporary employees

working for the Federal Government. These employees work each

day to provide their fellow citizens with the comfort and security

they deserve. However, these workers do not enjoin a similar peace

of mind. They have no retirement benefits or job security. And although they were recently given the right to purchase health insurance under FEHBP, they’re required to pay the full cost, which, for

many, prevents them from purchasing insurance.

Fortunately, the plight of these workers only surfaces after a

tragedy like the Colorado fire where 14 temporary employees lost

their lives, or when a dedicated employee like James Hudson loses

his life while performing his job.

Temporary employees deserve to be treated fairly. Allowing a

new hire to convert to permanent status without providing longVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:02 Jul 17, 2002 Jkt 099010 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\42530 pfrm09 PsN: 42530
81

term temporaries with the same opportunity would be a slap in the

face to these workers.

The situation at one agency illustrates potential inequity in the

President’s plan. Currently there are thousands of employees within the Forest Service that have worked as temporaries for over 10

years. These employees are not eligible for conversion to career status. In fact, because of the OPM’s new policy on temporary employees, many of these dedicated individuals are about to lose their

jobs.

If the administration is going to allow these new hires to convert

to permanent status, fairness demands, that it immediately convert

these long-term temporaries already on the payroll to convert them

to permanent status.

NFFE is also troubled by the potential drain this program could

have on agency training budgets. In this budget-cutting era, funding for agency training programs has been stretched to the limit.

In fact, many of our members have expressed concern that their

agencies are no longer able to provide them with the training they

need to excel in their duties. In today’s complex and increasingly

high-tech workplace, employees need to be—need to receive training if they are to perform their jobs at highly skilled levels.

NFFE is concerned that the need to intensively train these new

hires will have a dramatic negative impact on the ability of agencies to provide training to its current staff, thereby reducing the

ability of agencies to serve the public. NFFE urges the Congress to

ensure the agencies receive the funding adequate to provide the

new hires with the training necessary to succeed at their jobs and

continue to provide training to current employees.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to highlight a problem that the

administration may or may not be aware of. The average Federal

employee is very disturbed by this plan. It is important to know

that Federal employees are not upset because they do not want to

help these individuals make a better life for themselves, but rather

they’re upset because they cannot understand how, after 4 years of

massive downsizing and budget cuts, the administration can suddenly find the ability to hire and train thousands of new employees. In discussing the President’s proposal with our membership,

the phrase we hear most often is ‘‘outrageous.’’

For the last 4 years, Federal employees have suffered through

the largest job-slashing program in history. We have watched

countless jobs transfer to the private sector contractors, who overcharge and underperform. They have been consistently asked to

perform an ever-increasing range of duties with fewer and fewer

resources. They have received minimum pay increases that are far

below what they’re entitled to under the law and have been

watched with dismay as their benefits are cut in the name of budgetary savings. Now these employees watch in amazement as the

administration declares it has the resources to hire, train, and provide benefits for a new pool of employees. It’s no wonder Federal

employees are upset, confused, and demoralized.

The administration needs to do a better job communicating the

details of this plan to employees. These hard-working and dedicated employees deserve to be told how the administration will implement this plan, what positions will be filled and why, what the

82

impact will be upon current employees and agency budgets, and

why these new employees may be receiving opportunities that

former employees are not. American workers deserve and demand

no less.

And this concludes my testimony. I will be pleased to answer my

questions.

Mr. MICA. Thank you, and we will defer questions to all the panelists who testify.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hantzis follows:]

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

Mr. MICA. I’ll recognize Mr. Robert Rector, with the Heritage

Foundation. You’re recognized, sir.

Mr. RECTOR. Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here

today and to testify about this policy. Unfortunately, I find this policy is at best irrelevant, and at worst it creates a pattern of discrimination against American citizens, who have not been on welfare and Government hiring. It’s a very foolish policy, and it has

nothing to do with reducing welfare dependence.

You know, one would think that if the Clinton administration

were interested in generating self-sufficiency and reducing dependency, that they would go to those individuals and those States that

have a remarkable track record in reducing dependency and generating self-sufficiency. Did they do that? Absolutely not.

Instead what they do is turn to a set of failed, tired policies and

to a set of advisors who have a perfect track record in increasing

dependency and come up with a policy that is more a press release

than an actual mechanism for helping the poor.

We have a kind of myth here that as the welfare state has grown

and grown and grown since Lyndon Johnson created it, the dependence is in some way inevitable, and we’re all trying to figure out

how to reduce dependence. Well, the reality is we’ve known for over

25 years how to reduce dependence. And this city has basically

spent most of that time trying to prohibit States from operating

programs that will get people off of welfare and into jobs.

The reality is that it’s not all that difficult to reduce dependence,

and that if we look at States today, such as Wisconsin, Oregon,

Massachusetts, South Dakota, we can see how this is done. In particular, if we look at Wisconsin, which has the leading policy in the

Nation, we look at the time since Governor Thompson took office

in Wisconsin, we see that the overall AFDC caseload has dropped

by an astonishing 55 percent, utterly unprecedented. In inner-city

Milwaukee, a depressed ghetto area, the caseload is down 32 percent, and in the rest of the State 70—the caseload has dropped 71

percent. Now, how did they do that? And as we speak, the AFDC

caseload in the city of Milwaukee is continuing to drop at 2 percentage points per month. How did they do that? Let me just briefly go through it.

When somebody comes and applies for AFDC in Milwaukee, the

first thing they do is surprisingly counsel them on the negative effects of welfare dependence. Then they offer them short-term aid:

Is there something we can do to help you not get on welfare in the

first place; exactly the opposite of what every other welfare office

does.

Then they say, look, before you come onto welfare, we’re going

to require you to search for a job for 60 hours to essentially earn

your right into entry into welfare. And then you know what? As

soon as you get on welfare, we’re going to make you work for the

benefits that you get. And you know what happens when they do

that? Roughly 1 out of 3 of the recipients coming in and applying

for welfare simply turn around and walk right back out because

they have other options. They don’t really need to be on welfare in

the first place.

If they do go on and get onto welfare, what they then do is say,

all right, welfare is no longer a free income. You must perform

92

community service work in exchange for the benefits you get. If we

require you to do 30 hours of work, and you do 15, we’re essentially

going to cut your benefits in half. It’s called Pay for Performance.

And what this means, both in Oregon and Wisconsin, is that people

who are put under those circumstances very, very quickly leave

welfare because welfare is no longer a good deal for them. They’re

no longer getting a free income for nothing. They must work for

their welfare income, and all of a sudden taking some other job in

the private sector is much more attractive.

Massachusetts, Wisconsin and Oregon have demolished all of the

prevailing mythology about welfare dependence. They have proven

to us that what was said in the past is simply not true. In the past

we’ve been told welfare recipients want to work, but there’s no jobs

available. It’s absolutely untrue, and it’s disproved every time you

put this type of work in place.

Second, the shortage of day care and transportation means people can’t get jobs. Absolutely untrue. It’s not a significant problem.

It’s not a barrier to self-sufficiency in major detail.

Third, radical drops in caseload will cause huge economic deprivation. Simply not the case. These families are much better off because they are setting up working role models. And these kids are

going to benefit because the pattern of dependence is being disrupted.

In reality, there’s a revolution going on in welfare all across the

United States as the national caseload has dropped about 20 percent in the last 2 years. That’s the biggest drop since the Korean

water.

We’re essentially in the Jet Age of welfare reform. What President Clinton has put forward here is instead a hot air balloon from

the 18th century. It has nothing to do with reducing dependence

and will have no effect other than possibly to reward those people

who have gotten on welfare by giving them a Federal job that

might otherwise have gone to someone else who has not been on

welfare. Thank you.

Mr. MICA. Thank you Mr. Rector.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rector follows:]

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

Mr. MICA. And I’ll now recognize Mr. James Riccio. He is with

the Manpower Demonstration Research Corp. Is it Riccio?

Mr. RICCIO. Riccio.

Mr. MICA. Thank you.

Mr. RICCIO. Thank you.

The President’s initiative raises the question of employment potential of the people to whom this initiative is targeted, and I

would like to comment on what we know from research studies

about the kinds of people Federal agencies itself are likely to find

as they begin recruiting from this particular labor group.

I think if anything is clear about adult welfare recipients is that

they’re a very diverse group. Although they share some characteristics in common, such as most are single mothers and do not have

advanced job skills, they differ widely in their preparation for

work, the severity of the obstacles they face in finding and keeping

a job, and their actual employment experience. So it’s risky to generalize.

As you’ve heard, nearly half of all welfare recipients do not have

a high school diploma or GED certificate, and few have college degrees. Many, but certainly not all, also score quite low on standardized tests. To the extent that employment opportunities offered as

part of the worker training initiative require advanced education,

credentials and skills, many welfare recipients clearly would not

qualify. At the same time, about half could be candidates for jobs

that required a high school diploma or a GED. Many would also

bring with them a considerable amount of employment experience.

Despite a mixed educational record, a large proportion of welfare

recipients, more than most people realize, do have a work history

or eventually acquire one. Studies of welfare-to-work programs illustrate this. For example, the study of the GAIN program in California, which is the largest welfare-to-work program in the country,

found that as many as 70 percent of welfare recipients who entered

the program worked at some point within the subsequent 5 years,

although they did not all do so quickly.

Nonetheless, findings from this study and other data suggest

that most recipients are at least capable of starting a job, even if

not immediately. However, job turnover is high. This is a big problem that even the most successful welfare-to-work programs have

not solved yet.

When welfare recipients do work, the jobs they get are usually

low pay and offer no benefits. For example, the recipients in the

California program who became employed reported on survey that

they earned about $6 an hour on average, and almost half earned

$5 or less. Moreover, only about one-third or fewer got any paid

sick days, vacation days, or health benefits.

The reasons for job—for high job turnover among welfare recipients varied, but in many cases are related to the marginal nature

of the jobs themselves. In the California study, among the people

who left jobs, 46 percent left because the job itself was not permanent. Recipients were either laid off, or the job came to an end.

In contrast, about 13 percent said they were fired from their jobs,

and 41 percent said they’d quit. The reasons they gave for quitting

resolved around seeking more—more suitable and better employVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:02 Jul 17, 2002 Jkt 099010 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\42530 pfrm09 PsN: 42530
114

ment, but also, much more commonly, problems they experienced

at the workplace, changes in family situations and illnesses.

Although most recipients do eventually work, many experience

times in their lives when serious problems such as family emergencies, physical and emotional illnesses, disruptions in child care

and housing crises make it exceptionally difficult for them to work

at that time.

A number of studies suggest that a substantial minority, perhaps

a quarter, may not reasonably be expected to work at any given

point in time, even if a suitable job and child care arrangements

could be made available.

For many, these problems are likely to be temporary. However,

given the kinds of jobs welfare recipients tend to hold, these problems can quickly jeopardize their employment. The lack of benefits

such as sick days and vacation days offers them little flexibility for

dealing with these issues and can lead them to quit or be fired.

Evidence of employer satisfaction with the performance of welfare recipients is scarce; however, some information of this kind is

available on AFDC recipients assigned to unpaid work experience

or workfare programs in the 1980’s. Special surveys that were conducted with workfare participants and their supervisors in six

States help inform this issue. The jobs these recipients typically got

were entry-level positions, and in the opinion of the supervisors

and the recipients themselves, the work being performed was important to the agency and not make-work.

Most supervisors said that the performance of the recipients was

as good as that of most entry-level employees, and although the

programs were small-scale, they offer at least some evidence that

welfare recipients can be productive employees in Government

entry-level jobs.

To summarize, research shows that many welfare recipients can

and do become capable employees and, given the right opportunity,

have little difficulty working productively and continuously and

without unusual levels of supervision.

Others, however, have more difficulty making the transition for

a wide variety of reasons, but can succeed with some extra assistance and support, and this should be anticipated and planned for.

Still others, but a much smaller group, face exceptionally challenging employment obstacles.

Finally, it’s reasonable to expect that if entry-level jobs can be

made available in Federal agencies, many welfare recipients would

be eager to fill them. If those positions offered medical benefits and

paid sick days, it would be more appealing, and perhaps job turnover would be somewhat lower than it usually is for this group because most recipients do not leave jobs that provide them with such

benefits. Thank you.

Mr. MICA. Thank you for your testimony.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Riccio follows:]

115

116

117

118

119

120

Mr. MICA. And we’ll now turn to Charles Tetro, who is president

of the Training and Development Corp.

Mr. TETRO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate

the opportunity to be able to speak with this committee today and

testify before you. I’m joined today by three senior program managers from my own organization in case there were questions that

penetrated beyond my own familiarity. Sandy Brawders is executive director of our career advancement services in Maine.

Vinceretta Henderson runs our career advancement services operation in Richmond, VA. And Wayne Tapp runs the Penobscot Job

Corps center. Each of these people run programs for thousands of

people, about 40 percent of whom historically have been on welfare,

so they have a real intimate knowledge of this subject. I do share

that knowledge as well. Sandy ran the House of Ruth here in

Washington, DC, for 8 years, the largest homeless shelter for

women in the United States. So we come to the table with a considerable amount of experience with this issue.

We also—in summarizing my testimony, as I’m sitting here, I

was realizing, Mr. Chairman, that you summarized half my testimony better than I could have, and I want to use your statement

and then just focus on one piece I brought with me.

You said, unless we’re addressing the fundamental problems,

lack of education, training, day care and the like, then we’re not

really doing the right thing as we come to an initiative like this.

And that was a lot of what I had to say in different words in the

testimony that I share with you in writing.

Another thing that I had to say we may not agree about, but it’s

something that I also would like to put before this committee

today. And as I’m sitting here listening to the testimony that’s preceded me, it struck me that we all can come to this issue, I think,

with one conviction that we share and a value that we share deeply, and that is the conviction that we’re a country about opportunity, and we share a value in the worth of work. Every single one

of us is engaged deeply in it. We value it as a society more than

many others do. And so we sit here today in common in that pursuit.

Where we seem to come apart is around our perceptions of what

happens around the issues of work; why people do, and why people

don’t. And as this testimony was coming before you today, it struck

me that one of the reasons we can seem to disagree so much about

some of these issues is that we’re always looking at incomplete pictures. And when we look at incomplete pictures, we can amplify aspects of what we see, generalize from those things that we see, and

form an opinion which may or may not reflect the large picture.

The large picture that welfare reform in this initiative is taking

place in is a picture of a whole economy, of a whole range of labor

markets and equations that go beyond labor market participation.

And to simplify that, it seemed to me, as I looked at the issue of

work, that every one of us has three stark choices to make. We either engage in the legitimate economy, we’re involved in illicit economic activity, or we become dependent. Somehow or another, we

end up in one of those domains. Most of us in this room have chosen to work and succeed in the legitimate economy. But if we

121

weren’t, we would face those other alternatives, as many other people do.

When we look at something like the welfare issue, we look at it

and see things that are appearing to be different, but I think they

are somewhat the same. We see a miracle in Wisconsin, and one

that we all ought to look carefully at, because much of what was

shared in testimony today was quite important.

If we give people good information about how to get employed,

their inclination is to go and get employed. That’s why 75 percent

of welfare recipients in the past, with a very flawed system, sought

employment and were employed within 2 years. It’s always been a

floor in the secondary labor market system. It’s been the place

passed the job that you couldn’t find for 75 percent of the people

who ended up on welfare.

We also need to look deeply at what seem to be miracles, and

Wisconsin may be one because it has, it seems, much of its work

based on good solid common sense, a set of steps that do make

sense and do seem to indicate that people taking those steps would

get jobs.

But sometimes miracles are posing—are miracles posing as

something else? And they might be magic, they might be sleight of

hand. And we need to really study them to learn what they have

to tell us, because many of us who have worked with these people

see people often with deep problems. And they’re perhaps that

other 25 percent of people who are the core problem that most of

us are looking at when we talk about the welfare problem in the

United States. Most of us aren’t really thinking about the person

who was divorced and went into welfare and somehow within a

couple of years got a job. We’re thinking about the person who lives

in a culture of dependency for whom work has not been part of

their experience nor a part of their future plans. And I think that

when we turn to that population, we turn with a very significant

burden of effort that’s required to make this work.

As my testimony suggests at the end, I think the good news in

this is that we have currently a vibrant economy. We should worry

about times when we don’t. We also have much more knowledge

with how to prepare people for work cost-effectively. It no longer

requires long periods of formal education and classrooms at high

costs. It can begin very effectively at work in workplace settings

with workplace-focused learning programs and with appropriate

support can be successful.

And I think that as we look to the future of welfare as we all

want to see it performed, we need to continue to look in the direction of guiding people into employment and then providing the performance support that’s required to make them effective once

they’re there, and that can be accomplished at much lower cost

than the historical approach of pulling people out, putting them

into long-term training education programs that are unconnected

with work, and only after that getting them connected with the

purpose that they originally were identified to the program to pursue, which was work itself.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak here today.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tetro follows:]

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

Mr. MICA. I thank all of our witnesses on this panel.

I have a couple of questions. To Mr. Hantzis, representative of

the Federal employees, are you saying ‘‘just say no’’ to this whole

proposal?

Mr. HANTZIS. Mr. Chairman, the most salient point had to do

with communications here. I believe the Federal workers that we

represent would like to know what it is that’s going on prior to just

having bombshells dropped in their lap. And what we have here is

we have a headline that comes forward that says the Federal Government is hiring 10,000 welfare recipients, and at the same time

the big headline in the Federal workforce is contracting out,

downsizing, RIFs. And so when you throw those two things together, you have a cataclysmic reaction that is not very favorable.

Mr. MICA. Well, obviously from what we heard today here all the

plans aren’t together, all the specifics are not there. But if there

are positions available—and they are—and with folks on some of

these priority lists—do you have a problem with filling them in the

fashion described today?

Mr. HANTZIS. The way it has been described by the first panel

seems very fair and equitable. When you get down to the street

level and the agencies that we work with daily that are agencies

in St. Louis, MO, or somewhere else in the field, I have to bring

to your attention the fact that it’s not always Mr. King’s policies

that are followed at that level, too.

So, yes, I heard what the first panel said, and I’m very supportive of what they had to say, but sometimes once it gets out into

the streets, it’s a different policy.

Mr. MICA. Right.

Mr. Rector, you had talked about the myth of day care. We’re impressed by the testimony you gave us, but we still have a large

number of the individuals on welfare, primarily female, who are

single parents with dependent children. In order to go to work,

they must have some assistance. You say that day care is available,

and that the day care problem that has been enunciated is a myth.

Could you elaborate?

Mr. RECTOR. Certainly. Any credible study that studies success

rather than failure, which is a policy I would recommend, would

show that, in fact, day care has never been a substantial problem

to employment of welfare mothers that has been indicated. Particularly in inner-city communities, what you have there is an absolute

abundance of unemployed women who are taking care of kids, and,

therefore, any policy that has ever had—that has seriously required work does not find an absence of day care to be a problem.

For example, funding has gone up rather dramatically on day

care in Wisconsin, but it still remains less than 5 percent of the

total. They’re not having any problem with it at all. There’s no

problem in Oregon. You can go back 15 years in this, and if you

really look at the literature, this is just a myth. It’s an excuse

about why we really can’t do welfare reform rather than being

based on any factual matter.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Riccio, you had testified that we can succeed with

taking people from welfare to work if they get the extra assistance

and support that they need. We just heard the comments from Mr.

Rector. You also, I think, were here to hear the testimony of the

139

first panel. It doesn’t sound like they have that support system or

assistance in place, which is a concern to me. Also, the majority of

the positions are part-time, low-paying, no benefits, no health insurance. It doesn’t appear that, from what I’ve heard preliminarily,

that they have set in place a pattern or a plan for providing this

extra assistance and support for these folks. Would that be your assessment?

Mr. RICCIO. I can’t assess independently what would be made

available in terms of the jobs under this initiative, but I would say

that, for some, that kind of assistance will be very important.

Mr. MICA. But it is essential, you testified—— Mr. RICCIO. And for others.

Mr. MICA [continuing]. To make this a success—— Mr. RICCIO. It may be for some.

Mr. MICA [continuing]. Otherwise—— Mr. RICCIO. It may be for some.

Mr. MICA. Otherwise we go from welfare, to a part-time public

job, then back to welfare. Maybe not. Maybe.

Mr. RICCIO. I’d say that welfare population is very mixed. For

some people child care is absolutely essential. Others can make informal arrangements that work out. It’s a very mixed bag. Some

people, though, will absolutely need subsidized child care in order

to work, but not necessarily everybody.

If the job is part-time, and the parent is working while the child

is in school, then obviously there’s less of a demand for child care.

Jobs that don’t provide health benefits or sick days or vacation

days make it very difficult for people to cope with emergencies that

inevitably come up, and if the current jobs don’t provide those

kinds of benefits, they may be subject to the same kinds of high

turnover rates we typically see.

Mr. MICA. Is there, Mr. Rector, or Mr. Riccio, any study or information on when a welfare individual gets a job in the private sector versus the public sector, are there different success rates? Mr.

Riccio.

Mr. RICCIO. I haven’t seen studies with convincing evidence on

that. I’d say about 19 percent of the folks that have gotten employed in the California study were employed in Government jobs.

Most of the jobs are in the private sector.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Rector.

Mr. RECTOR. Most employment in Wisconsin would be in the private sector. But it doesn’t really matter that much. What really

matters is when the individual takes a job, they’re very apt to lose

it again or lose a job. And then what matters is what happens? Do

you now recycle them back into AFDC and let them sit there for

a couple years where you apply some extra training and stuff and

just let the system linger along, in which case you’re not going to

have any drop in caseload.

What really matters is that then that individual, you have to create a push to get them out of welfare, and the way you do that is

to say, look, if you’ve lost a private sector job, lost a public sector

job, you come back to welfare, you must perform community service

in order to get the benefit. And when I do that, in Oregon, for example, six out of seven of the people will just turn out and say, oh,

guess what, I found a new job in the private sector, I’m out of here.

140

They just don’t stay on welfare if they have to work for their benefits. That’s the bottom line, and that’s what’s caused this caseload

reduction. That’s what needs to be done. The rest of this is just— it just has very little to do with anything.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Tetro, I have been concerned about the effectiveness of public job training programs. About a year ago a study was

done in my State of Florida, and there’s an article about it in the

Orlando Sentinel. It was a State study of job training and vocational ed programs, and said State and Federal Government spend

about a billion dollars a year on vocational education programs in

Florida. Of those who enter a program, less than 20 percent complete the program. Of that figure, only 19 percent found a full-time

job, and most of them found a job at minimum wage, and most

were out of the job within 6 months.

Ms. Norton is gone, but I just read last week on the way home

in the April 17th, Washington Post, that the DC job training program ranks dead last in the Nation. They spent $7.3 million in locally raised taxes designated for job training programs without

training a single person. These are not examples of how we spend

public money successfully in training people for jobs, and it’s a

great concern for me.

Now, it’s my understanding that your firm has been the recipient

of substantial Federal dollars in training folks. What’s your success

ratio? I mean, what’s it costing to train these folks? And is this one

of the things we should be looking at?

Mr. TETRO. I definitely think it’s one of the things you could be

looking at, and it’s one of the strong agreements I would have with

some of the earlier statements made by the researcher from the

Heritage Foundation.

The way interventions occur matters a lot, and our organization

has been researched by many research organizations over the last

22 years, and I think that one of the things that has resulted in

the success of our organization is that we’ve been concerned

throughout that time not with maintaining bureaucratic operations

and the status quo, but rather with finding solutions to problems.

A number of years ago, we realized that the design of our own

organization wasn’t as effective as it needed to be, and long before

re-engineering became a topic of conversation, we re-engineered an

organization to reduce the overhead that it bore by over 40 percent.

We automated many of the functions, and some of the systems that

we built right now are being used in over 300 sites across the country managing some of the successful initiatives that are underway

where people have taken this kind of work seriously.

We took a program much like the one you just described in the

newspaper over a couple of years ago in Richmond, VA. It was the

one of the lowest job training programs in the United States, and

it was certainly the lowest performing in that State. And within 1

year we had turned that program around and is ending its second

year in our management right now, and it will be one of the top

one or two performers in the State of Virginia, which, as you know,

has a strong commitment to putting people to work and to making

the idea of work first a reality for welfare recipients as well. We’re

implementing that kind of effort there and as we have for many

years in Maine.

141

I think that the—all these issues bear real close scrutiny and effort. None of it is simple. Job training programs work some places

and are terrible other places.

All these things, whether they’re schools, job training programs,

welfare-to-work programs, welfare recipients, students, employees,

each is a different circumstance than it was 5 or 10 years ago.

There has been a revolution in this country in the economy, in the

way learning can take place, in the demands placed upon all of us,

and in the technologies and in the knowledge base that’s available

to us.

And those organizations that recognize those changes, that are

putting that research and knowledge to work, that are employing

new technologies both to manage those processes and to deliver

some of those learning results are the organizations that are doing

the work right and that will be increasingly relevant.

The organizations that are sitting in the past, the way most of

this welfare bureaucratic apparatus is, are part of the drag on

change, and they’re properly criticized for what they don’t accomplish.

But I think what becomes important is to draw these things out

and to tease up the distinctions between what works. And again,

I would agree with an earlier panelist. We ought to be looking at

success. As I mentioned in my testimony, the focus of most of these

bureaucracies is on failure and on the stories of people’s continued

failures. That’s not the place to look. The place to look is very—

in a very focused way on the results people are trying to get to.

Mr. MICA. I appreciate your testimony.

Were you trying to get recognized, Mr. Rector, now?

Mr. RECTOR. Yes.

Mr. MICA. OK. If you would like to respond.

Mr. RECTOR. Yes. I think the first, most important thing is to

judge by the bottom line. Maine does not have a particularly successful record in terms of reducing dependence. If you look at those

States that do have successful records in terms of reducing dependence, they have very deliberately shifted the orientation away from

education and training and on to an immediate work requirement

either through a subsidized job in Oregon or through community

service in Wisconsin.

The reality is, for example, that training programs simply do not

succeed in doing what they purport to do, which is to raise the

hourly wage rate of the trainee by putting them in better jobs. The

Labor Department itself did a massive study on JPTA, which concluded that it effectively had no impact on the hourly wage rate.

Those people who run successful programs and really understand

the system understand one thing, that in the current context, education and training for recipients is often a mechanism for avoiding

the work obligation, OK. Everybody who’s at the ground level in

welfare knows that. You give a person, well, you can either go here

and be a Candy Striper in the hospital and clean up the hospital,

or you can go over here and sit in the classroom for 6 months. The

going and sitting in the classroom is an avenue to prolonging welfare dependence rather than getting off.

Mr. MICA. Thank you for your comments.

142

Well, I guess, if you could just really quickly summarize, Mr.

Tetro.

Mr. TETRO. Just a real quick comment because I agree again,

ironically. The State of Maine is one of those States that has left

the responsibility of welfare reform in the hands of welfare bureaucracy. We think that’s a mistake in Maine, and we think it’s

a mistake across the country, and I included that comment in my

testimony.

I agree we have to focus these programs on performance results,

and the answer is in a workplace-based strategy, not in a strategy

that takes people out of the labor market. And my final illustration

would be this: We were heavily involved early on in helping

Maine’s Workers Compensation Reform Program get underway.

And there, as here, the single most important determinant was,

when you intervened, and if you did it immediately, you had a profoundly positive effect. When they got in the system, the people

were lost in that system and stranded in that system. Work first

is a very beneficial strategy and is what all look forward to.

Mr. MICA. I appreciate your testimony.

I yield to the ranking member, Mr. Cummings.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I’m just curious about some things, Mr. Tetro.

Mr. TETRO. Yes.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Is all your training, is it on—is it on the job

training?

Mr. TETRO. I—— Mr. CUMMINGS. You disagree with Mr. Rector, and I’m trying to

see where we fit here.

Mr. TETRO. OK. Our work—in our work we run Job Corps centers, which are residential schools.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Right. I’m familiar with Job Corps.

Mr. TETRO. OK, and that’s the preponderance of our work. We

also run career advancement centers.

Mr. CUMMINGS. But isn’t that a program just like a program— I mean, Job Corps trains people, and then hopefully they go out to

work.

Mr. TETRO. Job Corps trains people and is quite successful as a

vocational-career-oriented school system in delivering those students into work, yes.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Well, I’m confused. You just said you agree with

Mr. Rector, and Mr. Rector said that, and correct me if I’m wrong,

that you need to get people to work, you don’t need the programs.

And I’m trying to—I’m confused as to you—then you agree with

them, but the very program you run is a very program, I take it,

that he thinks is a waste of time.

Mr. TETRO. And again I’d say it all really boils down to what

you’re talking about. When we’re speaking in the precise ways as

we are here, it’s confusing.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes it is.

Mr. TETRO. Work-based learning is powerful. Job Corps increasingly does it. It’s one of the reasons why as a school it’s successful

and increasingly will be successful. Combining learning with work

is a very effective strategy.

What I was agreeing to that he suggested was that getting people to work as quickly as possible, and I’m saying in delivering the

143

performance support, learning there is a more cost-efficient and effective way to do that than our alternative ways such as taking

people and putting them through long periods of school and separate them from work.

That’s not to say that school is bad or that formal learning isn’t

any good. That isn’t what I’m saying. But I’m saying that when

you’re looking at delivering in a very focused way the result of

moving welfare recipients into work, a strategy that organizes

learning and quickly moves people, that employment status is a

very powerful one and works.

Job Corps also works, as do other training programs. We, as an

organization, bring people into training programs and deliver them

out very successfully. Over 71 percent of the people that come into

our programs, all of them are placed at the end of the programs.

We do longer-term followup than the Government. We’re interested

in making sure that those people stick, their employment rates

downstream are higher, as one would want them to be and expect

them to be. Our wage recovery rates outperform the national system quite substantially.

So it’s not to say that one shouldn’t do programs. It’s to say that,

in coming at this, we can be more sophisticated than to talk in simplistic terms about either this way over here or that, and need to

really look at what the result is we’re trying to create, what the

best strategy is to create it, what resources are available to us, and

in combination make choices. And some of the times those result

in long-term programs, and other times they can be very quick

placement kind of activities.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Rector, I’m fascinated by your comments

about child care. As a father who has two kids and who runs

around and tries to get my children to school and to day care, and

they have to be at a certain place at a certain time by 6 o’clock

when I’m in Baltimore or else they charge me more, or—maybe

I’m—maybe—children—I’m just confused. I mean, do you have children?

Mr. RECTOR. Yes.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Oh, OK. I was just curious.

I am just curious. It seems to me that that could be and is a

problem when you don’t have child care.

Mr. RECTOR. The—I agree. I mean, I think your perception is exactly the common perception. In fact, it was my perception a couple

of years ago, that this was a substantial obstacle. The reality is,

though, if you go on the ground in a place like Milwaukee, it is not.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Who is keeping the kids?

Mr. RECTOR. Who?

Mr. CUMMINGS. Who is keeping the kids?

Mr. RECTOR. Grandma, the aunt, several ladies down the street

in a day care center, and they are all mixing together. And the reality is that there is a whole abundance, perhaps more so in these

intercity communities than anyplace else in the country, an abundance of people available to take care of kids.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Was there any analysis as to the quality of the

day care? Because I have a 3-year-old and I know it makes a difference if the 3-year-old is staying with some lady down the street,

144

who may have a sixth grade reading level, as opposed to being in

some kind of day care.

And you made an interesting comment, and I want to just quote

these two things up. In your statement, I don’t think you mentioned this, but you said something very interesting in your written

statement. You said studies which compared children on welfare

with children not on welfare show that it is actually welfare dependence not poverty which harms children. Being raised on welfare lowers children’s IQs, increases school failure and diminishes

a child’s future earnings as an adult. Welfare is a system of child

abuse. By radically reducing dependence, reforms will improve the

future well-being of children.

Mr. RECTOR. That’s right.

Mr. CUMMINGS. All right. So I am trying to put these two together.

Mr. RECTOR. I would say I thank you for reading that. That—

the biggest effect in terms of children’s development is the negative

image that they got from having a role model in the home, that

there is no role model of a working adult. OK? Another big advantage is not having a father in the home. Day care relative to that

is just not that big a deal.

If the goal is to have kids in some type of very, very effective

child development program or something like that, that’s a separate policy goal. OK? And maybe that’s a laudable goal. But what

we can agree on is that the other goal, of reducing dependence, OK,

is also a laudable goal and that is even more important in terms

of the child’s development.

So the first and foremost question is, in terms of reducing dependence, is there adequate day care out there? And the answer is,

it is in every community it—where I have these programs I have

seen put into effect is, yes, it is not a real problem. And most of

the researchers, particularly Dr. Larry Meade, who is the No. 1 researcher in this field, has been for 10 years, it has never been a

substantial problem.

Now, if you have a separate policy goal—so people can find day

care. They can get into the labor market. If you have a separate

policy goal of saying, well, maybe we ought to look at whether

that’s the best day care developmentally and we ought to have

more subsidies to get them into higher quality care, fine. But that’s

a different issue. It’s an additional issue.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Can we—let’s stay there for a moment. Day care

is expensive. And I know maybe, maybe—I mean, even if you are

talking about somebody who is keeping a child as a relative, I

mean, whatever.

Mr. RECTOR. Uh-huh.

Mr. CUMMINGS. And if you already have a low paying job and you

are paying, even if it is $60—I mean, let’s say $60, $70 every 2

weeks, I mean, that’s low, low.

Mr. RECTOR. Uh-huh.

Mr. CUMMINGS. But I am just saying, if you have a limited budget, I mean——

Mr. RECTOR. The day care——

Mr. CUMMINGS. Maybe I am in another world or something.

145

Mr. RECTOR. Day care in Oregon and Wisconsin is subsidized.

They provide an awful lot of subsidized day care. If you look in my

testimony, Document 5 shows the increase in subsidized day care

in Wisconsin. But the fact of the matter is that as your caseload

drops 55 percent, for heaven’s sakes, that provides the State with

just an enormous surplus of funding to use for all kinds of day care

subsidies.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Let me ask you—— Mr. RECTOR. I mean, that’s why, even as the other States have

done nothing in comparison to Wisconsin, but they are beginning

to run big surpluses in the AFDC program under the new system.

They actually are ending up with a lot more money, which can go

for day care or can go for a variety of different things. I would not

personally put it into day care. I would put it into other things, like

school reform, but the surplus funds are there that you can provide

subsidized day care.

Now, what they do do in Wisconsin is they do require a certain

copayment, a small copayment from the parent, on day care, which

makes the parent a little bit more prudent—— Mr. CUMMINGS. Sure.

Mr. RECTOR [continuing]. In how that money is spent. But they

are spending a lot of money on day care and they are perfectly willing to do that. But they are saving far, far more money by—in close

to a third of the counties in Wisconsin, the caseload has already

dropped over 80 percent.

Mr. CUMMINGS. But you are saying, then, that day care does help

in Wisconsin then?

Mr. RECTOR. It is an absolutely key part of it. But it is not that

there is a physical shortage of day care and therefore people can’t

get work. OK? There needs to be a subsidy to day care, but there

is not a physical shortage of day care that prevents mothers from

taking jobs. And in every situation where I have seen a serious

work program go in, a shortage of day care has never been a major

impediment.

You could go all the way back to a study that we did in the late

1970’s, called the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment.

It was the biggest controlled experiment on welfare in the history

of this country and the world. It did not find that a shortage of day

care was—way back in the 1970’s, didn’t find it was a major impediment to employment.

Mr. CUMMINGS. But on the other hand—well, I am not going to

belabor the point, but Wisconsin provides a substantial amount of

funds for day care.

Mr. RECTOR. Absolutely.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I mean, you have really—I mean, I think we

agree on that point, I think. But let me go to something else.

If you were—if you went to Baltimore and you made this statement about lowering IQ, and I am sure you have got the studies

to back it up, I think you would find that you would run into some

problems, because some of the greatest leaders in our city, unfortunately, when they came up, they were on—they come from welfare

families, and some of the most brilliant people in our State.

As a matter of fact, one of the—the Secretary of Children, Youth

and Families for the State of Maryland comes from a welfare famVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:02 Jul 17, 2002 Jkt 099010 PO 00000 Frm 00149 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\42530 pfrm09 PsN: 42530
146

ily, where all of her brothers and sisters are—have a Masters or

above, and the mother was home. And I am not trying to defend

welfare, because I believe welfare needs to be reformed. But the

mother was at home. You know, like the ‘‘Father Knows Best,’’ all

that kind of stuff. Apparently there was some value in a mother

being at home with those children to raise them.

I know our society has changed substantially, but I just—I am

just curious, since you are saying that poverty is welfare that

causes children to have lower IQs and do poorly in life, I am just

wondering, you know, what your reaction is to what I just said.

Mr. RECTOR. Well, clearly that doesn’t mean that everyone who

is raised in welfare is going to be a failure. Obviously, we can turn

around and in any room find that that’s not the case. On the other

hand, I have always—I have—there are people who have jumped

out of airplanes without parachutes and survived. That’s not a policy that I think we would recommend. OK?

The reality is that statistically it is not a good idea to jump out

of an airplane without a parachute and statistically it is not a good

idea to be—to have a child out of wedlock and raise that child on

welfare. OK? That all other things held constant, that’s going to be

a downer for the child. It is going to reduce the child’s probability

of success.

Does that mean that there won’t be 500,000 kids who are raised

exactly in those circumstances and go on to be brilliant successes?

Absolutely not. But on average, it is a very negative thing. It is

something that we want to avoid.

And I do believe that, in fact, a mother in the home does have

a positive effect. But you need a whole home environment. What

I think that is best for kids is a two-parent family, particularly for

young boys. That father figure in the home is very, very important,

two-parent family, lots of care and love, a model of self-sufficiency,

not a negative image of prolonged welfare dependence. That’s the

best model for children to be raised in. That’s where we are all, I

think, trying to go in welfare reform.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I don’t have anything else.

Mr. MICA. I have no further questions of the panel. I think you

have provided some interesting testimony, if not controversial. We

appreciate your taking time to be with us and contribute today.

As you see, we have a tough task in overseeing all of Federal policy relating to Federal employment, and this is one element, one

question, and one proposal that we must address. We thank you for

providing us your comments and testimony. This panel is excused.

[The information referred to follows:]

147

148

149

150

151

152

Mr. MICA. I would like to call our last panel, which consists of

one of our colleagues, Congresswoman Johnson from Texas. She

has introduced a bill, H.R. 1066, that would provide, as I understand it, a preference for those who are on welfare for Federal employment. And since her proposed legislation dealt with this subject, we thought it would be appropriate to hear her proposal today.

We welcome our colleague. As you know, you are allowed to submit additional testimony for the record, but we welcome and recognize you to summarize your proposal. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate this opportunity to speak on behalf of the Welfare

to Work initiative. Programs which create jobs for welfare recipients are vital to restoring the family’s stability and financial security. In light of recent welfare laws, such programs are more important than ever.

I think I will leave the rest of my written testimony for submission and simply make a statement.

Clearly, in order to reform welfare as we have passed, we must

offer real incentives for people to go to work. And actually, it is

sometimes just a human frailty to choose those persons who might

qualify the same as others, but to choose those persons that maybe

look a little better, dressed a bit more upscale and perhaps have

had a more consistent work history in the past.

Very, very frequently, those persons leaving welfare and going to

work are persons who have had to go in and out of the workforce

because as soon as their children get sick they have to quit in order

to get health care accessibility. And I have lots of experience with

this in the State of Texas. That is the State with the largest number of working parents without health care coverage.

So when they return to the workforce making very low wages

usually, it is very difficult for someone to look at a record and decide to hire them and give them an opportunity.

I am simply proposing that we add a 3 percent advantage for

those persons who are seeking work. It does not interfere with the

veterans preference. It does not create quotas. It is not race-based.

It is simply making a little further effort to bring persons from the

welfare to the workplace.

We cannot just pass welfare and expect that it is going to automatically and magically work. We have to take strong steps to

make it work, to make sure those opportunities are there to put

these parents to work. I have visited with them. I have worked—

I have observed over the years that most of the people that I have

talked with want to work, but because of the cost of health care,

because of the wages, most of the persons who are on welfare because of poverty and opportunities for the lowest income jobs they

cannot support a family.

This is simply an incentive that I ask to be really seriously considered, to give a little opportunity, a little extra nudge, to the employer, to offer this opportunity to the one who is leaving and attempting to go into the marketplace for work and leaving the welfare system.

153

We simply, as a country, must do this. We must make efforts to

make opportunities for those people who have not had the opportunities in the past. Incentives often have died, simply because of the

toil of trying to get into the workplace and trying to live on very

low income wages.

I think that any further plea would be redundant, but I will answer any questions and I will ask unanimous consent to submit my

written statement to the record.

Mr. MICA. Thank you. And without objection, your complete

statement will be made a part of the record.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson follows:]

154

155

156

157

158

Mr. MICA. Could I ask you, first, if you made—I am not sure

when you introduced your bill, but did you propose this before the

President’s action in directing the agencies to look at this, or afterwards?

Ms. JOHNSON. Well, I came here with this in mind this year,

after visiting around my district and around the State. So the first

year—I am not sure when I actually dropped it in, but it was certainly before the President’s.

Mr. MICA. It was before the President’s?

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes.

Mr. MICA. Well, my question, then, is, rather than to set this into

law or a requirement that—— Ms. JOHNSON. It works in conjunction now.

Mr. MICA [continuing]. The Congress must address, could you be

satisfied or are you satisfied with what the President has proposed?

And we—this is not an easy thing to implement, even his directive

to the agencies, and it is not certainly without controversy. You

missed the first couple of panels here. And it is very difficult to implement. The timing couldn’t be worse because we are in a time of

unprecedented RIFs, downsizing.

Ms. JOHNSON. It doesn’t conflict with the RIFs. It has a provision

in there that allows it not to conflict with those jobs that are at

risk and might be RIFed.

Mr. MICA. Well, they are trying to work through this. The President has directed it. It is not mandated by law. But that is not satisfactory to you. You would like to see it instituted through legislative procedures as you have recommended. And that’s your bottom

line?

Ms. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, I have been in this business 25

years. Bottom lines are determined by the numbers of people on

that committee.

Mr. MICA. That you can get votes?

Ms. JOHNSON. That’s right.

Mr. MICA. I didn’t ask you if you had the votes. But you are not

interested in basically taking the President’s proposal? You want to

pursue this further, legislatively?

Ms. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, I feel that it will work in conjunction with the President’s proposal. The reason I feel strongly about

this proposal is because I know from personal experience and from

the experience of observation, if two people come to apply, and this

job will not—there will be no obligation to hire this person unless

there is an opening, and clearly if a RIF is going on where people

have to go into other areas, those positions will not be advertised

until they are settled. And then if there is an opening, they are advertised as openings.

If two people walk into a room and one is looking very wellgroomed and very updated in their attire and seem very familiar

with the workplace, that welfare recipient who perhaps does not

have the money to look as well, to have had as consistent employment, is not going to be the one chosen unless there is some incentive for sensitivity to give that person a chance or an opportunity.

And that is why I feel very strongly.

I am interested in relieving us of welfare altogether, but we have

to have opportunities and incentives for employers and employees

159

to be cooperatively surviving together. And one of the ways we can

do this is to get the attention of the employer, and 3 points is not

very much. You know, anything that causes change is often controversial, and this is a change.

Reforming welfare was a major change and has caused a great

deal of attention, as well as frustration, questions and suspicions.

But we have a responsibility to make it work and this, I feel,

though small, can have some impact in making it work.

Mr. MICA. Well, I appreciate the intent of your proposal. The

premise, though, that in Federal employment that someone who

comes in that is dressed or looks better, to my knowledge employment, Federal employment, isn’t conducted or applicants aren’t

considered on that basis. I think it is pretty much a blind assessment of the individual, but based on the qualifications they set

forth on paper.

All things being equal, you would be giving a 3 percentage—or

3 point preference to folks. And we must preserve that equality and

standard of employment in our merit system so these folks would

be picked out.

We heard testimony earlier that we have tens of thousands of

people who have been RIFed or have been laid off and are even on

priority waiting lists to come back on and they have no preference.

Ms. JOHNSON. They are given preference in this bill because it

does not compete with those persons who are in the RIF situation.

Mr. MICA. OK. Well, but you have set up a preference for them

then. You address that problem?

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes. But the preference only begins after the

RIFed employees are taken care of. It does not compete with veterans. It does not compete with—— Mr. MICA. It may be a nonprogram then because of the backlog

that we have. That may not be the case.

Ms. JOHNSON. Sure.

Mr. MICA. Again, I just wanted to point out that difference, as

I see it. Everyone should be treated equally, blindly and fairly in

the selection process, but will receive this preference within the

guidelines which you have set forth?

Ms. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, let me say this: I have been a Federal employee in a supervisory position most of my career. I know

what happens in the workplace. I have been pretty much a supervisor or some senior level person within Federal Government the

majority of my years as an adult, starting at age 19 as I graduated

from nursing, going to work at the Veterans Administration Hospital and being a head nurse by age 21. I have seen what happens

in the Federal workplace.

I simply want to encourage opportunity for those we want to take

care of themselves. I believe strongly that people ought to be selfsufficient, but I also know from experience that they cannot be

without an opportunity. And these are the people who have the

least opportunity. They are white, they are black, they are Hispanic, all over this country. And in Texas, the majority of them are

white.

I am not attempting to add another layer of quotas for minorities, except for the fact that these are people trapped at the bottom

because of their opportunity and income limitation. I simply plead

160

for a little helping hand to be sure that we accomplish what we intend when we make welfare work, and the only way we make it

work is to provide opportunity for work.

And I thank you for consideration.

Mr. MICA. I thank you.

Ms. JOHNSON. Please don’t shut it out. Think about it a little

longer.

Mr. MICA. We have——

Ms. JOHNSON. I am depending on you.

Mr. MICA. We have opened the opportunity for you to testify and

discuss the measure. Now, I would like to yield to our ranking

member, Mr. Cummings.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I just have a few questions, Congresswoman

Johnson. I certainly understand your concern, and I admire you for

your commitment. It is a difficult problem, and I do understand

what you say when you say that you are trying to help some people

who oftentimes are passed over.

My question goes to a little bit earlier somebody said something

here that was very interesting. They said that they did not want

to create a situation where it was attractive to be on welfare and

then—so that you could accomplish some things. We see that—and

I am just wondering—do you understand the concern?

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. That reminds me of somebody saying the

only reason somebody had another baby is because they are going

to get a little bit more on welfare. I think it is the same false theory.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Well, could you elaborate?

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes. Very honestly——

Mr. CUMMINGS. I am not saying I agree with it, but I just wanted

you to address that concern.

Ms. JOHNSON. Sure. I have heard so many times that welfare recipients have more babies because they will get more money. Well,

in Texas, the most you will ever get for all of your life in Texas

is $56 a month for Aid to Dependent Children. Nobody can live on

that. That is not an incentive.

But when people are trapped at the bottom, they do lose encouragement. They lose the sense of having an opportunity. And unless

there is some kind of understanding of those persons in charge of

hiring, they are trapped. Unless there is some opportunity where

they can be consciously looked upon as someone that must be

helped to work, they are trapped out of the system.

They cannot make it independently, and that’s what we all strive

for is independence and self-supportiveness. We have got to do

something.

Mr. CUMMINGS. You know, it was very interesting. A little bit

earlier the folks who testified from the Government made a big

deal of saying that the President’s proposal is one which will treat

everybody pretty much the same across the board.

In other words, they were targeting people who were on welfare

trying to get them off of welfare, but that if somebody came in—

and I call them, say, the working poor—the working poor comes in,

and they are alongside somebody on welfare, that they would all

be treated the same.

161

And as you know, there are a lot of people who would never accept a dime of welfare, no matter what. They just wouldn’t do it.

They would dig a ditch before they would do that.

Ms. JOHNSON. My parents were that way.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes, mine were, too. So I am wondering, does

this—and I haven’t read your proposal, but does this give an advantage if over—let’s say, for example, our parents came in and

they really hit hard times, couldn’t find any other way and after

several years of working hard and doing the best they could with

what they had and then they come in at the same time someone

who has been on welfare comes in, I mean, is that—would your legislation give them an advantage over somebody like our parents?

Ms. JOHNSON. I think to a certain degree, it would. And the reason why is because initial jobs, the initial effort to get into the

workplace, from the welfare system, is what it targets. And if there

are persons who are already working, then clearly although they

might be making less at that point, it does still give the incentive

to that person leaving the welfare roll to come into the workplace.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I don’t know whether you were here a little bit

earlier—and this is my last comment—when Mrs. Norton was here,

one of the things she talked about was the significance of having

a job, of just getting a job and so that you could create some kind

of work record so that—and it sounds like you are saying pretty

much the same thing, that that is a significant thing. I guess there

is a difference between someone who has had a track record and

someone who has no track record.

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes. Because often what happens is that persons

who are working, who are in that category that you mentioned, will

have to stop working and go into the welfare system if a child gets

sick. And when they are in that situation where they have been off

or had to quit because of that, then they qualify to go to—to use

that 3 point incentive, simply because the other opportunities are

not there if you can’t buy them.

If your job is such, and most—and that’s where you don’t have

insurance is low-income workers. It is rare that poor children go

from birth to adulthood without illnesses. The risks are higher; the

living situations; the food content or even the knowledge of attempting to eat correctly, the risk of having to do a number of

things that middle and upper income people don’t even have to deal

with in getting to school, or leaks in the home, the illness is much

more likely for children in poverty. Therefore, their parents are

often in and out of the workforce because they do not have access.

Those are the ones that don’t have access to health care because

they don’t qualify for Medicaid if they are working and cannot afford—or the companies do not afford them the opportunity to buy

their own insurance. I mean, in Texas, we are working to try to get

opportunities for people to simply buy their own health insurance

coverage. Often, that opportunity is not offered from jobs.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you.

Mr. MICA. Well, I thank our colleague——

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much.

Mr. MICA [continuing]. For coming forward with her proposal. As

you know, the administration is having a tough sale with their proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:02 Jul 17, 2002 Jkt 099010 PO 00000 Frm 00165 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\42530 pfrm09 PsN: 42530
162

posal just in their directive. So I don’t want to be too encouraging,

but we do want you to have a forum to present your proposal.

Ms. JOHNSON. Sure. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let

me say that if you like it and don’t like the administration’s, don’t

hold it against me. If it works, you know, you put it together. But

put me in my category of trying to really help and do the best I

can to try to see if we can get this.

Mr. MICA. You have been around a long time.

Ms. JOHNSON. I know you don’t care much for this administration.

Mr. MICA. A lot longer than both Mr. Cummings and myself, and

you know the process and the consensus building that is required

to make any proposal a law or prevail here.

Ms. JOHNSON. Well, let me ask this: Are you saying that if the

administration endorses this, it will have a better chance?

Mr. MICA. Oh, certainly, certainly. And we asked them that question earlier.

Ms. JOHNSON. OK.

Mr. MICA. And they are noncommittal at this time.

Ms. JOHNSON. OK.

Mr. MICA. So I think it wouldn’t hurt for you to discuss your proposal with the administration.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you.

Mr. MICA. The more support from any corridor you can generate

here, the better.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. I will start by asking you and if you

lead the way, I will get the rest of it.

Mr. MICA. Well, I thank you. I will yield on that to our ranking

member who just joined us today. We will work together, and we

do appreciate your willingness to come forward. It fit in perfectly

with the subject and matter under consideration as the initial proposal by the administration. So we thank you.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you.

Mr. MICA. There being no further business to come before the

subcommittee, this meeting is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173