U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

63–456 WASHINGTON : 2000

WELFARE REFORM AND CHILD SUPPORT

ENFORCEMENT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JUNE 12, 1998

Serial No. 105–103

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

BILL ARCHER, Texas, Chairman

PHILIP M. CRANE, Illinois

BILL THOMAS, California

E. CLAY SHAW, JR., Florida

NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky

AMO HOUGHTON, New York

WALLY HERGER, California

JIM MCCRERY, Louisiana

DAVE CAMP, Michigan

JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota

JIM NUSSLE, Iowa

SAM JOHNSON, Texas

JENNIFER DUNN, Washington

MAC COLLINS, Georgia

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio

PHILIP S. ENGLISH, Pennsylvania

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada

JON CHRISTENSEN, Nebraska

WES WATKINS, Oklahoma

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona

JERRY WELLER, Illinois

KENNY HULSHOF, Missouri

CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York

FORTNEY PETE STARK, California

ROBERT T. MATSUI, California

BARBARA B. KENNELLY, Connecticut

WILLIAM J. COYNE, Pennsylvania

SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland

JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington

GERALD D. KLECZKA, Wisconsin

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia

RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts

MICHAEL R. MCNULTY, New York

WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana

JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee

XAVIER BECERRA, California

KAREN L. THURMAN, Florida

A.L. SINGLETON, Chief of Staff

JANICE MAYS, Minority Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

E. CLAY SHAW, JR., Florida, Chairman

DAVE CAMP, Michigan

JIM MCCRERY, Louisiana

MAC COLLINS, Georgia

PHILIP S. ENGLISH, Pennsylvania

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona

WES WATKINS, Oklahoma

SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan

FORTNEY PETE STARK, California

ROBERT T. MATSUI, California

WILLIAM J. COYNE, Pennsylvania

WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana

Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public hearing records

of the Committee on Ways and Means are also published in electronic form. The printed

hearing record remains the official version. Because electronic submissions are used to

prepare both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process of converting

between various electronic formats may introduce unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the current publication process and should diminish as the process

is further refined.

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Advisory of June 4, 1998, announcing the hearing ............................................... 2

WITNESSES

Arizona Department of Economic Security:

Linda J. Blessing .............................................................................................. 11

Nancy Mendoza ................................................................................................ 66

Steven J. Esposito ............................................................................................ 83

Hershberger, Winifred, Arizona State Legislature ............................................... 58

Intertribal Council of Arizona, John R. Lewis ...................................................... 19

Navajo Nation:

Hon. Tom Atcitty .............................................................................................. 26

Nona Etsitty ...................................................................................................... 75

Pascua Yaqui Tribe, Hon. Jorge Garcia ................................................................. 40

(1)

WELFARE REFORM AND CHILD SUPPORT

ENFORCEMENT

FRIDAY, JUNE 12, 1998

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES,

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in Phoenix

State Capitol, Senate Hearing Room No. 1, Phoenix, Arizona, Hon.

E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.

[The advisory announcing the hearing follows:]

2

3

4

5

Chairman SHAW. Good morning. We are delighted to be with you

this morning. Each of us has an opening statement, and I will defer

to the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Hayworth, to proceed first.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you, very

much, for giving the voices of Arizona’s experts on welfare reform,

child support enforcement, and Native American issues such a

unique and unprecedented opportunity to be heard. As this is the

very first House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee

field hearing in the State of Arizona, I am pleased our committee

has chosen to focus on issues so acutely critical to the health and

welfare of Arizonans.

Mr. Chairman, I know that both you and I are looking forward

to hearing the testimony from my fellow Arizonans who work on

a daily basis to ensure welfare benefits are appropriately delivered

and that child-support payments are collected in the most timely

fashion.

I am pleased to hear of the advances Arizona has made in these

efforts as well as the remaining problems to be confronted and the

distinctive challenges faced by Native American communities in

these efforts.

In fact, I have worked previously with a number of today’s expert

witnesses to reach their respective goals. For instance, I was

pleased to work with the Arizona Division of Child Support Enforcement to incorporate the Division’s suggested changes into legislation this subcommittee worked on that was eventually approved

by the House of Representatives.

Ms. Nancy Mendoza’s input as a member of the national committee advising on child-support enforcement was critical to the

successful drafting of federal legislation, and I know that many

families receiving child-support payments will benefit from her efforts.

In addition, I am pleased to continue working with Navajo President Thomas Atcitty in his pursuit of a Section 638 waiver to the

current welfare program. The Navajo Nation is prepared to receive

direct welfare, or TANF funding, in order to administer its own

program, and I think that the Federal Department of Health and

Human Services wrongly denied the Navajo Nation’s application

for this waiver.

The Navajo Nation, as most of us know, transcends the boundaries of four states. Operating under three separate state welfare

programs is an administrative nightmare that the Department of

Health and Human Services should be willing to remedy. As I discussed with President Atcitty just this week, I will continue to

work with this subcommittee and our colleagues in Congress to rectify this situation.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I am honored that we have here

today two bipartisan panels that include my good friend, the Honorable Tom Atcitty, President of the Navajo Nation; Dr. Linda

Blessing, a national expert in welfare reform; and the Honorable

Winifred Hershberger, Chairwoman of the Arizona State House of

Representatives Committee on Human Services, in addition to

many other qualified witnesses.

Clearly, each of the folks testifying before us today have many

important stories and statistics to share that could assist other

6

states in their pursuit of these same child-support collections and

welfare-to-work transitions. I am thankful that Arizona was chosen

to showcase its strengths here today, and I look forward to working

with local, tribal, state, and federal officials to meet current and future goals.

Once again, I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I had the opportunity to serve with you on the Ways and Means Subcommittee on

Human Resources, my fellow Arizonans and I never had the chance

to have direct representation on these issues that are, as we can

see from today’s turnout, so undeniably crucial.

Most importantly, Mr. Chairman, we have never before had the

chance to directly weigh in on matters under the jurisdiction of this

important subcommittee, and I am, personally, very grateful to you

for giving us that opportunity here today.

Chairman SHAW. Well, thank you, Mr. Hayworth. We are delighted to be here, and I, too, want to welcome all our guests and

witnesses who are testifying today. Or more appropriately, thank

you all for welcoming this subcommittee here to learn firsthand

how the 1996 welfare reform law is working. I also want to especially thank Governor Jane Hull, and the Senate President, Brenda

Burns for their help.

Could I ask? Are these microphones working? You can’t tell up

here. They are working? Thank you.

Today’s witnesses will discuss how the historic welfare reform

law passed in 1996 has helped move former welfare beneficiaries

to work. We will also hear about the tougher child-support enforcement provisions we passed to help mothers and children. And finally, we will examine specific provisions we included to renew and

improve our commitment to Native Americans.

In advance of the hearing, I asked the Congressional Research

Service to summarize the ten major provisions in the welfare law

dealing with benefits for Native Americans, along with other provisions on child care and child support.

Copies of this summary are available with the other testimony,

and I would ask unanimous consent to include this summary in the

record. These reports and testimonies are located on the table directly outside of this hearing room.

[The Congressional Research Service summary follows:]

7

8

9

10

Chairman SHAW. This report shows the great effort that went

into these provisions, and we really worked hard with the Native

American community to write a good bill. Again, Mr. Hayworth

was a leader in bringing many of these matters to our attention,

and I want to thank him for continuing to press this case before

this Subcommittee and the entire Congress. As many of you who

know, J.D. know, he is kind of hard to say no to.

We are also interested in learning about Arizona’s remarkable

turnaround in child-support collections from local legislators who

designed these programs, from administrators who are implementing them, and from Native Americans participating in and, in

some cases, administering the programs.

The early results of the Welfare Reform Law has been truly

amazing. Caseloads are down almost 40 percent nationwide, including a 45-percent drop right here in Arizona, with record numbers

of welfare recipients moving to work.

There are more funds available than ever for child care, roughly

$70 billion over the next five years. This means that with fixed,

block-grant funding, you have a situation where there are dramatically more funds for services and assistance to those who need the

most help. This is a great success story.

But we all know the story doesn’t end there. Some families, both

those still on welfare and also many who have left, need continuing

support for themselves and their children. That is why we provided

generous child-care funding, expanded Medicaid coverage for moms

and kids, and strengthened child-support collections, all to encourage work instead of welfare. And we expanded the Earned Income

Credit to reward working parents. In fact, federal spending on

Earned Income Credit now greatly outpaces spending on cash welfare, which underscores our emphasis on work.

So we seem to be headed in the right direction. And from what

we can tell, Arizona is a part of this success, if not a leader in the

success that we are seeing all across this country. Still, the reason

we reformed welfare was to help those who were trapped in the old

failed system.

Because of this, we are committed to understanding how welfare

reform is working, and we are keeping our minds open about further improvements. That is the reason for this hearing and the

many others we have held and will continue to hold in Washington

and elsewhere.

So I want to thank you, again, for welcoming us here today, and

I look toward to your testimony.

Mr. Hayworth, would you like to introduce the first panel?

Mr. HAYWORTH. I would be honored to, Mr. Chairman.

Our first panel dealing with welfare reform and Native American

issues will include Linda J. Blessing, Director of the Arizona Department of Economic Security; John Lewis, the Executive Director

of the Intertribal Council of Arizona; the Honorable Tom Atcitty,

President of the Navajo Nation, which has its capital city in Window Rock, Arizona; and the Honorable Jorge Luis Garcia, the Director of Social Services for the Pascua Yaqui Tribe from Tucson.

So if you folks would come to the front table, we would appreciate it very much. We thank you for your attendance and your

willingness to testify, and Dr. Blessing, we would start with you.

11

Although we have a five-minute rule, we are willing to—we will

not cut you off right at five minutes. We will try to handle that,

but we are very happy to have you here and look forward to your

testimony. And if you would, please, begin.

Chairman SHAW. I would like to tell all the witnesses that we do

have your full testimony. We have all but one set of testimony,

which we will be receiving in Washington. The full testimony will

be made a part of the record if you wish to summarize or proceed

as you feel most comfortable.

And I assume Mr. Lewis is not here.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Dr. Blessing, we are happy to hear from you.

STATEMENT OF LINDA J. BLESSING, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY

Ms. BLESSING. Thank you. Chairman Shaw and Congressman

Hayworth, I am Linda Blessing, Director of the Arizona Department of Economic Security. It is usually referred to by its initials,

DES. And on behalf of Governor Jane Hull, I want to extend a

warm welcome to you. Thank you for this opportunity to share

some of our experiences in implementing welfare reform, especially

those in——

Mr. HAYWORTH. Dr. Blessing, if you would just give us a second,

we are going to work out some technical bugs. Apparently, the

microphones are not working on the table here, so we will get that

done.

Now, we welcome John Lewis. Thank you, sir, for taking time to

be with us today, sir.

Okay. Apparently, I am told now, if you would just get a little

closer to the microphone or pull it up, it should work. And if you

would, resume your testimony.

Ms. BLESSING. Thank you for the opportunity to share some of

our experiences in implementing welfare reform, especially those in

partnership with Native American Tribes.

Arizona has 21 federally recognized Indian tribes. Each is unique

with a distinctive history, culture, and environment. For example,

there are the Havasupais, a people who have thrived for many

years at the base of the Grand Canyon. Anyone who hikes down

to Havasupai Falls has experienced the hospitality of this tribe.

Arizona has the Navajo Nation, a tribe of more than 200,000

members, who reside in three states on a reservation encompassing

27,000 squares miles, about the same size of West Virginia.

The Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community is yet another

Arizona tribe. Their reservation borders the Phoenix metropolitan

area.

As a result of much public input in developing Arizona’s plan for

temporary assistance for needy families’ program, we identified

three principles that were critical to the success of the tribal programs.

First, the state must always recognize the tribes’ status as a sovereign nation. Second, the state must provide matching funds required for operation of tribal TANF programs. Third, the tribes

should, if they desire, have access to technical assistance from DES

to design and implement their programs.

12

In 1997, the Executive and Legislative Branches passed legislation, allocating state funds to any tribe with an approved TANF

plan.

Our partnering efforts have resulted in two approved tribal

TANF plans: The Pascua Yaqui Tribe in November 1997 and the

White Mountain Apache in April of 1998. Two other tribes, the

Navajo Nation and the Salt River Pina Maricopa Indian Community, have submitted plans and currently await federal approval.

All of these tribes have designed unique programs tailored to the

specific needs of their members. Those tribes, with operational programs, have contracted back with the Department of Economic Security to conduct eligibility determinations and to help provide the

data needed for federal reporting requirements. That brings me to

the first barrier I wanted to discuss and that tribes face in trying

to operate their TANF programs.

PRWORA limits funding to 1994 levels and authorizes no extra

funding for program start-up costs. Like states, tribes need sophisticated, automated systems to comply with PRWORA’s extensive

data reporting requirements. In order for tribes to start their own

TANF programs, they must have additional funding to cover the

development of social services infrastructure, planning, and automated systems.

In addition, tribal members often face greater barriers to self-sufficiency. Many tribes are located in remote geographic areas of the

state, far removed from urban population centers with well-developed economies. There is a severe lack of economic opportunity on

many reservations.

Transportation, child care, lack of job opportunities, these are

common obstacles faced by all welfare recipients toward achieving

self-sufficiency, but they are greatly amplified for tribal members

living on reservations.

Some tribal members live far removed from paved roads. They

have neither telephones nor electricity. They receive their mail at

a chapter location which is like a community center. And in winter,

the dirt roads on which they must travel become impassable due

to snow and rain. There is no public transportation. Finding a job,

reaching an employment site, and arranging child care may be

overwhelming barriers.

We must work together to overcome these barriers and ensure

that tribal members have equal opportunity to self-sufficiency in a

way that respects the tribal status as sovereign nations and respects and preserves cultural diversity.

I would like to give you a few recommendations. First, tribes

need some incentives and opportunities currently available only to

states. Tribes must have the option to carry over TANF funds to

the next fiscal year. They could use these funds to meet some of

the needs I described earlier or to set aside in a rainy-day fund.

Tribes should also have the right to compete for federal-incentive

dollars, such as funding available to states that reduce their percentage of out-of-wedlock births.

Next, as I mentioned earlier, state-matching funds are essential

to the tribes to operate their own TANF programs. Federal authorities should assist tribal efforts by allowing states to use the dollars—count the dollars used for tribal matching funds towards

13

state maintenance of effort requirements. Some recent proposed

federal regulations would prohibit states from doing this.

We understand that there have been some discussions about reducing the TANF block grant and other federal funds. I urge you

to maintain funding at current levels so states can continue to

meet the needs of our vulnerable populations.

Third, the tribes that elect to operate their own TANF programs

need federal funds for start-up costs.

Thank you for the opportunity to address the subcommittee.

[The prepared statement follows:]

14

15

16

17

18

19

Mr. HAYWORTH. Thank you, very much, Dr. Blessing, and right

there on time, the bell rings. While you would never know the

preparation involved, Dr. Blessing just has a great sense of timing,

as does our good friend who has joined us now to testify, the Executive Director or the Intertribal Council of Arizona, John Lewis.

And John, before you begin the testimony, I see my former colleague from broadcasting will move the microphone down so that

he can record your words for his radio audience, and we appreciate

all of that help and what has become a very collegial effort among

members of the fourth estate and those of us involved in government.

And with that, John, thank you for joining us, and we would be

pleased to hear your testimony, sir.

STATEMENT OF JOHN R. LEWIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

INTERTRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZONA

Mr. LEWIS. Good morning. My name is John Lewis, and I am the

Executive Director of the Intertribal Council of Arizona, an organization of nineteen tribal governments. We appreciate the opportunity to respond to the subcommittee’s question whether the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, TANF, and Child-Support

Enforcement Programs are providing the help they should to American Indians.

With TANF, the tribal governments are just beginning to evaluate the potential impacts of the new policies on their membership.

With regard to child-support enforcement, there continues to remain major impediments to collections for Indian families due to

lack of resources for tribes to enforce child-support orders.

The State of Arizona receives federal funding to conduct childsupport enforcement activities. The tribes do not. Only recently has

the Navajo Nation entered into an intergovernmental agreement

with the state to enforce child support. There needs to be direct

funding to the tribes to develop their codes and their enforcement

systems.

The major welfare reform issue is lack of employment opportunities on Indian reservations. Indian families in Arizona experience

extreme poverty, and there are few jobs. While the Indian population comprises 5.6 percent of the population in Arizona, approximately fifteen percent of the recipients of TANF, or 20,000 individuals, are Indian people who reside on the 21 Indian reservations

in the state.

Of this population, an estimate of 13,221 individual recipients

are children, and an estimate of 6,778 are adults, according to a

September 1997 report from the Department of Economic Security.

While the state of Arizona, particularly Maricopa County, has experienced economic growth and labor-market expansion to support

some of the concepts of welfare reform, such as JOBS training,

work participation, and time-limited benefits, Indian reservations

continue to be economically depressed.

Nine of the reservations in Arizona have jobless rates of more

than 50 percent, resulting in those populations being exempt from

time limits on their benefits as provided for in the Balanced Budget

Act of 1997, P.L. 105–33.

20

Few resources exist for economic development initiatives in many

reservation communities. While gaming enterprises have improved

economic conditions and provided jobs in some communities, the

level of resources varies from tribe to tribe.

There is a great need for infrastructure development: roads, telephones, water systems, and skilled labor force in order to attract

and retain private industry; and this is not easily accomplished in

rural, often isolated, reservation communities.

These kinds of resources have simply not been available in the

past; and for some reservations, continue not to be available. For

those tribes with incomes from gaming, it will take time to build

infrastructures due to the many years of neglect.

The successful creation of sustainable jobs is also reliant on

many other factors. These include personal supports such as reliable child care, transportation, education, skills development, and

livable wage.

The State Legislature and Department of Economic Security are

commended for their special attention to address the public assistance needs of the tribal TANF population in Arizona, for providing

matching funds to those tribes which opt to administer their programs, and for exempting individual recipients from loss of benefits

in geographical areas where extreme economic hardship exists.

In general, the tribes support the findings of the Rural/Native

American and Safety Net Issues Working Group established by the

Welfare Reform Joint Committee and Task Force of the 43rd State

of Arizona Legislature.

I think that part of the success of the tribes in Arizona and the

state in responding to welfare reform legislation has been a longstanding working relationship and the recognition of the intergovernmental nature, of the importance of that, and the sovereignty

of the tribal governments. And we have gone through, over the

years, a unique way of working together and one that I don’t think

is duplicated in any other state.

Because of the recognition of the tribal sovereignty, because of

the government relationship with tribal governments, we are—we

have built and institutionalized within the Department of Economic Security a very good working relationship, that when something like welfare reform is initiated, we are able to coordinate our

efforts to work together and share information and, I think, learn

from the capacities of the responsive entities to address these

issues. So I think that is the key to what has happened in Arizona.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement follows:]

21

22

23

24

25

26

Mr. HAYWORTH. John, thank you, very much, for your testimony.

We appreciate it.

And we should note that after we hear from all of the panelists,

then we will have time for questions.

I guess it is time to move the radio mike on down so that we can

hear from our friend, the President of the sovereign Navajo Nation,

who joins us from Window Rock and points beyond, our good

friend, the Honorable Tom Atcitty. Mr. President, thank you for

coming.

Mr. ATCITTY. Yateeh.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Yateeh.

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM ATCITTY, PRESIDENT, NAVAJO

NATION, WINDOW ROCK, ARIZONA

Mr. ATCITTY. The Honorable Chair Shaw and Congressman J.D.

Hayworth, it is good to see you again. I was just visiting with you

the other day in your office. Seems like everywhere I go, I run into

you. I guess that indicates that you are working—hard-working

Congressman. Somebody had told us in the hallway of your building over there in Washington, J.D. works at night, and sometimes

they wonder if he even sleeps.

We appreciate the opportunity and also the willingness to show

a little latitude and not necessarily limiting us to the five minutes,

although you did come out all the way to Arizona, which is somewhat unusual. We are usually asked to come to Washington, and

we are required to stay within five minutes, and we are shut up

and have to leave. But anyway, I appreciate your being here in the

Southwest in the warm Arizona.

We are talking about impacts of welfare reform in the Navajo

Nation. In October of 1997, the Navajo Nation submitted an application for TANF program under Public Law 93-638; and the following month, on November ’97, we got a letter from Donna

Shalala denying our request. There are a number of reasons that

we felt that we needed to submit a special request of this type.

Presently, we find ourselves in three different regions. Our reservation, as was stated, borders into three different regions: Dallas,

Denver, and San Francisco, so we find ourselves in an unwieldy situation to have to deal with those different regional offices, so coming with one application under the Navajo Nation would keep us

working with one region. Presently, we find ourselves having a

good relationship with the San Francisco regional office, so that—

just for your information, that is what we have experienced in the

past.

After the denial of our request of our application, we appealed to

the Interior Board of Indian Appeals for a hearing, and that appeal

was denied. And the next bout was that we submitted an appeal

further to the Arizona District Court, and that is where it presently

is. And the Department of Human Services has made a motion to

dismiss our requests, and that is still under litigation, presently.

We feel that we need to be given a fair opportunity to—our argument and our concerns need to be addressed, as we push for a fair

hearing and consideration as to how we feel that this program

could be administered, through a Public Law that is—has been

made available to Native Americans through 93–638.

27

There are some advantages that we have experienced under 638,

and we—and we have had many experiences with that—contracting under that Public Law. And we would—for those reasons,

we would like to continue to see how we can still work under that

arrangement.

Presently, we understand that the Indian input on the rules and

regulations for the TANF—tribal TANF program is still under review; and as yet, Native Americans have not been requested to participate in the rule-making dialogue. So we believe that if we are

going to be a participant and a—participant in the federal program,

that we should have a voice in how those rules and regulations are

developed.

We also noticed that there is also a lack of coordination when we

talk about the implementation of the TANF programming, that the

various entities are working separately. The Human Services Department is not necessarily communicating with the Department of

Labor, which comes down into the Navajo Nation; our education

and training element of our Navajo program comes out of the Department of Labor are not necessarily—they feel that they are not

necessarily a part of—a contributing part of—should be a contributing the TANF program; same way with the Department of Transportation, the ISTEA Program.

And if we are going to have an effective job development, there

has to be a coordination and communications across the board with

all departments that are providing the assistance and programs to

Native Americans. There needs to be a cooperation and communication across the board with the various federal programs.

So it has been also said that we need to also seek ways in which

that financial support for planning and implementation phase and

the tribal TANF program from the federal government be a part

of the consideration as well. There is also a provision in—with the

states under the Section 412 that the states get a bonus consideration for complying with the provisions of the TANF program.

However, this program does not—seems to exclude the tribes,

and we feel that if there is going to be some incentive provided for

the states, those same kind of incentives ought to also be provided

to the tribes that are participating in this kind of programs. So finally, we would like to recommended that we—that the United

States government, that we must continue to work and contract directly with Indian tribes.

And presently, in our situation on the Navajo, to deal with three

different states located in three different regions is certainly creating an unwieldy situation, and we need to look at it from the government—the government relationship with Washington.

A federal partnership certainly would be one that would lend to

a better coordination, a better implementation of the program. So

in order that we all provide that needed assistance and the programs to those people that we are trying to bring from welfare to

work, there has to be a total cooperation, a total communication so

that we do achieve.

We, on the Navajo, want to put the Navajos to work, and we also

need to develop those jobs. We have a big land base, and economic

development is most lacking, and we have to—we are assuming

that that is one of our responsibilities, and we hope that with the

28

various federal departments that we can work together in initiating

some economic-development opportunities, which certainly equates

to employment. So we simply are suggesting and asking that we

continue to solicit your support.

And I appreciate our Congressman, here, suggesting that our requests for ’638 application was certainly not all that out of order,

and we hope that you will continue to hold that position, and I

think we can work on an agreement that certainly would be beneficial to the population that we are all aiming to assist.

With that, I appreciate your kind attention, and we look forward

to continuing to working together. Thank you, very much.

[The prepared statement follows:]

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. President, we thank you for your testimony

and look forward to exploring some of those special challenges a bit

further in just a moment.

Now, as the microphones are moved down, we will hear testimony from our final witness as part of this panel, our friend out

of Tucson, who is the Director of Social Services for the Pascua

Yaqui Tribe, the Honorable Jorge Luis Garcia.

Mr. Garcia, thank you for joining us.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JORGE GARCIA, DIRECTOR OF

SOCIAL SERVICES, PASCUA YAQUI TRIBE, TUCSON, ARIZONA

Mr. GARCIA. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, bienvenidos to Arizona—

welcome to Arizona. Mr. Hayworth, welcome back.

The Social Services Department with the tribe is the tribal agency assigned to administer the Pascua Yaqui TANF plan. Ms. Irma

Valencia, the department’s associate director, and myself have been

involved in the planning, implementation, and administration of

the tribal TANF plan since its beginning.

My thanks to Representative Mark Anderson, Representative

Freddy Hershberger, Representative John Loredo, Senator Tom

Paterson, Senator Joe Eddie Lopez, and their colleagues for having

the vision and the legislative fortitude to assure that tribes have

access to state-matching funds to implement TANF on Indian land.

My thanks to the Governor Symington for having signed the legislation.

If matching funds were not available to tribes, I would not be

here. In spite of all the potential negative consequences, I would

find it very difficult to recommend to the tribal chairman and the

council that they should pick up the $350,000 maintenance-of-effort

tab to have a tribal TANF plan, especially when it has never been

an expense to the tribe before.

I thank Dr. Escalante—Fernando Escalante, tribal vice-chairman, for nudging me to explore the possibilities and practicalities

of implementing a tribal TANF. It was his insistence that pulled

me out of the welfare-reform shock.

I also want to thank Dr. Blessing and her staff for entering into

an intergovernmental agreement, which has become a partnership.

I refer to it as a partnership because as partners, we problem-solve

differences rather than ignoring them.

Dr. Blessing, it is a breath of fresh air dealing with your staff.

I only pray that your leadership in state-tribal relationships rubs

off on other state agency directors.

The Pascua Yaqui TANF began on November 1, 1997, and I am

here to report to you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hayworth, that there is

success, and more importantly, that there is an unprecedented optimism for moving families from welfare to employment.

At Pascua, we have melded the funds from JOBS and Welfare to

Work with support from JTPA into a concerted effort in getting

people employed. In the past seven months, fourteen persons have

entered jobs, most of them at Casino of the Sun.

On April 6th, three persons entered certified nursing assistants’

training at Pima Community College and are expected to sit for

their exam in July. On April 14th, eight persons entered a two-year

computer tech training course that the Department put together

41

and combines work experience with community college course

work.

In getting people from welfare to work, our objective is to prepare the head of household for employment into the twenty-first

century. Our next task is to develop a linkage with the optics industry.

But not all is rosey. We can pass ourselves off as successful at

this point only because we are creaming. The challenge for us is

to instill motivation and desire in that TANF subset, which is in

danger of being sanctioned for noncompliance.

Over two years ago, the Wall Street Journal reported on Marriott’s pioneering efforts in moving people from public assistance

into employment. The conclusion, as I recall it, is a very difficult,

trying, and time-consuming effort and well worth it, and such is

welfare reform. It is trying, difficult, but it is a well-worth-it process.

As a social worker who responds to his veteran social workers,

we cannot forget that TANF subset which has completely dropped

out instead of dealing with another caseworker who tells me that

I have to get my act together.

At Pascua, we have the services to help the adult who wants

help, provided that she still has Medicaid. The subset that has

dropped out has probably lost all Medicaid coverage, and it is our

obligation to be there if and when she wants to begin the most difficult journey of her life.

On the administrative side, tribal TANFs are at a distinct disadvantage. I am cheering my Navajo brothers’ fight to ’638, the

TANF program, because that will, indeed, bring sorely needed administrative dollars for tribal TANF.

On an annual basis, Pascua will receive approximately one point

four million dollars from both the state and the feds for its TANF.

One point three million will go to cash assistance, and the balance

is budgeted for reimbursement to the state for eligibility determination, which means there is no money to hire a staff person to

administer the tribe’s entire welfare-to-work effort. So it becomes

an added burden and sometimes a neglected burden of myself and

soon to be transferred to the associate director.

I recognize that the federal rules will allow tribes to charge a

larger administrative cost, currently set at eight percent and proposed to be at twenty percent. But the fallacy here is that the increase must come from the existing funds, which means that the

administrative increase must come from the available cash assistance. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is not a realistic option.

My recommendation is to award additional dollars to tribes to

the administration of TANF plan. I suggest twelve percent.

Secondly, currently, states have the TANF block-grant funds

available to them until they are expended. Tribes only have the

funds available two years, and unexpended funds revert to the

Treasury.

If the premise is that the money be available to states for the anticipated bad economic times, then it should follow that the money

should be available to the tribes when the tribe encounters a downturn in its economic times. Fair is fair, and this is downright unVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:13 May 25, 2000 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\63456 pfrm06 PsN: 63456
42

fair, particularly when tribes are subjected to the same performance requirements as states are.

Recommendation: Change the law to permit tribes to have TANF

block-grant funds available until expended.

Pascua needs more money in its child-care block grant. We currently have forty families on the waiting list for child-care assistance. Tribes are not and will not be as fortunate as the states are

in having unexpended TANF block-grant dollars that can be used

for expanding the availability of child care.

My recommendation is to increase the child-care block-grant

award to tribes who need it and can use it.

Thanks to the state legislators, the tribe will receive approximately $12,000 to use as transportation assistance, something that

we have not even skimmed the surface of.

Pascua’s decision to subcontract with the state for eligibility determination and benefit issuance was a matter of economics and

good practice. Currently, an individual using the same application

form can apply for TANF, medical assistance, and food stamps in

one location with the state agency. Economies of scale do indeed

work.

My thanks to Representative Anderson for planting the seeds in

law that permit the state, with appropriate federal waivers, to subcontract the medical assistance and food stamps eligibility functions with tribes with an approved TANF plan.

I will be calling on Mr. Hayworth’s office to encourage the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Agriculture to approve Arizona’s request for the waivers.

Another welfare-related program that the Pascua Yaqui Tribe

has a burning interest in accessing is Title IV–E foster-care dollars.

The fact that IV–E dollars are directly related to the receipt of

TANF assistance makes it a natural progression of services to the

tribe to directly assume from the federal government.

Recommend to make Title IV–E dollars directly available to

tribes with an approved TANF plan; also recommend the improvement of IDAs. Individual Development Accounts can assist a family’s transition from dependence to total sufficiency.

My congratulations to those thrifty families who manage to make

contribution to an IDA. And for many of those who make the sacrifice but may not be able to achieve ownership, the family should

be allowed to move into better housing. And that is why I am recommending that the first and last months’ rent should be an eligible IDA expenditure.

In closing, I wish to thank you for giving me the opportunity to

share the tribe’s infant but mature TANF experience, and I look

forward to working with you and your staff to implement the above

recommendations.

[The prepared statement follows:]

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

Mr. HAYWORTH. Thank you for your testimony. And Mr. Garcia,

why don’t we just start, since the microphones are there and you

are right there and you really help set the pace for what has transpired here in the state of Arizona.

Let me ask about the big picture. If you had to prioritize what

is working best in your mind right now, even taking into account

the challenges that you have outlined here, what has been the central feature that has led to initial success for your tribe?

Mr. GARCIA. I think a realization that there is an ending time

on public assistance that motivates the individual head of household and also puts a challenge to the social worker to make sure

that that person is not left hanging in the end of five years.

Mr. HAYWORTH. So the deadline really—or the limitation really

has prompted—served as a catalyst to move people from welfare to

working.

Mr. GARCIA. In my mind, it has.

Mr. HAYWORTH. You did mention something that I think for all

of us is a bit disconcerting because, even with these deadlines, you

mentioned dropouts, those who choose to drop out of the system,

are unaccounted for.

Do you have any numbers of people? Is there an empirical study

to show how many people are just washing their hands, not trying

to make the transition from welfare to work?

Mr. GARCIA. Mr. Shaw, Mr. Hayworth, in our limited experience

in the past seven months, we have documented ten families who

have, basically, dropped out.

Mr. HAYWORTH. With those ten families, follow-up contact has

been made. Has there been any reason that they give for choosing

not to participate?

Mr. GARCIA. Mr. Chair, Mr. Hayworth, there has been no formal

contact because there has been no provisions to do that. The contact that is made has come through other case workers who work

with the Department, whether they be Child Protective Services or

our treatment personnel; and their data is basically that the family

is not willing to try.

And I can tell you that the unwillingness has to be—is due more

to a historical, in their life, okay, the consequences of living in poverty.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Conversely, you mentioned folks reaching out for

training, finding economic opportunities empirically. I think you

had some numbers there for us, the numbers of folks who are moving into work programs. Could you repeat those for me, because I

heard those earlier in your testimony? I think they bear some amplification.

Mr. GARCIA. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hayworth, yes, that is correct.

There were ten people—I mean, fourteen persons who have entered

jobs. They have become employed primarily at the casino, three

folks who have entered the certified nursing training program at

Pima Community College, and persons who are in a two-year computer tech program.

In looking back, what we have is, if you look in the two groups,

the two subsets, you have a subset who is primarily younger, perhaps a little bit more easily to be motivated. Whereas the group

who has dropped out is primarily older, and it is much more difVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:13 May 25, 2000 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\63456 pfrm06 PsN: 63456
51

ficult to target this, to get this head of household to look beyond,

you know, today, you know.

Where it is much easier to go out and say to the younger adult,

say, look, you need to look at this, you know. No longer—you know,

you are not going to have it like so-and-so, you know. Five years

down the road you are going to be off, and our job is to get you

there and make sure that you have a job that is going to give you

a decent living, and we are going to make sure that the IDA that

you are going to start is going to be able to get you into home ownership.

Mr. HAYWORTH. You also mentioned, and as we heard from the

other panelists, one of the challenges, certainly there is a myth of

the monolith, I would call it, that surrounds the perception of Native Americans. Tribes confront different circumstances. Those in

an urban setting, perhaps, can face different challenges from the

sovereign Navajo Nation, given its size and rural setting, if you

will.

But you mentioned something else about Tucson that I am interested in and that is the growth of optical programs there, and that

will be your next area of emphasis, based on what is emerging as

a solid foundation of the economy in the Tucson area.

Mr. GARCIA. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hayworth, that is correct. We

see that as—I personally see that as a good career, where we can

train folks into entry positions; and then it is only up to their individual efforts to—whether to excel in them or to just founder in

them.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Thank you, sir.

If I could, let me have the microphones moved down to my good

friend, the President of the Navajo Nation, Mr. Atcitty.

Mr. President, I think it bears some amplification. You brought

it forth in the testimony, and I am not sure how many people are

aware. The tribal boundaries, the reservation boundaries transcend

the borders of four states.

And when it comes to temporary assistance for needy families,

you have to work with three regional offices, given the geographic

placement of the sovereign Navajo Nation. So you are working with

Denver, Dallas, and San Francisco.

Mr. ATCITTY. That is right. Utah is in the Denver region, Arizona

is in the San Francisco region, and New Mexico is in the Dallas

region.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Well, just given those logistics, it makes it

very—it is almost like having your shoelaces tied right there at the

starting line, in terms of travel budgets and how to coordinate

and——

Mr. ATCITTY. And the other concern that we have, also, is that

the law has a five-year sunset. And Arizona and Utah began a

lot—two years earlier than New Mexico. So—and in fact, they all

start—entered the program at different times, so they will be terminating.

Arizona and Utah are for, I believe, two or three years; and New

Mexico, I think, was going two years, but then the Legislature intervened and is going for five years, as I understand it.

Mr. HAYWORTH. So just as the state borders, it almost offers a—

I hate to use this term; I don’t mean to be—almost a crazy quilt.

52

You have got different limitations, different requirements to meet,

based on working with the respective states, which you find—in

which you find parts of your reservation.

Mr. ATCITTY. That is right. The effective dates and the terminating dates are all different.

Chairman SHAW. Would the gentleman—do you mind if I——

Mr. HAYWORTH. Gladly.

Chairman SHAW. While we are trying to simplify things, that

sounds like it is a complication that was unforeseen.

What would prevent HHS from designating one regional office to

cross the border of various states where you have one entity, such

as one Indian Nation to administer? I mean this is a

nightmare——

Mr. ATCITTY. Mr. Chairman——

Chairman SHAW [continuing]. Of the bureaucracy.

Mr. ATCITTY. Yeah. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hayworth, we have

had—participated in various programs across the country that are

also represented by three different regions. And because of that realization, we went straight to Washington to get straight funding,

rather than through an agreement with the states and so forth or

working through the region.

But in some cases, though, where regional office contact was

deemed necessary or important, that we went ahead and worked

with one region. And I think in most cases, we worked with the

San Francisco regional office.

Chairman SHAW. Now, that is in other programs. With the TANF

program, you haven’t had that result though; is that correct?

Mr. ATCITTY. Like the OEO, back in the OEO days——

Chairman SHAW. Yeah.

Mr. ATCITTY [continuing]. We had direct funding. We had what

we call ONEO, which got direct funding to the Navajo, and—but

we worked with the San Francisco regional office in that instance.

Chairman SHAW. But TANF, you are having to work with three

offices.

Mr. ATCITTY. With the TANF, there is no provision. I think those

could be written out if we are included in the rules and—negotiated

rule making—a participant in that exercise.

Chairman SHAW. That is something I want to get into, too, because to me, that is unconscionable, that you are not included.

Congressman Hayworth and I sat down with governors all across

this country and made them part of the project of drawing up welfare reform, which I think has been the most successful piece of

legislation written this century by the United States Congress.

For instance, for the first time, we are trying to simplify things,

and we are trying to make things work. And I think the fact that

you are not included in the rule making simply is going in the

wrong direction. Because in drafting the legislation, we included

the governors, Democrats and Republicans, all across this country,

and we got great cooperation. And as a result, we got a great program that is really working.

Now, I think in the instance of working with Native Americans

that are part of—very much a part of this TANF program and coming up with the rules and regulations within that, I think it is very

important that HHS include you in that process.

53

And I am sure J.D. will want to start that, at least let them

know what the feeling in Congress is about that, and I certainly

will join in his effort in doing that.

Mr. ATCITTY. I will be making a separate plea, also, to HHS for

inclusion in the rule-making process so that our peculiar situation

certainly ought to be aired in those committees, and accommodations ought to be provided.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Just to echo the Chairman’s point—and this is

something we have seen and perhaps, Mr. Chairman, it will call—

it could call for oversight hearings from our subcommittee—we

have noticed in a variety of different areas, for example, our friends

from the Intertribal Council and from these two sovereign Indian

Nations will note, that in the 104th Congress, we were active in

housing in addition to welfare reform, the Hayworth/Lazio Indian

Housing Act.

And sadly, what happens is that when we try to redesign to put

power in the hands where it belongs, in the hands of tribal leaders

and the respective tribally appointed entities or elected entities, a

funny thing happens on the way to self-determination.

It seems that Washington forces its way in, in terms of the bureaucracy, to say, well, let us write these. Let us take care of these.

And you agree with us, don’t you?

And it is almost, dare I say—and I am not here to hurl partisan

brick bats, but almost a type of paternalism seems to envelope a

number of solutions that Washington tries. And I dare say, sadly,

with HHS, again, we are seeing this in the waiver that the tribe

wants, and I believe deserves, and we will continue to work in that

regard, Mr. President, to get that done.

In a broader sense, we take a look at the Navajo Nation, indeed

other tribes, and here is a report from the Congressional Research

Service talking about federal programs of assistance to Native

Americans.

If you go through this, by my count, there are about 250 programs stretching across more than twenty-five federal agencies, all

designed to try and help Native Americans with housing, food,

health care, a variety of other needs. This in fact, is probably a partial list.

And Mr. President, during your testimony, you were talking

about that lack of federal cooperation and communication, not only

among departments but certainly, as we have seen once again, with

the sovereign tribal governments.

Mr. President, I believe your testimony this morning very eloquently compels us to work with you and other tribal leaders and,

of course, with the good input we have from the intertribal council

here in Arizona, to try and find a better way to coordinate, whether

it is total block granting or some system that works, to make sure

that those of you charged and tasked constitutionally by your sovereign governments with dealing with these challenges have an effective way to deal with these problems. What are your thoughts

on that?

Mr. ATCITTY. That certainly would be something that we would

appreciate. The less strings attached and the less restrictive regulations and the opportunity for us to address the real needs and

concerns in the way we see and the way we understand the peoVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:13 May 25, 2000 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\63456 pfrm06 PsN: 63456
54

ple’s needs, I think, would be a lot more beneficial to the people,

rather than somebody telling us, you know, this is the way you

need to administer it, whether it is appropriate or not.

And I think that we need—not every situation is the same. Not

every tribe is the same, just like not every city or state is the same.

I think that is—we need to approach it in our own unique, distinctive, individual tribal manner.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I think that is well said, Mr. President.

Mr. Chairman, do you have any questions for Mr. Atcitty?

Chairman SHAW. No, but I would like to go back to Dr. Blessing,

if I could, for a moment.

In the recommendations that you have made to the legislation,

you were talking about start-up costs, and we have heard this from

the other witnesses too. What would you estimate that to be?

Ms. BLESSING. Mr. Chairman, it is difficult to estimate, because

each tribal government is able to design their program to their own

specifications, so it is really hard to project. But certainly, significant automation systems that we have developed statewide cost

many millions, sometimes ten to twenty million, to serve the statewide population for a sophisticated automation system like our

child-support enforcement system or our child-welfare system.

So depending on the complexity of the policies that the tribal

government proposed, I think it could be substantial amounts of

money.

Chairman SHAW. I think in your testimony you talked about how

many of the tribes are doing their own TANF program. What was

it? Twenty of them statewide?

Ms. BLESSING. Mr. Chairman, running their own program, so far,

there are two tribes in Arizona that have received federal approval

to do that. Two more tribes are pending approval, but we do have

twenty-one tribes within the state.

Chairman SHAW. And would you anticipate that all twenty-one

would want to pursue that course?

Ms. BLESSING. Not necessarily, Mr. Chairman. We have one tribe

that is in very good shape financially for its tribal members because of Indian gaming, for example, they have essentially no

members on public assistance. So—and some of the tribes are better situated with economic development; some are not.

But I would point out that of the twenty-one tribes in Arizona,

nine of them were exempted from some federal time limits as a result of over fifty percent unemployment.

Chairman SHAW. Yeah.

Ms. BLESSING. So by far, we have more tribes that have challenges than not. I think many of them will pursue their separate

plans, and we are eager to work with them as a department.

Chairman SHAW. Is there any practical way they could use some

of the state resources to get those programs started up?

Ms. BLESSING. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SHAW. Something that you indicated in your testimony

is not going to happen if all twenty-one decided they wanted to go

it alone. Then you would have twenty-one programs, twenty-one

start-up costs. And all of a sudden, you see that—and then you

start spreading that nationwide, and you say, whoa, wait a minute.

We are out of funds here.

55

Ms. BLESSING. Yes, Chairman Shaw. There is one mitigating factor. Already the two tribes that are operational in Arizona have

opted to contract with the Department to determine eligibility and

handle some of the federal data reporting. So that substantially reduces the automation needs.

But there still are other start-up issues: planning, staff, people

who could design the policies; some other infrastructure issues: office space, perhaps. So it can be mitigated to the extent tribes

choose to work with existing state systems.

Chairman SHAW. Mr. Lewis, would you like to comment on the

start-up cost and what is involved? And then, also, I want to get

to talk to you a minute about the road problem that you mentioned

in your testimony.

Mr. LEWIS. Okay. Well, with the start-up costs, I think that area

is something that is very, very critical and for tribes to really consider.

I think, first of all, the big hurdle was the matching. And even

with that, the state provides eighty percent of the 1994 level. And

I think it would be really important if the policy could be made to

extend that to a hundred percent. Again, that would help in the

start-up costs.

The other is that the state match for the tribes that has been

provided should be credited to the state, which it is not, and that

enables the state to continue to provide additional support to tribal

governments and other communities in the state.

So I think those two resources are there, and I think there is—

you know, that is an oversight in terms of the legislation. Those

things could be remedied, and those could be a good base for starting and looking at where do we get those costs. But as has been

mentioned, the tribes are relatively small and have relatively low

numbers in terms of TANF recipients, and so they would not be

seen as taking on that responsibility.

But if some of these other—the needs are there; and what TANF

has done is to allow tribes to have that option and to be able to

design what could best work for them in a way that best works for

them, and that is a very important principle, and to allow some of

their own tribal members to design and work with them. That is

important, and that could be extended in terms of some of the

tribes to do intertribal efforts in terms of—like you had mentioned.

And I think that is a possibility.

But some of the basic start-up costs and where it comes from

needs to be answered. Some of the remedies are here, and I think

that is where we can begin.

Chairman SHAW. Under welfare reform, and it seems that what

I am hearing is that you are talking about one of the biggest advantages of being able to have your own program and setting up

your own program is because you can design it to best fit the needs

of the people it is going to serve.

Under the Welfare Reform Bill, we gave the states flexibility of

designing different programs within their own state. There is nothing that would say that one shoe fits all, that all across the state

of Arizona, all the programs have to be the same.

You can set them up regionally, or I would think, under the legislation, that if a tribe wants to design a program within their tribe

56

with the cooperation of the state, they could stipulate—operate

under the, say, TANF program and have their own design.

We tried as hard as we could, and I think that is part of the success of this legislation, we got away from what we call the Beltway

mentality, and that is why we are out here, by the way, to get

away from the Beltway mentality and let Mr. Atcitty proceed

longer in his testimony than he could have in Washington.

But it is important that we know what is out here, that we know

the true feelings, and that we come out and collect this information. I think this has all been tremendously helpful.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I just have one question for my friend John

Lewis from the Intertribal Council representing nineteen tribes.

We have heard about economic development, job development,

Pascua Yaqui. We know about the special challenges confronted by

the Navajo Nation.

And while we are in that neighborhood, we tip our hat, rhetorically, to our friend Congressman Bill Redmond of New Mexico, who

has worked very hard on a variety of projects economically with the

Navajo Nation, I think, in particular, the processing plant for the

potato farm, working very hard there, that President Atcitty has

worked very hard with Congressman Redmond and others on.

But I am interested in the big picture as we shatter that myth

of the monolith and know that there are different tribes with different circumstances. John, I think perhaps you are in a better position to give us the big picture.

In terms of the job development side of the welfare-to-work equation for the different tribes represented and participating in the

Intertribal Council, where do you think we need to head with that?

Or how do you see economic and job development proceeding with

the nineteen tribes?

Mr. LEWIS. I think, to begin with, some of the existing federal

programs that Congress certainly has oversight on or can be creative in making them work better. And I think part of that is some

looking at how they can be better coordinated in terms of policy,

how tribes can take all those different programs and, in a sense,

maybe head towards a block grant in terms of what is available

now, and much—I think the type of thought that went into creating TANF and the need for that, focusing on the individuals and

moving them towards work.

The other part of that picture is to create—help create an economic environment where there are jobs and to help stimulate that

and to help to identify what it is that moves individuals. And I

think there are a lot of good programs, a lot of the good efforts out

there in our communities, I think, to help do that, but a lot of

times, just making it more accessible and more easily administrated through some coordinated policy or some block-grant approach would help.

The other is with the state itself, the state here in Arizona looking at work-force development. And again, this is the approach that

has been taken here. And I understand that we are in the process

of really a model development towards work force development.

We are doing that in the state, looking at all these programs, coordinating them, putting some focus on relating them to the private sector and their priorities and then, including the tribes in

57

terms of that effort—so as part of the statewide economic picture

or regional picture, and doing that sort of assessment and analysis

and focus is needed.

And that effort is an ongoing effort, and it is going to take a

number of years to do that, but it has started here in Arizona, and

the tribal governments are a part of that, so that is a good aspect;

likewise, with the tribes, the tribes themselves are taking a look

at their administrations, their resources, and coordinating them as

well.

But there also has to be some access and communication in

working relationships, particularly with the private sector, with financial institutions, and other things that have been to some degree related.

So there has to be some real sit down and talk in terms of how

best to build those relationships. There may be a role for Congress,

in terms of its policies, in guiding some of those relationships and

working relationships, but they are being established.

So it is going to take that sort of interest and efforts on—from

the federal level, state level, and tribal level to have that creation,

because the tribes, as I mentioned in testimony, have—had not

been—had the access to many resources and have not been integrated into a lot of ongoing plans on a regional or statewide basis.

And some of the legislation in Congress has not recognized that.

The USDA has initiated a program in terms of developing empowerment areas or regions. Nationally, they are only going to be

funding one, possibly two, out of five hundred and some odd tribes.

But those are efforts that really do bring a comprehensive approach, really do bring a cooperation in terms of the initial planning and development with all sectors of the tribe and external relationships. Those are the types of things that need to happen.

Here in the state, we have the Greater Arizona Development Authority, which is focusing on rural areas and building and providing an opportunity for them to take a look at themselves and

build those linkages and stimulate their economies. But that has

been a special effort by the State Legislature to do that, and the

private sector, to bring that about. So those are the types of things

that are going to be needed and more of them.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Thank you, Mr. Lewis, very much.

Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SHAW. Thank you. I just want to mention one thing

to you, Mr. Lewis, and this probably applies to some of the other

tribes. In the ISTEA Bill, the highway bill, there was a small portion of funds—I say small; it is big in terms of dollars, but in terms

of Washington spending, it may have slipped by, particularly the

size of that bill that was monstrous—there is welfare—there is

some money in there that is going to be available for transportation

to help people out of welfare.

And I would strongly suggest that in some of these dirt roads

that you spoke about, that you take a close look at that bill and

see what is in there and compete for some of those funds, because

I think they would be very helpful.

Having gone to Arizona rules instead of Washington rules, we

are going to run out of time if we continue with this panel, because

we have another panel that we want to hear from.

58

But we very much appreciate each of your testimony. I have

learned a lot, and I think this will be very helpful in improving this

legislation and assisting Congressmen in getting some of these

changes and some of these rule-making conferences on a better

track, and I thank each of you for being with us this morning.

J.D., would you like to introduce the next panel?

Mr. HAYWORTH. I would be honored to. Mr. Chairman, we are

very pleased to welcome our next panel, which will deal with the

topic of welfare reform and child-support enforcement. And I am

especially pleased to first call forward the Honorable Winifred

Hershberger, State Representative from our State Legislature right

here.

And as Freddy comes up, I just want to take time to congratulate

her on having been selected the 1997 legislator of the year by the

National Child Support Enforcement Association. We know that is

an honor for you personally, Representative Hershberger, but also

for the state of Arizona. And we would like to thank you for your

wonderful service and look forward to your testimony as it comes

to us.

And also welcome, Mr. Chairman, and those who join us today,

someone who has joined us in Washington to testify, but we are

pleased that she gets to play a home game, as it were, and the

Chairman is playing on the road, our Assistant Director for the Division of Child Support Enforcement, Nancy Mendoza from the Arizona DES, or Department of Economic Security.

Also we are pleased to have a tribal advocate from the Navajo

Nation Department of Justice in Window Rock. Nona Etsitty joins

us. And Nona, we thank you for coming.

And the administrator from the Division of Child Support Systems and Automation from the Arizona Department of Economic

Security Steve Esposito is here as well. So Steve, if you will come

up front and center, please; and begin with our legislator of the

year, Freddy Hershberger. Representative Hershberger.

STATEMENT OF WINIFRED HERSHBERGER, STATE

REPRESENTATIVE, ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE

Ms. HERSHBERGER. Thank you, Chairman Shaw and Congressman Hayworth.

And I have got to say, first, I thank you for those nice remarks,

but Nancy is the one who should have won the award.

Mr. HAYWORTH. We will let you share it with her, and that will

be a part of our record today. Let the record reflect that Freddy believes that Nancy should share in those accolades and that honor.

Ms. HERSHBERGER. I am Freddy Hershberger. I have been a

member of the Arizona State Legislature since 1993. I currently

serve as chairman of the Human Services Committee of the House,

and this committee deals with many of the same issues at the state

level as your committee does at the national level.

In addition to child-support enforcement, which is the subject of

today’s hearing, the Arizona House Human Services Committee

serves as the committee of reference for child-welfare issues, and

I know you share my deep commitment to addressing the needs of

children.

59

In my role as chair of the House Human Services Committee, I

cochair the state’s Child Support Coordinating Council, which has

served as a unique forum for the resolution of issues for both IV–

D and non-IV–D child-support matters. Perhaps our model can

serve as an example of how other states can resolve differences

among the stakeholders in the child-support programs.

As you are well aware, the child-support-enforcement program

affects parties with competing interests, requires the involvement

of several levels of government, and impacts significantly upon employers and others in the private sector. It can be very difficult to

achieve a measure of consensus among these different interests.

And in the light of the complexity of the issues at stake and in

recognition that public stewardship on these matters was needed,

the Legislature created the Child Support Coordinating Council in

1994. It is cochaired by a member of the Senate and a member of

the House. The current cochairman of the Senate is Senator David

Petersen, who is also Chair of the Senate Family Services Committee.

The Council is comprised of twenty-two members, including representation from the Department of Economic Security, which administers the IV–D program; the Attorney General’s Office, the

courts, the governor’s office, custodial and noncustodial and jointcustodial parents, business community, and legislators from both

parties and both Houses.

The council serves as a forum for all system stakeholders to develop and coordinate policies and strategies to improve child-support enforcement. It has been extremely successful in dealing with

many potentially controversial and divisive issues and has performed an enormous service by bringing forward solutions for legislative consideration.

Among the many accomplishments of the Council, I would like to

highlight a few. First, and probably of greatest interest to you, Mr.

Chairman and to Congressman Hayworth, is the work performed

by the Council in considering the child-support enforcement state

law changes required by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 for welfare reform.

Following the passage of the final federal legislation, DES began

bringing bill drafts to the Council to obtain feedback and to identify

areas where state discretion was allowed. Many revisions were

made prior to the bill being introduced in the State Legislature. I

am that sure you have followed the struggles in many states in getting conforming legislation enacted.

In Arizona, we passed our bill with only three dissenting votes

in both chambers. I credit the work of the Council in obtaining

stakeholder consensus prior to the session with our ability to have

such a successful outcome.

I would like to comment specifically on one provision of the federal welfare reform requirements where I believe that the Council

and Arizona have overcome problems being experienced in other

states. I am referring to our requirement that the processing of

child-support payments be centralized for both IV–D and non-IV–

D cases.

In Arizona, as in many other states, non-IV–D payments are

processed by local Clerks of the Court. In recognition that having

60

several locations to which payment must be sent is a burden to employers, the Council had begun considering centralization prior to

the federal requirement and had reached a consensus on the need

for centralization. The legislation necessary to achieve this was included in the welfare reform conforming bill.

However, we went one step further than did Congress. The Council felt that centralizing only payments for cases with post-1994 orders, as required by Congress, would leave confusion in the system

and a twelve-year burden to employers as the older cases age out.

In order to truly simplify and streamline payment processing, all

payments need to go to a single location. I encourage you to reconsider the effect of the limitation the federal law has imposed.

The centralization of payment processing is extremely difficult.

The Child Support Coordinating Council is serving as the

facilitator of this process by working with the Clerks’ Association,

the IV–D Agency, and the Administrative Office of the Courts to

convert to centralized payment processing for all IV–D and non-IV–

D payments this fall. We have overcome the concerns raised in

other states about this process.

The key is that we select an approach which will enable all the

Clerks of the Court to continue providing customer service to their

constituents by affording them on-line access to the state computer

system, ATLAS. Using ATLAS, the clerks will be able to determine

the payment status on their cases at any time and to print pay histories as needed for court proceedings.

I think that you can appreciate the many benefits that we in Arizona have reaped by having a forum for cooperative decision making. We think it ultimately results in a better system through

which our children can be served.

Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee.

[The prepared statement follows:]

61

62

63

64

65

66

Mr. HAYWORTH. We will now pass the radio microphone and the

public-address system to our friend Nancy Mendoza. We would be

very happy, Nancy, to have your testimony now, please.

STATEMENT OF NANCY MENDOZA, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY

Ms. MENDOZA. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Congressman

Hayworth. My name is Nancy Mendoza. I am Assistant Director for

the Department of Economic Security, and in the capacity, serve as

the director of child-support enforcement.

I would like to express my appreciation to the subcommittee for

the recognition you have given to the role that child-support enforcement plays in welfare reform. By including the many significant enhancements to the child-support program in the Welfare Reform Act, you sent a strong message that personal responsibility

applies not only to welfare recipients but also to the noncustodial

parents of their children.

In Arizona, we have come to realize that even when welfare participants comply with all requirements in obtaining employment,

the income from one salary may not be sufficient to meet the family’s needs. Indeed, many families today depend upon two incomes.

A reliable income stream from the noncustodial parent may mean

the difference between welfare dependency and self-sufficiency.

I would like to describe how the child-support program is configured in Arizona. As you will note on attachment A to my statement, several different entities are involved. The elected county attorney operates the program in six counties. The DES division of

child-support enforcement operates the program in seven counties.

In two counties, the program is operated by a private vendor under

contract to DES.

In the area which comprises the Navajo Reservation, the Navajo

Tribe will be operating the program through an intergovernmental

agreement with DES. This important milestone was reached last

November at a signing ceremony in Window Rock.

An office in Chinle, Arizona will be opening later this summer.

We also have an agreement with the Colorado River Indian Tribe

in which the La Paz County Attorney is authorized to bring actions

in Tribal Court. Discussions with several other tribes have been

held, including the Haulapai, Hopi, and the Salt River Pima.

We have been assisted in making progress in the delivery of

service to tribal members by the provisions you enacted both in August of ’96, by establishing the authority for state/tribal cooperative

agreements, and—the additional clarification regarding the scope of

such agreements which you passed last year.

The Arizona Child Support Enforcement Program has made significant improvements in recent years. Arizona was ranked first in

the nation by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

for increased collections between 1992 and ’96.

Just last month, the White House announced that between 1992

and ’97, national child-support collections increased sixty-eight percent. Arizona’s collections during that time increased by one hundred eighty-four percent.

67

Also announced by the White House was the national increase in

paternity establishment between ’92 and ’97 of a hundred fifteen

percent. Arizona’s paternity establishment increase was two hundred forty-two percent for the same time period.

With regard to federal automation requirements, although most

states were unable to meet the federal deadline of October ’97 to

have their systems operational, Arizona achieved federal certification of our automated system in July of 1996.

While we are understandably proud of these accomplishments,

we recognize that many children still lack the financial support to

which they are entitled. We continue to work aggressively on behalf of those children.

I would like to mention our progress in the implementation of

welfare reform changes. With the support of the Governor’s office

and the State Legislature, Arizona has enacted all of the changes

to state law required by welfare reform as well as other acts that

we passed last summer.

The vast majority of these changes will be implemented over the

next few months, including the centralization of payment processing for all child-support cases, establishment of the mandatory

new-hire reporting requirement for all employers in Arizona, the

establishment of a state case registry containing both IV–D and

non-IV–D orders, the issuance of income withholding orders automatically upon receipt of information from the new-hire directory.

These are just a few of the major changes underway to comply

with the new requirements. I would encourage the Subcommittee

to recognize the magnitude of these reforms and the challenges

they create for the state child programs across the country. I hope

that you can defer making additional changes to the program to

allow time for these new initiatives to be implemented and their

impact evaluated.

At your May oversight hearing, you heard from several witnesses

regarding the role of the private sector in the child-support program. In Arizona, we have entered into several public/private partnerships.

In 1994, we engaged the services of private collection agencies to

assist in our more difficult cases. We refer these cases to the vendor automatically through our overnight batch processing.

The partnerships of the private sector make the skills and capacities available to the child-support program. At the same time, the

requirements for data security and privacy are maintained because

they are operating under contract to the states.

While Arizona aggressively pursues the payment of support, we

also recognize that nonpayment is not always willful. The root

cause of nonpayment may stem from the noncustodial parent being

unemployed or underemployed. We have recently expanded our

services to noncustodial parents by working with several community agencies to provide job training and job placement through a

referral from the child-support program.

Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee.

[The prepared statement follows:]

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

Mr. HAYWORTH. Thank you, very much, Nancy, for your testimony.

And now, we can turn the radio mike just a little bit and we can

hear from Nona Etsitty. Nona, thank you for joining us. And you

might want to pull the public address mike a little closer to you—

the other microphone too. That is great.

STATEMENT OF NONA ETSITTY, TRIBAL ADVOCATE, NAVAJO

NATION DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WINDOW ROCK, ARIZONA

Ms. ETSITTY. Before I begin, I think it is appropriate for me to

introduce myself. My mom is a Cherokee from Oklahoma. My father was a Navajo, so that means I am a Cherokee born for the

Navajos. I have lived all my life on the Navajo reservation, so I am

very much a part of the Navajos.

To begin with, the Child Support Enforcement Program came

about because the Office of Navajo Women saw a need for the Navajo Nation to take forth legislation to the state of New Mexico.

Prior to the enactment of the Navajo Child Support Enforcement

Act, the Navajo Nation had no means to collect support by the Navajo Nation. There were no general laws for paternity or adult responsibility for the care and support of the children.

Navajo children living on the Navajo Nation did not enjoy the

same benefits and protections provided by laws to children living

off the Navajo Nation. So the Navajo Nation—on December 14th of

1994, Navajo Nation Council passed the Navajo Nation Child Support Enforcement Act. July 25th 1996, the Judicial Committee of

the Navajo Nation Council passed the Navajo Nation Child Support

Guidelines. These two legislations on the Navajo Nation gave the

Navajo Nation tools to work with by the enactment of these laws.

Prior to 1994, the state of New Mexico and probably most states

surrounding the Navajo Nation had virtually no collections for

child-support enforcement in the Navajo Nation. After the signing

of the agreement with the Navajo Nation and the state of New

Mexico, we have been in existence four years.

I would like to focus on the problems that we have with funding,

because funding is a major part of our existence. We are funded

completely by the state funding. We don’t have any of our own tribal funds that are allocated to fund child-support enforcement. So

the states—having our intergovernmental agreement with the state

is vital for us in the way of our funding.

What is happening in New Mexico, we were awarded $150,000

through the New Mexico Human Services budget. On the other

hand, Senator Pinto, State Congressman (sic), approached the

State Legislature for an additional hundred and fifty to increase

our budget to $300,000. Federal matching would have brought our

budget up to $884,000 to work with. That would have have been

an increase to the Navajo Nation.

Now, statistically, in 1995, our collections in New Mexico were

$3,500, and we are very new and beginning. In 1996, our collections went to 110,000. In 1997, our collections were 294,000. This

year, 1998, we project 400,000 plus. So it is kind of hard for us to

understand why we are not given the opportunity to increase our

budget in the state of New Mexico.

76

While in Arizona, we have a different scenario. In New Mexico,

when we got the funding of $144,000, that was to handle 1,500

cases that were transferred from the Farmington office. In Arizona,

we have a budget of $375,000 to handle 12,000 cases, and I feel

like this funding is very much unfair and will allow us to do an

adequate job but by a miracle will allow us to get by.

So in the future, we would like to have the states at least look

at increasing that funding as we start our Arizona project, because

it is fairly new.

Another problem that we have are infrastructures. As was mentioned about roads and buildings, we don’t have adequate infrastructures to house the offices of Child Support Enforcement. If the

budget is passed in New Mexico, that means that we would be

housing close to nine maybe eight more child-support enforcement

officers, and so we have outgrown the building there. With Arizona,

we plan to grow as well, and infrastructures and building is a necessity. We don’t have those available to us now.

Computerization, it is very important for us to have the technology and assistance from the state, but like it was mentioned before, we have three regions. Arizona is governed by San Francisco,

New Mexico is Dallas, and—there is another one—Utah. So we are

kind of, like, stretched apart again in child-support enforcement.

We have a system that we are using in New Mexico called

CHEERS, and then we are having another automated system in

Arizona that is not—that is different from CHEERS. So computerization and having one system would be important for us. Childsupport incentives of the 400,000 that we collect in New Mexico, we

don’t get any. The state gets all of it.

And in closing, the Navajo Nation would recommend that—we

know that regulation being—are in the making. Direct funding

with no matching funds would be a recommendation from the Navajo Nation. Taking into account infrastructures that we don’t have,

that would be another account. The technical assistance and equipment should also be considered in allocations when it is given.

The Navajo Nation has been with its child-support enforcement

program—it has been in existence four years, and I believe that we

are ready to take the step to do our own child-support-enforcement

program. Hopefully, this would do nothing to take away from our

intergovernmental agreements because we still need the help of Arizona, and we still need the help of New Mexico. So with that in

mind, we would ask that you take these things into consideration.

[The prepared statement follows:]

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

Mr. HAYWORTH. Nona, we thank you, very much. And we appreciate also your acknowledgment of your unique background as

Oklahoma Cherokee as well as Navajo. And since the Chairman of

the committee has a bit of Cherokee in him—I guess Carolina

Cherokee—we appreciate that. I guess a little meeting of the minds

and similar cultures here.

With that in mind, we will turn now to our friend Steven

Esposito, the Systems and Automation Administrator from the Arizona Department of Economic Security.

And once again, we transfer the microphones over and want to

make sure they are right in front of you, Steve, because we very

much want to hear what you have to say.

STATEMENT OF STEVEN J. ESPOSITO, ADMINISTRATOR, DIVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT SYSTEMS AND AUTOMATION, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY

Mr. ESPOSITO. Thank you. I am Steven Esposito. I am the Systems and Automated Administrator for the Division of Child Support Enforcement. Since 1991, I have been responsible for implementing, enhancing, and maintaining ATLAS, Arizona’s statewide

automated system.

We are aware that Congress is focusing on the financial penalties

being assessed against states that fail to meet the required automation deadline. As Nancy mentioned in her testimony, Arizona is

not subject to these penalties because we achieved federal certification before the deadline. We believe our success was due to certain principles and strategies that can be used in other states.

Our experience has shown that a single, statewide system for the

processing of child-support payments was an extremely sound concept. Children benefit from increased financial support. Custodial

parents benefit from timely and uniform processing of their cases.

Noncustodial parents benefit from accurate accounting of payments. Taxpayers benefit by limiting the need for public assistance.

Arizona and the federal government benefit from cost-effective use

of limited technical resources.

For any project of this size to be successful, there must be full

involvement from all stakeholders. Federal guidance must be clear

and consistent. State leadership must be strong. County partnerships must be amicable and focused on the people that we serve.

And finally, the vendor relationship must be one of mutual trust

and respect. Arizona was fortunate and persistent enough to be

successful on all fronts.

The federal staff assigned to Arizona were true partners in the

development of the project and were invested in the quality and

success of our work.

The General Accounting Office recently published a study that

was critical of federal leadership and control of automation

projects. Arizona’s experience bore little resemblance to the findings in the GAO report.

Support for initiatives of this size must come from top state officials. Child-support-automation projects are difficult and sometimes politically charged. There was strong support for the implementation of ATLAS from the governor’s office, the State Legislature, the director’s office, and the DES executive management.

84

For a single automated system to succeed, we needed a solid

partnership with our political subdivisions. In Arizona, we forged

a strong alliance with our court clerks and county attorney officials. We attribute much of the success and the quality of the implementation to the contributions of these partners.

The relationship between the state and its implementation vendor is critical. Arizona was fortunate to have a talented and dedicated vendor team, coupled with an equally talented and dedicated

state staff.

We believe that states that were successful in implementing certified systems are especially well positioned to implement the provision of welfare reform. Arizona has already implemented some of

the early enhancement and found that we have a solid foundation

upon which to build.

Our success in implementing ATLAS has established a very favorable reputation for our ability to manage and implement complex change on time and within budget. Welfare reform has given

much more responsibility to the IV–D program.

All child-support payments, both IV–D and non-IV–D, will be

processed by ATLAS. All support orders will be loaded into a state

case registry within ATLAS. Many new mandated data exchanges

will be automated in the next two years. I believe DES has earned

the confidence of the Legislature, county leadership, and federal

government that we will be equally successful in implementing

welfare reform.

I have participated in two major phases of the implementation

of federal child-support legislation. Based on this experience, I have

identified six areas that make implementation difficult from the

automation perspective: First, federal delays in publishing final

regulation and policy; second, limited private sector knowledge of

child support; third, the reasonableness of the time lines imposed

by legislation; fourth, the lack of alignment between new legislation and other existing federal legislation; fifth, the size and political composition of the state; and sixth, the competition for top

technical staff with Year 2000 projects.

Arizona is pleased to be among the nation’s leaders in implementing child-support and welfare-reform-automation initiatives

mandated by Congress. We have found the effort to be great but

the reward to be greater.

Child-support agencies have been given unprecedented authority

and access to information to aggressively enforce the payment of

child support. Automation has contributed to the most significant

improvement in the enforcement of child support the nation has

ever seen.

Those of us responsible for our state’s automation project look

forward to the challenge of welfare reform and are proud of our

role in improving the lives of our nation’s children and families.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement follows:]

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

Mr. HAYWORTH. Steve, we thank you for the testimony, and I

just wanted to return to, as you very succinctly outlined, some of

the challenges that a lot of different folks are facing.

Even as Arizona has success in implementing ATLAS, I just

wanted to return and revisit, briefly, the success story here in Arizona. You mentioned a lot of different factors coming together. But

could you isolate for us the key factors that led to the success?

What would that be? And what lessons could other states draw

from the Arizona experience?

Mr. ESPOSITO. Well, first of all, I would like to mention that Arizona has a proven track record and methodology—a structured

methodology for project control and project management. But if I

were to pick out a key factor, it was the partnership that we developed with our counties.

The people who do child support are passionate about their business. They have knowledge about it. They have opinions about the

best way to do their jobs. We found that no one person knows how

to run child support.

What we did was we put together, fundamentally, a board of directors that had members of the counties on them. That board of

directors was key to our ability to communicate, to get input, and

to build a quality system that met everybody’s needs but balance

the needs versus the wants and the scope of the project and the

budget of the project with what was technically feasible and just

plan old how many cases we benefitted by the things we were automating.

The cost and the constant communication could not have been

done without it. Without the collaboration, without the commitment, a successful implementation would have been compromised.

Mr. HAYWORTH. One of the unique things about Arizona is we

take a look at political subdivisions. I think about the six congressional districts and square mileage about the size of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I also look at the fact that in Arizona, comparatively speaking, we have very few counties as opposed to many

of our eastern neighbors with counties numbering over a hundred.

Was that the unique blessing as well in terms of that county coordination—having fewer counties and perhaps fewer people with

which to deal in the mix?

Mr. ESPOSITO. There is no doubt that some of the larger states

that are set up differently, that have more counties, that have

counties with extremely powerful county seats and elected officials

make the implementation much more problematic.

My opinion, though, is still that if you bring those people beforehand, if you get their consensus, if you share information with

them, a number of the obstacles can be overcome. Notwithstanding

all the other technical and political realities, I still think a statewide system is the way to go.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Thanks. Let me turn to Nona, again, because we

hear echoes of President Atcitty’s testimony in your testimony, Ms.

Etsitty, in terms of the challenges we talked about, the county situation and the state implementation of ATLAS, the success rate that

we have here in near Arizona.

Your challenges, again, seem to be compounded by the fractured

nature of supervision and administration, and again, just as part

93

of the record, even as you are dealing with—you talked about the

contrast between Arizona and New Mexico.

In your mind, to solve the problem, again, is a direct grant called

for, or do we need to continue this shoulder-to-shoulder partnership, if you will, with the respective states?

Ms. ETSITTY. Given the experience that we have in the past four

years, direct funding would—we are ready for it. We would be

ready for one system that we can all use within the Navajo Nation.

Right now, like you say, we use ATLAS in Arizona. We use

CHEERS in New Mexico. And probably if we were to enter an

agreement with Utah, we would use another one. It makes our

work diverse among the states that we work in.

Mr. HAYWORTH. And again, just to revisit your success rate, I

want to make sure I understood the figures exactly; from initial accumulation of some, what, very modest, only $3,000 to now projected in excess of $400,000 in terms of child-support collections.

Ms. ETSITTY. That is right. Since 1994 up to 1998, we have increased collections: $3,500 in 1995 to a projected 400,000 this year,

from the time we started.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Nona, if you could, pass the radio mike to

Nancy. I think she still has the PA mike right there.

Nancy, you offer a cautionary note in the midst of your upbeat

testimony. I heard that caution about hold on a second; be careful

in drafting of further rules and regulations. Let’s revisit that and

amplify that from your perspective.

Ms. MENDOZA. Chairman Shaw, Congressman Hayworth, I hope

that I was not perceived as disrespectful in that comment.

You have given us extreme amounts of new opportunities

through the welfare legislation, all the way from payment processing to these national registries to the financial institution data

matches that we will be doing with financial institutions.

All of those changes have automation implications and training

implications for our staff. And so we would like an opportunity to

implement all of those innovations and see what impact they have

on our program before we add more new, good things.

We certainly welcome and were appreciative of all the new authority that we received. We would like an opportunity to be successful with that before we take on any new ventures.

Mr. HAYWORTH. To draw a historical analogy, Nancy, my profession of broadcasting, I recall the history of the Federal Communications Commission before it tried. Now, it appears Mr. Chairman

the FCC wants to get in the business of taxation. But back in the

early 1950s, there was a freeze put on the number of licenses

granted for television stations. Are you suggesting, in essence, a

regulatory freeze to evaluate?

Ms. MENDOZA. Chairman Shaw, Congressman Hayworth, no,

there are always more and better ways to do child-support enforcement, and a lot of great ideas can come forward; but there is a critical mass that is reached in any kind of innovation where more

change may not be effectively implemented.

And I certainly don’t mean to say that the bill that you are currently considering, HR 3130 that is before the conference, I am not

in any way wanting to dissuade you from the completion of that

important work, which sets forth the new incentive formula for the

94

programs. As a matter of fact, I hope that the conferees will adopt

the measures related to the streamlining of medical-support enforcement and financial data matches at the national level.

But what I am thinking about are things that might have any

additional automation implications or that would perhaps in any

way reverse course in anything that we are just getting up and

running at this time.

Chairman SHAW. I think what she said is if it is not broke, don’t

fix it.

Mr. HAYWORTH. That is a good policy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,

for the translation. It is good to know that our friends from Florida

can cut through in much the same way our Arizonans have the

ability to cut through a maze.

Let me move the mike down to my friend Freddy, or Representative Hershberger, to maintain the formality of our gathering here

today.

Again, to note to all our panelists, your entire statements will be

included in the record.

And again, Representative Hershberger, we want to congratulate

you on the work for which you have been recognized as the legislator of the year with regard to child support.

A comment in your statement that I would like you to amplify

a little bit; we are taking a look at strengthening the ties between

fathers and families. I think we are all drawn to the pictures and

the stories of families that appear very prominently in local newspapers where the question many of my constituents have as they

look at the picture of a mom struggling with several children,

where is the father?

And we have heard about the strides made in establishing paternity. We have introduced a bill in Washington, HR 3314, that seeks

to support such efforts by providing two billion dollars in new federal funds for states to support private, including faith-based

groups, to run programs to help promote the importance of fatherhood.

Could you tell me more about the campaign here in Arizona and

what has been working here in our backyard in that regard?

Ms. HERSHBERGER. Congressman Hayworth, Mr. Chairman, perhaps we should refer back to the bill that came out of the childsupport council last year, which was the education of parents who

are in divorce as to how to handle their children. And that, indeed,

has been very effective, we think, so far.

The first year’s reports have been excellent. It has brought the

fathers into the picture, because both parents realize that the children need two parents. It has given the noncustodial parent the opportunity to participate in his child’s life through support, perhaps,

but it has also really provided an avenue, and I think that is working very well.

Perhaps you referred to the covenant marriage, and I think you

should talk to my friend Dave Petersen about that since I was not

an avid supporter of that bill. I believe I entered into a covenant

52 years ago, and my church called it a covenant, and I don’t think

we need state legislation, either, to go along those lines. I think

that is up to faith-based organizations, and I think most of them

do do that kind of thing.

95

So I think we are making headway. And through the paternity

establishment as well for these children who are being brought up

by a single mom, that is helping to identify somebody else is responsible and to bring them into the picture.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SHAW. I think, to follow up on what Congressman

Hayworth is talking about, we have a huge problem, which everyone in this room knows about, and that is the tremendous number

of kids that are being born out of wedlock.

One thing we found out in welfare reform was that one of the

big problems that we had was that people—and one of our witnesses was talking about earlier, we are creaming the system now;

we are getting the easier cases out of the way. And even though

we have had great success in putting people back to work, we know

full well it is going to get tougher when we get down towards the

bottom.

That is one of the reasons why Congressman Hayworth and I are

steadfastly opposing any attempt to cut TANF funding, despite the

fact that those caseloads are coming down, because the states are

going to have to spend more money per client in order to start with

training: teach somebody the simple things that most of us were

raised knowing how to do: how to shake hands, how to show up on

time, how to follow directions, how to do a job.

And we found that there were so many people that were born in

a house and even in a neighborhood where nobody was working.

They had no model. They had nothing to relate to. So you have got

to start with the very basics.

We found the same thing is happening with regard to young boys

growing up without fathers. They don’t have a clue of what it is

like to be a father. I mean, they know what brings babies into the

world, but after that, they think that is the end of it, and it is very

important that on we go, just like we did in welfare reform, and

go in and attack the root of that problem and try to train these

young men to accept the responsibility of being a father, not only

the financial responsibility but the spiritual and the whole wonderful life of being a father and what all that involves, including giving some of their time.

And I think we have looked at some of the programs around the

country, and they have been very successful, and we feel that this

is important. That is the bill Congressman Hayworth is referring

to. It is one that is also before our subcommittee, which I believe

you cosponsored.

Mr. HAYWORTH. That is correct. Yes, sir.

Chairman SHAW. We have cosponsored that together, and we are

going to try to work that through; and if we are successful, we will

be coming back to you as the state legislator. Maybe we can make

you the legislator of the year for fatherhood or something. And

hopefully, you will take the lead on that, because it is a very good

program, and it is something we desperately need to address.

I want to go back to Nona and talk to her just a moment, if I

could. If you could, pass that microphone back, please.

I want to know a little bit more about child-support enforcement

among Native Americans. Is out-of-wedlock births as big a problem

96

among Native Americans as it is the rest of the American population?

Ms. ETSITTY. It is. We have the same problem.

Chairman SHAW. Now, when you get into child-support enforcement and you get into the reporting requirements, the law that we

have in place provide for the registry. I think Steve was talking

about how that works. And I think Nancy was talking about keeping those records, not to go change the way the thing is working,

and we have no intention of doing that.

Now, the Native American or the figures that you gather, then,

would go—as I understand it, into the state’s data system. Isn’t

that correct?

Ms. ETSITTY. It will.

Chairman SHAW. So that in trying to track the fathers—generally, it is the fathers for child support—we can track them across

state lines.

Ms. ETSITTY. Right.

Chairman SHAW. And I think that is tremendously important. Do

the Native Americans have the same—use the same courts as the

rest of us do, or is it a special court that is set up within the Indian

Nation?

Ms. ETSITTY. It is an administrative process that Navajo Nation

courts in the seven districts agreed that they didn’t want to handle

the child-support enforcement area, and so an administrative process, which is very simple, quick, fast, and it allows us the tools to

make collections easier just as the state. So it is——

Chairman SHAW. What court? Does the same administrative

body make the orders as to what payments are to be made for child

support?

Ms. ETSITTY. No.

Chairman SHAW. Or does that go into the Arizona or New Mexico

court system?

Ms. ETSITTY. No. It is our own system. What it is is we have the

court system over here, our seven judicial. And then we have the

Court of Appeals, and then we have a lot of administrative—like,

we have the Navajo Nation Labor Commission. We have our grievances for our—the people who need—who are fired from the government. They take the grievances to a hearing body, and it is

called the Office of Hearings and Appeals. They are the ones that

do the cases for us.

Once an administrative order is entered, the next remedy for the

person to appeal would be our Navajo Nation Supreme Court. So

it is a whole separate administrative body.

Chairman SHAW. So a man and a woman who want to be divorced, they go before this administrative body, and if——

Ms. ETSITTY. No.

Chairman SHAW. Well, where do they go?

Ms. ETSITTY. Okay. They would go to the district court. This——

Chairman SHAW. The court that everyone else goes to?

Ms. ETSITTY. Right.

Chairman SHAW. So that the child-support order, then, comes out

of that court.

Ms. ETSITTY. Right.

Chairman SHAW. Then how would that make it into your system?

97

Ms. ETSITTY. Once an order is entered into our court, we take the

order, and we have the child-support enforcement program.

Chairman SHAW. Uh-huh.

Ms. ETSITTY. The mother gives us—well, say the father is delinquent. The mother gives us her public assignment to go after the

father. And say dad works maybe in the president’s office. Let’s

pick on Mr. Atcitty.

Chairman SHAW. That is a good place to start.

Ms. ETSITTY. Our child-support enforcement program would initiate what we call a very simple Notice of Public Assign—Notice

of—what is it? NPA—Notice of Public Assignment.

And when the father receives that, then he either, through our

administrative process, will answer; or if he doesn’t answer, we will

end up defaulting him, and then we will go use tools that are there

available to do withholdings or anything we can to execute on the

child-support enforcement order.

Chairman SHAW. Now, what happens when he crosses state lines

or somebody comes from another state into your jurisdiction? How

do you work that?

Ms. ETSITTY. Okay. With the agreements that we have—let’s say

Flagstaff is close to home but it is not on the Nation. Say the mother lives on the Nation and the father works in Flagstaff. What happens is we would take that court order that is entered, and we

would ask the State of Arizona to enforce it for us, and they would

take it as a UFRISA [sic] Package, send it up to Flagstaff, and enforce it there. And the collections——

Chairman SHAW. That would be the state.

Ms. ETSITTY. Right. The collections go to Arizona, and then they

send it to the mom.

Chairman SHAW. And that is the same if they take off to Florida,

New York, or wherever.

Ms. ETSITTY. Right, uh-huh. But when it comes into the Navajo

Nation, we domesticate their orders. We don’t change anything. We

don’t do anything with the order. We just domesticate it and enforce it with the tools that we have.

Chairman SHAW. Do you have anything else?

Mr. HAYWORTH. No, sir.

Chairman SHAW. I want to thank this panel, as well as all the

witnesses that we have had. We certainly learned a lot. I can say

I certainly have, as Chairman of the committee; and look forward

to going back to Washington.

Unfortunately, I didn’t plan this trip very well. I flew in last

night and have to fly out about 1:30 today. So I think J.D. thinks

I am a little nuts for not trying to stay over the weekend. I wish

my time was where I could.

But I certainly think this has been tremendously worthwhile for

me. And J.D., I want to thank you for bringing the committee out

here. We came out with both Democratic and Republican staff persons so that the hearing will be reported in a very balanced way.

And these are areas where I might say the Republicans and

Democrats have come together, and we are working closely together, particularly in this area of child support. We have had wonderful bipartisan support in this whole area, and I can assure you

that we are going to do everything we can to get this rule making

98

pushed forward as quickly as possible and with the participation

and input of the Native Americans, who are most intimately involved in having to enforce it.

And again, if I may call you Freddy, it is a great honor to be with

you as the legislator of the year.

And Nancy, it is great to see you back here on your home turf

and away from Washington. I think, as J.D. said, Nancy has testified before us in Washington, and we always learn a great deal.

And thank you for—all of you who have taken time out of your

day to join us here today on something that is a most important

subject, because here we are dealing with kids, and we are dealing

with the future of this country.

J.D., do you have anything you would like to say before we close?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, my wife Mary always reminds

me there is a lot to be said for brevity—think about that—and I

will try to follow her advice in this rare instance, Mr. Chairman.

Again, simply to thank you and our staff members for bringing

this hearing outside the belt way, and then some, to Arizona, to understand what has worked, where the challenges remain, and certainly the special relationship and the treaty and trust obligations

confronting Native Americans.

I look forward to working with you as we deal aggressively with

trying to address some of the problems that transcend state lines

and on the boundaries of the sovereign Navajo Nation and many

other of our tribes here in Arizona and, thereby, across the country.

And so thanks to the witnesses, thanks to those who have joined

us here in this hearing, and we will continue to work on this. And

most of all, thanks to you, Mr. Chairman, for joining us here in Arizona today.

Chairman SHAW. Thank you. The hearing is concluded.

[Whereupon, at 12 noon, the hearing was adjourned.]

Æ